Are Dr McCullough's De-Credentializers Committing Manslaughter?

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

In this article I argue that persons who de-register a doctor for speaking truth against Pfizer vaccine are committing manslaughter.

It is now 31 months since the WHO declared an emergency (in March 2020), leading to meaningless lockdowns and face masks, worthless social distancing, and the harmful vaccinating of billions of people worldwide. Billions!

My attempt to get an injunction against mandatory vaccination, Maxwell v Secretary of Defense et al., got as far as the US Court of Appeal in Boston. I lost the case on the usual ground of "lack of standing."

FDA Gave Emergency Use Authorization

A splendidly effective cure for Covid, ivermectin (an anti-parasitic) was taken off the market. The likely cause for that was to help the FDA arrange "emergency usage authorization" -- EUA -- for the vaccine. EUA requires that no other treatment is available. Ivermectin had been in use for decades, and it was used successfully against Covid, early on -- withdrawing it is inexcusable. (This ivermectin scandal remains mostly under the radar.)

Who am I to judge the value of the vaccine? I do have some means of making indirect judgment (don't you?) but it's not needed, as Big Pharma itself has admitted to the harms done. During the first two and a half months of Pfizer's Covid vaccinations, up until February 2022, Pfizer received reports of thousands of deaths and millions of adverse effects, following the jab.

The governments of the US and the UK have published similar figures for that period. These come from doctors or patients who make a report, but many do not report, so the true figure is even higher.

Dr Peter McCullough

Peter McCullough, MD, of Texas is a cardiologist and epidemiologist with a strong record of clinical success and has authored many journal articles. He has spoken out about the dangers of the vaccine.

Note: shouldn't we just call it "speaking," not "speaking out"? And since when is it a bad thing to warn the public, or one's own patients, of danger of death and injury? That sort of thing is required to be printed on the back of a product's package, isn't it?

As of October 28, 2022, as reported by journalist Steve Kirsch, Dr Peter A McCullough has been stripped of four of his credentials: two of his Board Certifications, and his editorship of two journals. Baylor University and Hospital did nothing to come to his defense.

The reason given for the credential-stripping is that McCullough is spreading misinformation or disinformation. Well, he's not doing that. As I just said, the data is official as to the harmfulness of the Covid vaccine. As for the opposite side of the story, the vaccine's usefulness, it hasn't been demonstrated. Rather the opposite: most people recently hospitalized for Covid are fully vaccinated!

I hereby opine that the persons and/or organizations who are taking away Peter McCullough's credentials are committing manslaughter. I assume many persons, had they got wind of the truth of the Pfizer jabs, would have refused to be jabbed. His speaking out could save lives.

Manslaughter is a lesser charge than homicide. For homicide you must have intent to kill. While I don't rule out that homicide, too, is involved in the goings on of this pandemic, for now I'm only discussing manslaughter.

Criminal Law

So let's look at the law of manslaughter in Texas. (Note: I don't know if the people who are de-credentialing McCullough are all within the jurisdiction of Texas, but that state's law is pretty standard.)

It is easy to find, just by googling "Texas, law, manslaughter." And here it is:

"Texas Penal Code Sec. 19.04 Manslaughter. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual. (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree."

It's common for a person to be charged with "involuntary" manslaughter if they cause a fatal car crash while drunk. But it can also be voluntary. The rule for manslaughter is that you did not intend to kill, yet your negligence or recklessness resulted in someone's death. The case that a prosecutor could make is that anyone who deliberately forbids a doctor to give good, solid information to a patient may thereby harm her.

So, first of all, the prosecutor would need to show that the information which "the defendants" want McCullough to shut up about, is good, solid information. As I mentioned, the Pfizer information is about as solid as you can get, and the Party giving it -- Pfizer -- is speaking "against interest." In law, that makes the information more credible than self-serving testimony.

The defendants would have to show that they didn't "recklessly cause the death of an individual." Come to think of it, since less than a week has passed since McCullough lost his credentials (I am writing this on November 1, 2022), no person has probably yet died from McCullough's de-credentialling in particular. So let's search for doctors who were similarly situated to him.

The Prosecuting of De-credentializers

We can look at doctors whose de-credentializing consisted of a revocation of their license to practice medicine. They had refused to obey such authorities as WHO or the AMA. (People think doctors are obeying the CDC, but that entity derives its ability to influence from each state's laws. Often it has to do with the state AMA determining "best practice.")

The now-deregistered doctors presumably decided it was more ethical to follow normal protocols of treating the sick, perhaps by not giving unnecessary vaccinations, or by prescribing the drug ivermectin.

(As an aside, in New Hampshire, in 2022, both Houses of the state legislature voted to approve the dispensing of ivermectin as over-the-counter medicine. But the Republican governor, Chris Sununu, inexplicably vetoed it.)

Note that I am claiming that the persons who took away those doctors' ability to give good advice are the ones to be charged with manslaughter, not the doctors themselves. As for the many doctors and nurses who did inject people with a very questionable vaccine, they too may be guilty of manslaughter or even of homicide, but that's not my focus in this article.

I believe many doctors around the country gave in too easily to bad instructions from their local licensing boards (and many did so because they are the employees of hospitals). Thousands of doctors walked away from the principles they were trained with.

They knew that quarantining is what you do to sick people, not well people. They also knew -- all of them -- that a face mask does not stop transmission. They also knew that the rule for marketing a new drug is that a long trial is first needed, and that the kinds of people likely to take that drug, e.g., pregnant women. must be included in the trial.

Note: When I say "vaccination," I'm referring to what's in the vial from Pfizer or Moderna. They were not real vaccines; it is fully agreed that this material is intended to carry out its mission by changing the patient's DNA -- it's called "gene therapy."

Possibly 'tech' was also added to the vaccines to make us targetable by electronics, but none of that need to be argued by our prosecutor today. We are talking about vaccines causing death.

Were Good Doctors Reckless?

Manslaughter is a felony, which means there will be a prison sentence and possibly a fine. Aren't there many conscientious, kind doctors who thought they were doing the right thing? Yes, but the law of manslaughter is about the death, not about the intention. (If there was intention, it is murder.)

As doctors, and even just as Americans, they knew that the way to get at truth is open debate, not suppression of criticism. Nothing in their training would have prepared them for their bosses' behavior regarding the 2020 pandemic or the 2021 vaccination. And do you recall the wholly fake PCR test for Covid? (Allegedly free, but taxpayer funded.)

Of course all doctors understood, almost by second nature, that if a person has only a slight chance of getting a fatal round of such-and-such a disease, you don't go at her with a highly risky preventative.

Conclusion

We have to start somewhere. The overall picture, and projections for the next five years, is way worse than what this article has covered. As far as I know, we have big corporations in America whose goal is to harm or kill Americans. That's not something we grew up expecting to ever have to contemplate. It's weird, but I say let's not allow the weirdness of it to reduce our brain to cotton batten.

It doesn't embarrass me to test the water with lawsuits. Even if the courts are corrupt, I think we should nonetheless use their formalities. It is satisfying to argue one's case in keeping with good law.

A doctor who has been prevented from saving lives, owing to interference by Big Pharma, or media or government or health insurance companies, can step up to the plate. Why do we have a jurisprudence of the crime of manslaughter if everyone is to be too shy to use it?

One more thing: It may seem attractive to go for the Big Boys. I dream of it myself. But most citizens would not be able to imagine it. We can start by picking some low-hanging fruit. Even a single court ruling, on the matter discussed here, would have immediate repercussions all over the place. Additionally it would help affirm free speech.

The link below leads to an article with a video showing newly discovered items in the vaccines by Dr Nixon. You must see it. And to learn about vaccine chicanery that has gone on for two centuries, see my book "Consider the Lilies" (Trine Day Press, 2013).

-- Mary W Maxwell's website is www.ConstitutionAndTruth.com