American Thought Leaders - Dr. Pierre Kory Explains COVID-19 Vaccine Shedding

Episode Date: February 14, 2024

Sponsor special: Up to $2,500 of FREE silver AND a FREE safe on qualifying orders - Call 855-862-3377 or text “AMERICAN” to 6-5-5-3-2For years now, we’ve heard rumblings about COVID-19 vaccine shedding. Unvaccinated women talk of menstrual abnormalities after coming into close contact with vaccinated individuals. Some recently vaccinated mothers report babies experiencing bad reactions after breastfeeding. So what is this phenomenon? Is it real? And if so, what kinds of people are most affected?In this episode, I sit down with Dr. Pierre Kory, co-founder of the FLCCC Alliance and former chief of the Critical Care Service at the University of Wisconsin.He has been researching COVID-19 vaccine shedding, and he’s written a nine-part series on his Substack of what he’s uncovered thus far.Note: mRNA genetic vaccine contamination in breastmilk was first identified by War Room/DailyClout volunteers searching through primary source Pfizer documents released under court order by the U.S. FDA.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Shedding is real, and the reason why I'm saying it's real is the FDA knows it's real. They state that all gene therapy products should undergo shedding studies, not only in animals, but in humans. And that's a problem. They were not done. In this episode, I sit down with Dr. Pierre Corey, co-founder of the FLCCC Alliance and former chief of the critical care service at the University of Wisconsin. You get babies with strokes and facial paralysis and respiratory arrest and seizures after breastfeeding. What is shedding? What evidence is there that the COVID-19 genetic vaccines cause it? And what kinds of people are affected?

This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Janja Kelley. Before we start, I'd like to take a moment to thank the sponsor of our podcast, American Hartford Gold. As you all know, inflation is getting worse. The Fed raised rates for the fifth time this year, and Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is telling Americans to brace themselves for potentially more pain ahead. But there is one way to hedge against inflation. American Hartford Gold makes it simple and easy to diversify your savings and retirement accounts with physical gold and silver. With one short phone call, they can have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside your IRA or 401k. American Hartford Gold is one of the highest rated firms in the country with an A-plus rating with a Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied clients.

If you call them right now, they'll give you up to $2,500 of free silver and a free safe on qualifying orders. Call 855-862-3377. That's 855-862-3377. Or text American to 65532. Again, that's 855-862-3377. Or text American to 65532. Dr. Pierre-Corey, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders. Thanks, Jan. It's absolutely an honor. Well, huge congratulations. We're here at the FLCCC meetings. It's a sold-out place. I mean, I saw people actually coming in last night trying to get places, and you're just like, no, we were trying. We've pulled every seat. It's remarkable how far FLCCC has come from a couple of years back. It's astonishing, and it's really uplifting. We've struck a chord.

I think we're doing work that is really appreciated widely, and you can see it in the spirit and the attendance, right? And the conversations that I've had, it's really good for the soul. We're doing the right thing. We're trying to be honest, open, transparent, and just giving sound guidance. And I think there's so little of that out there that people really appreciate that they have a place that they can come to. And I also appreciate you must be telling your people about the Epoch Times because there's no conference at which this many people are coming up to me thanking Epoch Times, because there's no conference at which, you know, this many people are coming up

to me thanking Epoch Times for their work. And most of them, frankly, I'd say eight out of 10 have actually been medical doctors. And a number of them have told me that they're applying some of the things that we've been able to bring out in our reporting in their practices, which is, I mean, I just, I wasn't thinking about something like that being a possibility. Yeah, no, I mean, first of all, your health section is great because it's wide. It's not curated. You know, you do deep dives on any number of promising therapies. But beyond that, I just want to say, like, I think I tweeted this a year or two ago.

I said, the Epoch Times is the only functioning newspaper in the United States. And I literally mean that because I find your reporting to be very objective. You look at both sides. In fact, you do such a good job it gets me angry because I'm so – I wouldn't call myself biased, but there are certain things that I know to be true and you guys don't go there because you want to be measured. You want to make sure you have the evidence. And I have very strong opinions where I don't have the evidence to support them but I know they're right and you guys can't do that newspaper you're being you don't being true journalists and I appreciate the

even-handed reporting and the accurate reporting that you guys can do well I and I and I appreciate those kind words FLCCC I've also noticed you put an inordinate focus on avoiding conflict of interest, which I really appreciate. And I think that's kind of compatible, I guess, with us as well. I wanted to note that. It's so important. I mean, as soon as you inject money into what you're doing,

and it just starts to influence what you do, and then you can't be objective and transparent because you have to work for a financial interest. I mean, it's difficult, right? We always have to navigate this, but the idea is to try to set it up as best as possible, right? Yeah. So let's talk about, I want to talk today about something very controversial, which is shedding of these COVID vaccine products. And that, you know, there's been symptoms. People who have had been close to people who have had the vaccine, some seem to get similar symptoms. And this has been

anecdotal. There's been discussion of this. I don't even know how rigorously this has been treated. We're going to have this conversation. But I understand it's a real thing. And back in the day, I thought this was total cuckoo land initially. Yep. And I probably would agree with you. I mean, I know when the vaccines rolled out, that's the first thing that happened, right? Social media started to make noise. And it was really driven by women.

And there's very good reasons for that, who were reporting sudden menstrual abnormalities after years or decades of really regular cycles. And they were noticing that it started to happen. They were talking amongst their friends. And these women started to notice that their cycles were off, heavy bleeding, missed periods, things like that, painful periods. And they hadn't been vaccinated. But they were, you know, everyone was getting vaccinated. And then there were social media groups where they started to talk about this and share. And then there was one group that started

a website called My Cycle Story, where women were able to, you know, relate these things. But you know, when there's truth, when the fact checkers come after you, right? So those Facebook groups were disbanded. They were, you know, deplatformed. There was articles saying how ludicrous this was. This is just social media craze. And so I'm like you. I mean, I kind of listened to it. I didn't know really what to make of it. And I didn't know what shedding really was and how that could be possible.

But, you know, I finally did the scientific research. So here is my evolution is, in fact, the first patient I treated was March of 2021. It was a woman who got to me through actually a podcast that I'd done an interview with. And she related that she had gone to a massage therapist who had gotten boosted the day before. And she came home that night. And I think she missed her period within two days. She had tender, swollen breasts. She was cramping.

And she said she had not, she'd been so regular for the last 20 years. She had tender, swollen breasts. She was cramping. And she said she had not, she'd been so regular for the last 20 years. She was 43, I think. She said this was totally abnormal. And she really related it to that very close exposure to the massage therapist. And I didn't really know what to do for her. I knew ivermectin binds spike. And I thought maybe there was some shedding of spike. And I actually put her on ivermectin. Actually, she got her period back. She hadn't got her period back. She hadn't had her period in I think about six or eight weeks by the time she talked to me and she still was very uncomfortable.

And about five days after Ivermectin she got her period back. I had one other anecdote very similar to that and then I didn't have any more for a long time. And then I opened my practice and what happened is me and my partner we started to see these phenomenon in our patients some of them even vaccine injured patients so everybody thinks you know shedding it's only the unvaccinated who are screaming right the anti-vaxxers who are saying they're being shed upon that's not true I have vaccine injured patients who are sensitive to being exposed to other vaccinated and so it's it's not just unvaccinated who are at

risk and so we saw these phenomenon now now one of the things it's it so it's not just unvaccinated who are at risk. And so we saw these phenomena. Now, now one of the things it's a small cohort that are sensitive to shedding phenomenon. I think shedding is very common, but how often can it actually affect someone else? That's very variable. And our best insight to this point after doing a lot of research, talking with a lot of other clinicians, is that it tends to happen to people who are very sort of environmentally sensitive or pharmacologically sensitive, like they can't handle pharmaceuticals, environments, have allergies, things like that. And some of them are really quite sensitive.

But that's why I think most of us are unaffected. I also think there's a cohort out there who are sensitive, and they just don't know what's happening to them. I'll give you a great example. So two weeks ago, I was seeing a patient in follow-up, and it was a patient of mine who had made significant progress. He's a vaccine-injured patient. And during the visit, we're talking, and he's telling me all the things that are bothering him suddenly.

And I was really disappointed because it was clearly a regression or a relapse and he just spontaneously says you know Dr. Coy there's this other thing he's like I can't I can't go into grocery stores anymore he says you know like I go into Trader Joe's and with about five minutes I feel so terrible I have to leave there and then he says and then yesterday we were at a farmer's market it was like a a Sunday. He said it was really crowded there. And again, I felt terrible and I had to leave. And I said to him, I said, well, you know what that is, right? Because I had written this huge series on all of my research on shedding.

And many of my patients read my sub-stack. And he said, no, I don't read your sub-stack. And I said, well, that's shedding. What's shedding? And I explained it to him. And so there are people who don't know what's making them sick. And, you know, I think with him now, now he's much better. He now knows to be cautious.

But here's where I think we should start, Jan, if you don't mind. I do want to talk about that shedding is real. And the reason why I'm saying it's real is the FDA knows it's real, right? So if you think about the vaccines, the vaccines are not traditional vaccines, clear to everyone. Something's different about them. Some people know exactly what they're doing, but what they really are is they're defined as gene therapy products. And there's an FDA definition of a gene therapy in their document on shedding from 2015. And in that document, they state that a gene therapy is any time

you inject genetic material, and that material then produces a product. Clearly, that's what these vaccines are. We inject mRNA, mRNA makes spike, gene therapy. In that document, they state that all gene therapy products should undergo shedding studies, not only in animals, but in humans. And there's no shedding studies that have been done on these gene therapies. But if you look at the market of gene therapies, I have evidence of at least four products that are out there.

In the inserts of each one, they note that they will shed. So one is for an eye disease. They said it secretes in the tears and in any of the drainage for up to a week. There's another one where it's 30 days in the feces where the products of that gene therapy sheds. And another one says two weeks. And so all of these other ones on the market, it's clearly in the insert. There was no insert here. In fact, what's even more astonishing and scary is we embarked

on a global vaccination campaign with a gene therapy which is in a category of therapeutic which is known to shed. All the other products on the market are shed and yet never the discussion of shedding. And if you ever bring it up, if it ever shows up in a newspaper, again, fact check to death. You'll see articles coming out on any claim of shedding and if you ever bring it up if it ever shows up in a newspaper again fact check to death you'll see articles coming out on any claim of shedding and then you'll get the usual quotes from the experts with all the letters behind their names that shedding is impossible and and then they do a slight a hand trick because shedding is a is actually there's two definitions of shedding. The word shedding has been used in relation to vaccines for a long time. It's usually from the somewhat deactivated vaccines or somewhat inactivated vaccines. So they're live virus vaccines.

So those older classes of vaccines, it's known that when you inject someone, I think like with polio, for instance, like some polio virus can then shed. And that's something that they've studied. But that's the virus that they're injecting that can then shed, not the product of the genetic material that then sheds. Because the problem with this, right, this is a gene therapy. They told us it would stay in their arm for a few days, right, not go anywhere else, and that the spike protein antibody production would shut off.

We're drowning in evidence that neither of those statements are true. So now you have something with not – you don't have an endpoint on the production of antibodies. And so this is quite scary. And we're doing these repeatedly, right? It's not like a gene therapy where you give it once. Here we're – how many boosters are we up to now? How many rounds?

Not only is it not staying in the arm, but through this incredible delivery vice of the lipid nanoparticle, it absolutely can go absolutely everywhere, blood-brain barrier penetration, over a testes, everything. Now you're saying it's actually exiting the body somehow. Like how? Is it through the… Yeah. So you just brought up the second piece to the puzzle. So the first piece is that we have to understand that gene therapy shed, that the FDA

knows they shed, that they want studies to be done on shedding. But the other thing that we need to know about these vaccines is they belong to another category of therapeutics. So not only they fit under the gene therapy category, but they fit under what's called nanoparticle technology. That's the key to your question. So the mRNA is delivered in lipid nanoparticles. And lipid nanoparticles are synthetic, right? They're made in the lab. But they're the natural counterpart to something in our bodies called exosomes. So exosomes are part of how our bodies signal, do cell-to-cell communication.

They're almost like little hormones. Lots of communication is done with exosomes. They're part of how our bodies signal, do cell-to-cell communication. They're almost like little hormones. Lots of communication is done with exosomes. And what happens is when you inject a lipid nanoparticle, the thing about nanoparticles is that they can traverse almost any physiologic barrier. That's why that lie about staying in the arm, there's no nanoparticle technology that's ever stayed where you put it in because it naturally traverses all boundaries. And so it spreads throughout the body.

We have knowledge of that from EMA documents, from FOIA documents, from studies, autopsy studies. You can see that it disseminates throughout. And so going to your question, right, so in order for something to shed you would need to put genetic material in, make spike antibody. The spike antibody would then have to be taken up by natural exosomes. And that's the key. And so in my document, I kind of did a summary of all the research I've done.

But there is an affinity of exosomes for the spike protein. And we have a number of papers showing spike protein within exosomes circulating in the blood. showing spike protein within exosomes circulating in the blood, and you can actually find spike protein in breast milk. Exosomes and LNPs are known to cross the placenta, and they're rapidly absorbed in the lung and exhaled through the lung. We think the predominant form of shedding is via the exhaled breath and then someone inhaling that's close by. And once you inhale, they absolutely attach to lung tissue

and they diffuse across the cells and they can traverse through the body. So we have the science, we have the evidence for all of it. And again, I base this on other products do the same. And so we know the science is there, but the fact is there was no studies to be done to what extent it is. And this topic is highly censored when you bring it up is there. But the fact is there was no studies to be done with to what extent it is and this topic is highly censored when you bring it up because the implications are vast. In fact myself and my collaborator who is an anonymous researcher and physician who goes by A Midwestern

Doctor who did a lot of work with me on this. We think that if knowledge of this is understood and disseminated, it's probably the single, we think it'd probably be the greatest driver to get this campaign stopped of mass vaccinating really the planet with a gene therapy. We have over a thousand clinical sort of case testimonials that we've been able to review and compile, and it's all part of that document. Like related to shedding? Oh, absolutely. We put out a public call, not only on Twitter. The first tweet for that public call got over 500,000 views.

I think my retweet got 200,000. And they started to pour in. And first, on my first series, I wrote the series on just the science, and there were so many comments on my post of people relating their personal experiences of getting ill after close exposures to particularly recently vaccinated. And it filled up my comments. And they were so compelling and they were so disturbing that my later posts in that series was really just a review of all those testimonials.

But then we did it a little bit more aggressively, and Midwestern Doctor, they spent a lot of time, many, many hours, kind of collating and compiling the general patterns, the reproducibility of this shedding phenomenon. And I just wanted to mention, Midwestern Doctor, fantastic substack that I think anyone interested in this subject matter would enjoy reading. Absolutely. One of the best writers on Substack in my opinion. So the virus is transmitted through basically water vapor, right? So in the air, which is

interesting. That tells us a lot about some of these six-foot distancing. How could that have made any difference? Or masks, how could that have made any difference? Those kinds of questions come up. But you're suggesting that this is the way that this synthetic spike is also transmitted through these exosomes? It's through exosomes. Those are tiny nanoparticles. I mean, they can float in the air, and they can traverse.

We know that synthetic lipid nanoparticles can traverse the skin because there's a number of nanoparticle therapeutic products which actually do transcutaneous administration. We don't have evidence that exosomes cross the skin, but we do know that they can be inhaled and then diffuse into the lung tissue. So, you know, effectively the transmission is similar? Is that what I understand?

Yes, it's similar, it's just not on water vapor. Oh, okay, I see, I see. So exosomes, yeah, so it's not a water droplet. An exosome is a lipid sac. So it's not a water droplet. An exosome is a lipid sac, so it's a little fatty membrane. And inside it has different sort of enzymes, sometimes growth factors, and genetic material. They're actually mysterious. Exosome science is not old, actually.

It used to be thought when they saw exosomes, electron microscopy and microscopy, they thought it was cellular debris. In fact, for a long time, scientists didn't know what exosomes were. And now they understand that they're hugely important in the physiology and maintenance of our homeostasis and in repair mechanisms and inflammation. And so it's a whole new area of science. But the scary stuff about those things is that they traverse physiologic barriers, and they can disseminate anywhere, and we can absorb them readily.

And so that's, for instance, one paper that I cited, which is really shocking, is they looked for antibodies in children of COVID-vaccinated parents who hadn't had COVID, and they found IgG antibodies to the spike protein. And if you look at the paper and the abstract conclusion, or in their conclusion, the authors hypothesize that the parents transferred antibodies to the children. And that's why they were measuring antibodies in the children. And that's why they were measuring antibodies in the children. Now, that's a hypothesis. That would suggest that I can get humoral immunity from my parents after birth. We know that some immunity is by the fetus, transplacentally. But I didn't know that when I was born, I got immunity to all the infections that my parents had suffered in their

life. No, that's not true. We don't absorb their antibodies. And so for me, the way I interpret that paper is that spike protein was being released in exosomes. The children in the household were absorbing those exosomes and then making antibodies to the spike. And I think either the authors truly believe that or they couldn't really hypothesize what the case was. Well, you know, you read these papers.

You know, I'm thinking about the paper that talked about the, you know, the ribosomal skippage, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. For example, it's a very interesting paper. The misreading. It's talking about a huge failure of this technology, basically, right? But it's couched in this. This technology is fantastic.

It's, you know, it's all written in this this technology is fantastic it's you know it's all written like you have to write it yeah whatever you say if it's something that you have to say this is very very rare it's not gonna it's not a big problem we know these are like people will literally write in those papers scientific papers of the most troubling findings and be like we know that these vaccines are safe and effective but we found this little problem but luckily it's just a little problem and rare. And because they've been so safe and effective, how could it be? I mean, it's just the circular reasoning. But at the same time, I think the authors know exactly what they're doing, and they're just

trying to get this published, which kudos to them, right, in a way, because that's their strategy. That's what you have to do to get it published. You can't say the plain spoken truth about these vaccines and how dangerous they are. But, you know, Jan, going back to my point about why I think this would have the greatest power to stop the proliferation and dissemination of this dangerous technology is that if it matters anymore, talk about informed consent. I mean, if you start to mass-vaccinate an entire population, and now I am at risk of the intervention that you took, and I'm at risk of now being exposed to a spike protein that you're making, and that can make me sick. And then the thing that troubles me the most, right, this multifaceted fraud of these vaccines, each layer that we uncover.

You know, my shedding work came on the heels of all the work of like McKernan, where they're finding DNA plasmids. And those plasmids can go into exosomes. So here's my issue. I have never gotten sick from shedding. I'm not sensitive to shedding. I've been around many vaccinated. But what if I am getting DNA plasmids in those exosomes, which have those promoter sequences

that could potentially cause cancer. And now my prognosis and what my health is now being affected by your intervention. I mean, that is if we still care about medical ethics, bodily autonomy, and informed consent. I haven't seen good evidence of that in the way societies behave. Well, you know, speaking of that, you know, we recently published, you know, this realization that the CDC had prepared an email to talk about the myocarditis signal that they were seeing and then held it back because, well, it might cause a panic. So, you know, this speaks directly to your question of informed consent, I think. I mean, if they had released that memo, someone would have paid for that. Their masters would have been very angry.

We know why they didn't release the memo. I mean, it was the response of this country was vaccines, vaccines, and they had to promote and protect that campaign as much as possible, even all the danger signals coming out that they've ignored. But it's interesting that you guys found evidence that there was an actual point where someone was about to release a memo. And I can tell you, I don't know how it happened, but someone came in and said, uh-uh, you're not doing that. And they didn't do it. Well, but what does that say about informed consent? It's impossible. There is no informed consent. The lack, the amount of studies that weren't

done for these vaccines, because we were doing science at warm speed, there's no way you could even think that you're reasonably coming close to articulating the true risks of this product. We also know that you're totally misstating the benefits. We know that. That ruse has already been uncovered from the fraudulent trials and these astounding claims of efficacy of 99, 95 percent, relative efficacy. We know that people have been bamboozled into taking what they thought was safe and effective. They're not being provided the full evidence.

And I would say I'm part of a large network in this country and around the world of physicians who have taken a real objective, close, appropriately scientifically skeptical look, like are these things safe? Are they effective? And every time we try to answer that question, we come up with an answer that is a direct contradiction of everything that we're hearing out of our agencies and experts. And it's a very troubling time. And I think science is really in a bad place. It's extremely sick. The only challenge is, I think it's been sick for a long time. And the only thing with COVID is I think it's had such a dramatic impact

and it's exposed itself to be really a corrupt exercise. Just going back to shedding for a little moment, so what studies are being done now around this? Because you're seeing this through your clinical work. So I am aware of a study, that the study is nearing publication it's deep into the peer review process and i don't know the full methods sample size but i do know that they did a study of shedding and they took um i don't know if it was a hundred let's pull it out of the hat 100 unvaccinated women exposed to 100 vaccinated women.

And they looked at the primary outcome, which is the number one, the most common symptom of shedding is actually menstrual irregularities. And they looked at that. And all I'm told is it's positive. I don't want to say anything more about that. But that will, apparently, the author group is really confident that it will be published very soon. And really, I mean, I keep saying this on multiple interviews, but we should obviously be studying the crap out of this.

But who would, you know, this is a private group. They work for a health freedom organization. A couple of them have long had. A couple of them are experts on the lack of safety of vaccines, and this was one troubling aspect, so they sought to study it. I don't think you're going to get an academic medical center getting an NIH grant to look at shedding.

This has massive implications for everybody, and so I don't know who else is going to shed, I mean to study this on shedding. But what is clear is the FDA recommends shedding studies for all gene therapy products, and that's a problem. They were not done. So if anyone claims that shedding is not happening, show me the study that you did that found that it didn't happen, because I have a wealth of clinical evidence to show that it does, and now we're going to have a clinical study to support it. And we have lots of other supporting evidence to show we know that it's shed in breast milk.

And if you look at the reports of the breastfeeding adverse effects, I mean, it's astonishing. You had babies with strokes and facial paralysis and respiratory arrest and seizures after breastfeeding. I mean, we definitely know it's happening through breast milk. I believe it's all the pregnancy problems, I think, is because of the placental crossing of spike protein. But again, we're living in a state of science right now where anything negative towards these vaccines is almost universally censored. This is incredibly troubling to me.

So you know, of course, I've heard about these pregnancy-related scenarios, multiple examples. But this breast milk, these cases, can you kind of dig into that a little bit? Yeah. So I cite, it's funny because nothing's funny, but in the document that I compiled, which will be on our FLCC website. So if you look in the post-surveillance reports, there's hundreds of reports that have been submitted by women who were vaccinated, who then reported a problem with their breastfeeding. And some of the reports are just astonishing, like anaphylactic reactions in a baby after a breastfeed.

And these are actually reported to Pfizer. And in a number of cases, you wouldn't believe this, but actually maybe you would believe this at some point, but in those Pfizer documents, Pfizer clearly states in the documents that these reports are irrelevant because they involve the passive exposure to the intervention. So this isn't a problem with the vaccine because it didn't happen to the woman. It happened to the baby. Do you understand the circular reasoning? So they actually don't include those reports as a true adverse event to the vaccine because it wasn't the baby

who was vaccinated. Even though they know about them. Yes. I mean, this is the fraud we're talking about. They're doing this right in their documents. And a number of people have written about it. So Sonia Elijah, one of the journalists, she wrote an astounding article. In fact, some of, quite a few of the references for that section was done on the investigative work that Sonia Elijah did and published in, you know, CHD Defender. And what they uncovered, if you dig deep into those documents, is absolutely alarming. I mean, I've never heard of anaphylaxis after a breastfeed. I've never heard of respiratory arrest after a breastfeed, a stroke after a breastfeed,

a seizure after a breastfeed. I mean, that's, I mean, and those women noticed. They knew they were vaccinated early. I mean, they saw that it was temporally associated with breastfeeding. The child got ill immediately after. There's something in the breast milk that's a toxin. You know, and of course, you know, breast, there's exosomes are in breast milk, right? Yes.

So we're kind of coming full circle here. And mRNA is in breast milk, right? Yes. So we're kind of coming full circle here. And mRNA is in breast milk. And, you know, what's really interesting, and this is the scientific part that's critical to understand, is when I first started thinking about shedding, I was like, you know, breast milk probably, how can that be a problem? Because even if it's an exosome or has spike in it, the baby then swallows it, goes into the environment of the stomach, which is very acidic, right, and degrades everything. I was like, an exosome or a spike protein can't survive the stomach acid. And lo and behold, we have studies which have shown that actually the exosomes can pass through the GI tract and get

absorbed into the body. And so the stomach is not a barrier to those exosomes. And I think that shows why those children got ill, those babies got ill. Absolutely astonishing. As we're talking here, the implications of shedding on, frankly, society and all sorts of myriad of forms are intense and it's not really clear we were not we don't know the incidence of this like the the rate of occurrence or but you know i mean it's profound some some number of people are having their lives profoundly altered, especially these extra sensitive people, right? Yeah, and I think some, within those sensitive people, it's a small cohort, cannot put a number on it. I definitely think it's a distinct minority because if it was, let's say, 5% or 10% of people, we wouldn't be here right now.

I think they got lucky because that it's a small percentage. But within that cohort, I think there's a proportion of them who are sensitive to everyone vaccinated, even if they've been vaccinated two years ago. And I believe that from some of the testimonials. I think for most of that cohort, the sensitivity and the ability to get ill, and by the way, we didn't define like what is a shedding exposure. So the way I see it, it's not only the transmission of the product of the gene therapy, but then it's the development of typical vaccine adverse event symptoms in someone who wasn't vaccinated. That's how you know that a shedding event has occurred. And again, the people who are capable of getting adverse effects from

an exposure to someone are small, but there are those who really can't be around the vaccinated. Luckily, it's a very tiny number, and they really have now isolated themselves from most exposures. The rest, I think, are much more just prone. It's a little bit more temporally associated, so it's the recency to the most recent vaccine. And we think the most reports are after boosters rather than after the primary. Even though the primary series caused that explosion on social media, it seems like booster campaigns really cause a lot of those symptoms. And, you know, different people who reported shedding, they put their own numbers on it just in their own experience. Some will say, you know, I think it's mostly within the first two weeks of the vaccine. Others say longer. So we really don't know how long, but I think the longer someone has been since their last vaccine, I think the amount of people that they

can affect does dwindle. In my patients, you know, now they have to reorder their lives. They have to worry about who they invite over, even family members to visit. So you see true, real impacts in the social functioning of some of these patients who are sensitive. And then we've had dramatic ones of relationships. They've ended relationships from any number of things. So some have found, like, when the husband or spouse comes home, they become violently ill upon close exposure. Like, the husband comes to bed. It's not even sexual intercourse, just lying in bed.

As one woman reports, she would get severe headaches. It happened time after time, and that relationship is over. There's a number of reports of relationships that ended because they suddenly recoiled from their partner. If your partner's presence makes you physically ill, there's no relationship anymore there, right? And so it's really sad. So it's affected some people severely.

And luckily, hopefully that's rare. And how do you know in these instances that it's not, say, long COVID? Because I understand, we've talked about this before, that there's similarities to what you call long vax to long COVID. And so how do you know it's not just a COVID exposure? Well, long COVID and long vax, those syndromes are chronic, difficult to treat. They have a myriad of symptoms. And yes, they can have their ups and downs. So I've had patients that improve. Generally, what I see patients when they relapse,

it's usually another spike event, meaning they get COVID. So if it's a vaccinated patient, they'll get sick after they get another COVID episode and vice versa. Long COVID, it gets COVID again, majority will get worse. Not all. I have long COVID, long vax patients who can get COVID. We treat them and their disease doesn't change. But these are clear development of adverse effects, sudden spikes and worsening of how they feel.

And there's no COVID event that they didn't get sick, they didn't have typical respiratory symptoms. The only thing they can relate it to is a close exposure to someone else. So that's where we think it's more of a shedding event. But what's central to all, like you said in your question, what's central to all is the spike protein as a pathogen. Yeah, I know. I mean, I've been thinking about that because there is also a ton of people that get COVID totally asymptomatically, right?

Yeah, I'm still confused on that one, but yeah. How so? I just don't know what asymptomatic infection, I mean, if you have no symptoms and your PCR test says that you have COVID, I don't know what that means. It's not an illness. It's a positive test. Well, I'll give you, I mean, I myself, you know, got an antibody test years ago now because I was going to a funeral and I didn't want to expose elderly people to COVID if I'd had it. And I had robust antibodies, I was told, right? But you had never been ill. I mean, I imagined I was losing my taste at one point, and I thought it was in my head.

But it was that kind of thing. Like sometimes you get, you know, something you think is symptoms, but something extremely mild that, yeah. Well, like, and that could be an asymptomatic infection, or it's just an exposure. You know, this spike protein is, I don't know, being transmitted. It's in the air. It's in exosomes.

And we, you know, like the study with the children, right? They developed antibodies. That paper didn't report that the kids got sick. Right. But, you know, I think we're capable of producing antibodies to the spike protein without getting sick, which maybe is a fancier way of saying an asymptomatic infection. I don't know. Right. Or conferring immunity. Yeah, it confers immunity without having to go through the illness. And yeah, that's so much yet to be learned, I guess, on all of this, right? So how far do you think we've come to getting some kind of broader, serious research being done?

I'm not talking about the shedding now. I'm just talking about this whole complex, diverse sphere of illness. I am quite demoralized by that. I don't think we've come far. I mean, it seems like there's intentions, right? And so I think it was November, December, there's a couple of articles that came out talking about the current state of research for long COVID and long vax. And in one of the articles, the journalist cited that 1.2 billion had been earmarked

for research into long COVID. Long vax been earmarked for research into long COVID. Long vax doesn't exist. Everything falls under long COVID. But $1.2 billion has been devoted to research, but yet not one patient had been entered into a trial yet. Apparently there were four trials that had been designed, what they planned to conduct. Only one trial was ready to enroll, and at that time they had not yet enrolled it. And what they were studying was Paxlovid. And I think that says everything that,

that is my answer. If you ask me how far do you think we've come or where we're gonna go, our present system has decided that the best drug to study for long COVID, long vax, is Paxlovid, which is an antiviral. And we have almost no evidence to suggest that this is viral persistence. We know it's immune dysregulation, it's damage from spike, which causes a number of inflammatory mechanisms, and they want to study Paxlovid.

I mean, this is not real. This is not real science. And other things like this, you know, like endotoxin from this, you know, the contamination, this DNA contamination, you know, plasmid. They don't want to look for DNA plasmid integration. I mean, the real science that needs to be done with this is I just don't think it's going to be funded and or published even if it was done. So it's I'm pretty cynical. I think my cynicism has no has no bounds. This was a complete fraud. These vaccines were rushed out. They're they're immediately apparent toxicity.

And later, their lethality has been roundly censored and ignored by literally major institutions and governments around the world. And so I think they want this to go into the past and hopefully they're going to hope that this can go into bridge. The problem is we have legions of people that are sick from these interventions. And so it's still a major problem for many of us. And they can wish it will go away. It's not going away. We have major problems on our hands. We have excess mortality rippling around the world. We have huge spikes in disability roles in this country. Our labor force has been decimated and those of us who work in this space now, in this field, I mean we have a lot of patients that are coming to me and they're all coming to us after journeying through the system. They go to

Mayo clinics and Cleveland clinics with million-dollar workups and they're very reluctant to blame it on the vaccine. They offer no treatments. It's just endless testing and so patients are really suffering. People and patients have suffered immeasurably since COVID broke out. And I don't see that suffering stopping anytime soon. Well, this is the part of the issue is that a lot of doctors just simply don't know to look for this, right? They don't even know spike protein is a pathogen. They don't even know that. You know, I told an anecdote this morning in one of my talks, and I was recently had a conversation,

I was at a holiday party, and I was talking to a pathologist, a system pathologist. And he knows what I do. And I was just talking, and I said, Hey, are you guys standing for the spike protein? You know, on tissue samples and biopsies and cancers. That's what I thought. And he looked at me and he said, what's the spike protein? What's the spike protein? Don't know what to say about that. I mean, I was like, my jaw dropped.

And I mean, this is literally the most prominent and damaging pathogen on the earth right now. And he asked me what the spike protein is. And his actually second question was like, does that have something to do with vaccination or something? Yeah, I don't know why all these people are screaming the vaccinated. He said something like, people who've been vaccinated, they're sick for two days. The unvaccinated are sick for two. You know, again, the usual property. It's just people are so misinformed. And even physicians in the system, pathologists, are not aware that one of history's most damaging pathogens, there's no science around spike apathy being done. I mean, there's a wonderful paper, a comprehensive paper on all of the

pathophysiologic mechanisms written by a guy named Peter Parry, who is famous for calling out previous pharmaceutical frauds, like with SSRIs. He's an Australian guy that I've been able to converse with. And him and a large group wrote a paper with 270 references. It's extremely compact, but it's really, to me, it's the foundational paper of what we need is a new field, which is called spikeopathy. But yet I meet a system pathologist who doesn't know what the spike protein is. So we live in a very strange, polarized world right now, especially in science. You know, the other thing, just remembering something else you said this morning,

the randomized controlled trials became kind of this gold standard, but they have this foundational problem, if I recall who you said it, but that they can't overcome the funder. The bias of the funders. They can never overcome it. because they're so big. They require millions. And if someone's going to invest millions in a randomized controlled trial, do you think they have an interest in the result?

Unless it's some philanthropists. But you know what's strange about that? Now, maybe we'll go off topic, but it's hard to rank the most fraudulent trials in ivermectin but i would say uh the first active six and the together trial done in brazil are probably at the tops of the big frauds that were used to take down ivermectin what's interesting about the together trial is the rainwater foundation which is a really great philanthropic research organization they donate millions to funding research in mostly neurological diseases, but they became active in COVID, and they started funding trials. And so you would think that a philanthropist, they don't have a vested financial

interest in the outcome. So you would think that brings some sort of objectivity. The problem is the people who they hired. They literally hired people whose main clients are the pharmaceuticals. So they literally hired crooks. And I don't think they knew that. In fact, I've talked with some of the philanthropic organizations who made that mistake. They gave good money, but they gave it to bad people and bad outcomes resulted. And so I don't even think philanthropy is the answer because at some point you're going to have to use, if you want to have an important study that makes impact, you're going to have to use some major academic medical center. And they're all captured.

They're all under the control of the funding of the government and pharma. I think what would be very valuable is kind of a public interest group that would focus entirely on establishing the conflicts of interest of any research group or corporation or you know person you're gonna hire you could you I know I would pay good money to have that established if I knew I could get a real independent view on it of course it would be tough I don't think that would work because ultimately what's happened with the complex of interest is they've become normalized.

When you get to a high level in science, in biomedical science, especially in academic medicine, because I've worked in Africa. I was not a guy who won big grants from NIH. I never applied for an NIH grant. I did observational studies with medical students and fellows. That's the kind of stuff that I like to do. Answer simple questions using crude tools. Nights and weekends work, sweat work, sweat equity. I mean, we didn't get big funding. We did chart reviews and we learned a lot of stuff. But to get to the level where you

can do major league research, you're going to accumulate conflicts because you need funds and you're going to keep, you know, a lot of those funds come through pharma. So you try to do a big trial and find someone who's like squeaky clean with no conflicts and then gets that grant. I don't see it. I don't know. Nowadays, every paper published, you look at the conflicts. It's so normal. No one pays any attention to them. Like if one guy has seven conflicts with different financial entities, it's just science. That's just how it is. So I don't know. You're looking for unicorns, I think. Well, so you're telling me, you know, parallel system is the only way to go. I think for now, if those parallel systems grow, and like you said, you get philanthropy money, I do think that there's really good people who've spoken out and that you could get good objective science done. But we would need more support,

more resources. And I think the movement will grow. I think a lot of people woke up in COVID and they realize how corrupted science is. And it's not working for us. It's working against us. And we have to turn that around. Well, I understand that there's a clinic that Palmeric is going to be kind of overseeing that's philanthropy funded. Yes, exactly. That's a start. Yeah.

For sure. And they're going to be treating patients and hopefully doing some research while doing that. They have the resources. So yeah, I mean, there are some bright spots on the horizon, but we have over 300 million people in this country and we have to get a lot bigger and better to have a significant population impact. Final thought as we finish, Pierre?

Just I didn't ask for this spot where I am, but it seems that I fell into a network of just really people of high integrity, critical thinking, and we've discovered things that we think it's important for the public to know. And a lot of us come out of a tradition of being medical educators. And I used to teach medical students and fellows a trade and a skill set, and now I think I'm an educator for the public.

And I think it's as stimulating and satisfying, and I plan to continue to do that as much as I can. Well, and congratulations on the success of the organization, as is evidenced by this event that we're sitting at. Absolutely. Well, Dr. Pierre-Corey, it's such a pleasure to have you on again. Always, yeah. Thank you all for joining Dr. Pierre-Corey and me on this episode of American Thought

Leaders. I'm your host, Jan Jekielek.