Ask Dr. Drew - Court REVIVES “You Are Not A Horse” Lawsuit Against FDA, Says Agency Is “Not A Physician” w/ Dr. Pierre Kory & Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 266

Episode Date: September 24, 2023

An appeals court ruled that a group of doctors could continue their lawsuit against the FDA over allegations that the agency “overstepped” when it campaigned against alternative COVID-19 treatments. According to the AP, “the ruling said the campaign — which at times featured the slogan “You are not a horse!” — too often left out that the drug is sometimes prescribed for humans.” “FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise—but not to endorse, denounce, or advise,” wrote Judge Don Willett. In response, Dr. Pierre Kory stated “The FDA’s campaign against ivermectin continues to be used as an excuse by hospitals to deny access to a lifesaving treatment and weaponized by medical boards to threaten the licenses of doctors who stray from the mainstream to prescribe a drug that has been proven in controlled trials to safely treat hundreds of thousands of patients around the world.” Dr. Pierre Kory is president and cofounder of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). In late 2020, Dr. Kory was a witness for a US Senate hearing that accused health authorities of covering up the effectiveness of alternative treatments for COVID-19. He is the author of “War On Ivermectin: The Medicine That Saved Millions And Could Have Ended The Pandemic.” Follow Dr. Kory at https://twitter.com/PierreKory 「 SPONSORED BY 」 Find out more about the companies that make this show possible and get special discounts on amazing products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get an extra discount with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew • PRIMAL LIFE - Dr. Drew recommends Primal Life's 100% natural dental products to improve your mouth. Get a sparkling smile by using natural teeth whitener without harsh chemicals. For a limited time, get 60% off at https://drdrew.com/primal • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at https://twc.health/drew • BIRCH GOLD - Don’t let your savings lose value. You can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it. Claim your free, no obligation info kit from Birch Gold at https://birchgold.com/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.  「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 WITH DR. KELLY VICTORY 」 Dr. Kelly Victory MD is a board-certified trauma and emergency specialist with over 30 years of clinical experience. She served as CMO for Whole Health Management, delivering on-site healthcare services for Fortune 500 companies. She holds a BS from Duke University and her MD from the University of North Carolina. Follow her at https://earlycovidcare.org and https://twitter.com/DrKellyVictory. 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician with over 35 years of national radio, NYT bestselling books, and countless TV shows bearing his name. He's known for Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Teen Mom OG (MTV), Dr. Drew After Dark (YMH), The Masked Singer (FOX), multiple hit podcasts, and the iconic Loveline radio show. Dr. Drew Pinsky received his undergraduate degree from Amherst College and his M.D. from the University of Southern California, School of Medicine. Read more at https://drdrew.com/about Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I hope you were all watching that because that interview with Dr. Joseph Freeman was so powerful. I want to interview him again just to reiterate everything he said so you all get that. I saw that John Campbell interviewed him and he reiterated some of that material there. Speaking of reiterating, Dr. Pierre Corey joins us again today. He graduated from NYU School of Public Service with a Master's in Public Administration, got his MD, and then went to the clinical rotations at Weill NYU School of Public Service with a master's in public administration. Got his MD and then went to the clinical rotations at Weill Cornell School of Medicine.

Practiced in Madison, Wisconsin at University of Wisconsin Health. Ultimately becoming the head of the outpatient medicine clinic. And finally, UW Health University Hospital critical care service chief. That's a rather substantial position. More recently, he has been fighting the FDA in court, and we're going to talk a little bit about the You Are Not a Horse lawsuit. And I want to read to you, once we get back for a little break here, the specific statement by the judge that I think is so very powerful

and many people just don't understand. So we'll be right back after this. And Dr. Kelly Victory joins us as always on Wednesday as well. Our laws as it pertain to substances are draconian and bizarre. A psychopath started this. He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction, fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous.

I'm a doctor for f*** sake. Where the hell do you think I learned that? I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people. I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat.

If you have trouble, you can't stop, and you want to help stop it, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. There are three reasons the central banks are dumping the U.S. dollar. Inflation, deficit spending, and our insurmountable national debt. The fact is, there is one asset that has withstood famine, wars, political and economic upheaval dating back to biblical times. Gold. And you can own it in a tax shelter retirement account with the help of Birchgold. That's right. Birchgold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k, maybe from a previous employer, into an IRA in gold. And the best part, you don't pay a penny out of pocket. Just visit

birchgold.com slash drew for your free info kit. They'll hold your hand through the entire process. Think about this. When currencies fail, gold is a safe haven. How much more time does the dollar have? Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with Better Business Bureau and thousands of happy customers. I do not give financial advice and previous performance is no guarantee of future performance. Visit birchgold.com slash drew to get your free info kit on gold. That is B-I-R-C-H-D-O-L-D dot com slash D-R-E-W.

I think everyone knows the next medical crisis could be just around the corner, whether it comes in the form of another pandemic or something much more routine like a tick bite, you and your family need to be prepared. That's where the wellness company comes in. You know the wellness company. We have their physicians on like Dr. McCullough frequently. The wellness company and their doctors are medical professionals you

can trust. And their new medical emergency kits are the gold standard when it comes to keeping you safe and healthy. It's really, it's a safety net. It's an insurance policy that you hope you're not going to need, but if you need it, you sure as heck are going to wish you had it if you need it. Be ready for anything. This medical emergency kit contains an assortment of life-saving medications, including ivermectin, Z-Pak. The medical emergency kit provides a guidebook to aid in the safe use of all these life-saving medications. From anthrax to tick bites to COVID-19, the Wellness Company's medical emergency kit is exactly what you need to have on hand to be prepared. Rest assured, knowing that you have emergency antibiotics, antivirals, and antiparasitics on hand to help you and your family stay safe

from whatever life throws at you next. Go to drdrew.com slash TWC. That is D-R-D-R-E-W.com forward slash TWC to get 10% off today. Just click on that link. Mike here, as I was saying, Dr. Pierre Corey is the co-founder of Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance in late 2020. Dr. Corey was a witness for a US Senate hearing where the accusation was that health authorities were covering up effectiveness of certain treatments. Dr. Corey has been a part of a lawsuit, and it was essentially against the FDA. And the judge, the court, very wisely pointed out, and I want to quote the judge. Judge's name is Don Willett. I want to point out who he was because I thought this was a really important statement.

The FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise, but not to endorse, denounce, or advise. There it is. The FDA, there is no world when I'm teaching internists, you know, I'm out in the clinics teaching, where I say, well, what's the FDA say? Ever, ever, ever.

The FDA determines what comes to market. We, as physicians, decide what the best medication is for the given case in front of us, independent of what the FDA has brought to market, the restrictions of the bringing to market. The drug company can't talk to us about anything outside of the FDA's approval. We understand that. We understand that we take certain risks when we go outside of how it's approved or what it's approved for, but we actually have very little knowledge. We know what works for our patients in a given setting.

Please welcome Dr. Pierre Corey. You can follow him on X, Pierre Corey, K-O-R-Y, Substack, Pierre Corey. Dr. Corey, welcome. Great. Great to be here again. Thanks. Isn't it weird that we went through this period when part of the hysteria of this country was, I remember I was on a news broadcast and the co-anchor with me went, you're going to go again? The FDA says, I go, the FDA doesn't practice medicine. The FDA has nothing to do with my decision-making. Literally nothing.

And you guys are thankfully pointing that out in the court of law. Yeah, so let me correct one thing, Drew. So I'm not an actual plaintiff. It's my partner, Paul Marik. And they're actually been asked not to comment publicly. So I tend to get a lot of the questions. So I'm happy to talk about the case. But you kind of nailed it already, Drew.

I mean, this is a really good example of how pharma uses these agencies. I mean, they're literally working in the service of pharma. And they asked the FDA, again, do I have proof they asked the FDA? No. But their behavior is completely consistent with that of the serving the interest of the pharmaceutical company. But as you pointed out, they overstepped their bounds. They have no regulatory authority to interfere in the practice of medicine. And the actions they took were astoundingly impactful. So, you know,

they put that website up on their page, why not to take ivermectin for COVID, you know, and then they kind of misled by kind of changing the article into don't take the ivermectin, I mean, the animal version, you know, so they were misleading in how they did that. But you can also see the CDC was misleading as well, because the CDC and every one of their bulletins, they would clearly state the FDA has not approved ivermectin for COVID. And any of us knows we don't need the FDA to approve it for COVID. It's not like anyone was waiting for them to approve it for COVID. It's already an FDA approved drug. Off-purpose prescribing is not only common, but it's championed by the FDA when

you don't have other therapies. You could see the agencies were taking all of these actions. With this case, the lawsuit was taking them to task for really violating their statutory authority. What's interesting is the case was actually dismissed the first round. It was dismissed in the lower court, and the government actually argued they had sovereign immunity, Drew, sovereign immunity. And the judge actually recognized that and dismissed the case.

So this was the appeal. So the appeal goes to the higher court. And as you pointed out, some of the statements of the judge were really powerful. I mean, the FDA looked like a fool in court. They were trying to argue that they weren't interfering. They weren't making recommendations. And they absolutely were, right? And so this is a great quote.

The FDA is not a physician. And like you said, it doesn't have the authority to endorse, denounce, or advise. And there's another statement, which was pretty cool, where he wrote, even tweet-sized doses of personalized medical advice are beyond FDA statutory authority. And I'll just finish by saying- Oh, that's interesting. Yeah, that was actually a comment in his decision that even tweet-sized doses, because they were trying to say that their tweet was like a cheeky little comment and it wasn't advice. It's absolutely astounding that they tried to pull that off. But they did interfere. And what I think is great is I think this was

the victory. I mean, the case is going to go on, but to me, this was victory in itself because this is like a brushback pitch to the agencies and pharma, you've gone too far. Stay in your lane. Don't violate your mission. And you can't do this. The courts are watching and they're going to hold you to task. And so, you know, as we go forward, the FDA has got to, you know, they got to have some handcuffs on now. They can't keep doing what they were doing. Yeah, I completely am relieved to see that, frankly, and it's good news, as you say. But, you know, the issue to me, I mean, it's interesting they didn't go after fluvoxamine which is another off-label medication that was used why didn't they go after fluvoxamine fluvoxamine is actually a you know there were so many other sort of long shots that people took to try to help

covid patients i joe rogan's doctor gave him uh ndusions, and I thought, oh, that's wild. But no one made any issue of that. And the fluvoxime was a very outlying sort of a recommendation. It was, again, repurposing a medication. And the extraordinary thing to me about ivermectin, and I'm not an ivermectin, just so we know, you and I differ on the ivermectin thing. I champion the doctor's right to prescribe anything he or she wants, period, end of story, unless they are psychotic or undertrained or harming people, gross evidence of harm. But ivermectin, I don't know if you've seen this on the CDC website, as you go down to the immigration page, there's a part in there that says any asylum seekers from these countries, and it's about 50 countries, must be on five days of ivermectin before they come in the country. That's because it's routine.

It's just a very, very commonly used medication. And how they then could go after it as a dangerous medicine. Or it's just so weird. It was the weirdest experience. Yeah. You know, I always try to make the point that before COVID happened and, you know, before COVID, if you were to prescribe a medicine, let's say that was departed from standard of care. Right. Or let's say the

consensus said it didn't work and I would have prescribed it. You know, that was my responsibility. That would be me putting myself at risk for malpractice, right? So if I ever harmed anyone with that behavior, I would be fully and totally responsible here. They wouldn't even allow you that. I mean, the, the amount of attacks and coercion and attempts to suppress its use. We never had and I never had anyone telling me what I could or couldn't use. An FDA approved drug that was used and that you could repurpose. This never happened. So we have to ask the question, why did they behave like this around this drug?

And similarly around hydroxychloroquine. And how do they get away with it? And how do we prevent this from happening again? That to me is a bigger question, which is this is an overreach that just can't interfere with the practice of medicine like that. They can't do it. It's really disturbing. Well, they do, you know,

and that's really kind of the core of my book. I mean, my book is somewhat of an autobiographical journey of everything I learned and went through in COVID and what I learned about ivermectin and, you know, how they did this. And I detail it in the book. I structured around an article called the disinformation playbook, which outlines tactics that industries deploy when science emerges that's inconvenient to their interests and never has more inconvenient science emerged than the science around ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. I say all the time that one of my colleagues could have written the book, The War on Hydroxychloroquine, because it was the same

war, same tactics. But the five tactics, they're named after football plays, the fake, the fix, the diversion, the screen, the blitz. And I saw every one of those tactics being deployed and being deployed aggressively and all hand in hand with the control of the media. Every time they published a fraudulent trial, and I talk about the big six trials, those were the, I'm using air quotes here, Drew, the highest quality, rigorous, large trials. The only ones done by investigators reeking in financial conflicts of interest, sailed to publication in the top journals of the world with brazen manipulations and design flaws in those trials. I would have never been able to publish those trials if I

conducted myself. I mean, the journals would have laughed at me at all the inconsistencies, the missing data, the bizarre design, the conduct that they did. And yet they all went to publication every time they were published through massive PR campaigns around the world. Ivermectin doesn't work. Ivermectin found ineffective in latest rigorous trial. And you saw this trumpeting by the media. And it was propaganda, Drew, right? So propaganda by Professor Mark Crispin Miller, it's a story or a message that gets you to think or act in a certain way. And they wanted the entire world to think that ivermectin didn't work and to not use

it to treat it. And it's because they wanted to preserve the market for the vaccines and they're competing antivirals. Well, Dr. Freeman, who we saw, it was of roll-up to the show today, he was in a video there, and he pointed something out that I thought was really quite astute. He said, you know, medicine is about rational uncertainty, right? We should be rationally uncertain about, we should be open to re-evaluating, looking at, but we've gone through this weird phase of irrational certainty, irrational certainty about everything.

And particularly certainty presented by people who literally just learned how to pronounce the name of something. Joy Behar had absolute certainty about one of these drugs, absolute certainty about it being dangerous. And this absolute certainty, I heard Scott Adams, who's a hypnotist, was talking about this this morning. He said, whenever you see absolute certainty from someone who has no fund of knowledge in an area, that suggests brainwashing.

And so that kind of rung true to me. Also, he said, when you try to argue with these people, their bodies react. And I had just said that yesterday to someone. Whenever I try to have a conversation, I can feel their bodies tightening up. It's very uncomfortable to be around, so I just kind of let it go. But that's all signs of cognitive dissonance and brainwashing. I mean, if it's somebody who has training, is a critical care specialist like yourself, we discuss things. We differ.

You and I differ on hydroxychloroquine. I mean, on both these drugs, we differ. And we talk about it. Who cares? You're doing what you think is right for your patients. I'm doing what I think is right for mine. And, you know, Drew, what you just said is so important, right? The certainty.

But I would go even farther. What I was most troubled at is the emphasis on consensus, because you're absolutely right. This is a novel disease. We're still learning about the myriad damages of the spike protein and all the pathophysiology it triggers. We're still learning about, you know, we still needed to learn more about masks. We already knew the verdict on lockdowns, but especially treatments. It's an evolving science.

We're learning more and more every day. But yet, I'm just going to give the example. The American Board of Internal Medicine has accused me of violating their misinformation policy. They're threatening to take my three board certifications. And when I read their letter, the core thing that I violated is they told me I violated a concept I've never heard of in the history of medicine. They said that it's not that I violated the principles of evidence-based medicine.

I violated a new requirement which was consensus-based science. So I went against the consensus. Before that, I'm a misinformationist. Consensus is never science. It's always evolving. It's always is never science it's always evolving it's always asking questions it's always testing hypotheses and beliefs look how many things that they said so certainly and then walk back you've seen the memes of you know the vaccine is 95% of 70 50 30 okay it doesn't work but it helps

hospitals and you know everything they said with all this certainty and arrogance was later shown to be false. And that's correct. That is science, right? Hey, listen, I got to tell you, the hair on the back of my neck stands up when you talk about this because I lived through the opioid crisis. 15 years I fought that when the consensus was pain is the fifth vital sign. 90% of the Vicodin prescribed in the world prescribed the United States because we're not going to let anybody have pain in America. And they took over the regulatory bodies, if you remember this, the VA, all the medical societies, pain is the fifth vital sign. Pain controls whatever the patient says it is. Give them as much as possible.

If they don't leave the hospital with 90 pills, you're committing patient abuse. That was the consensus they should be ashamed of themselves for talking about a consensus consensus has a long history of problematic overreach and evangelizing and i don't mean christian evangelizing i mean scientific evangelizing by clinicians that is frankly frankly disgusting. And I'm very, very, very concerned about our regulatory bodies as it pertains to that. I didn't want to think about where this goes. It's who knows. Again, it's centralizing authority in places where it doesn't belong. Well, listen, let's take a little break here. I want to bring Dr. Victory in here as quickly as

possible. So I know she's got a lot to talk about as it pertains to the this subject matter so dr. Pierre Corey it joins us again today we're gonna take a little break be right back to Kelly victory I'm going to share with you a teeth whitening system that goes beyond merely enhancing your smile primal life organics real white teeth whitening System offers convenience and rapid results without harsh chemicals. Light Blue light for whitening Red light for gum and oral hygiene and you can just do both if you wish.

Works naturally promoting gum healing, tooth remineralization Gives you a brighter and a healthier smile Again, no peroxide involved Consistent usage yields remarkable results. Take this opportunity to transform your smile and at the same time, optimize your oral health. Aim for five times a week for the best outcomes. Discover more about this remarkable teeth whitening system

and other products at drdrew.com slash primal today. That again is drdrew.com slash P-R-i-m-a-l be sure to use that link for 60% off drdrew.com slash p-r-i-m-a-l do it today for 60% off fall is right around the corner which means dry flaky red skin from allergy season is coming with it but the best way to take care of your skin is with our skincare secret gen GenuCell. You don't need to worry about that puffy, tired eye look or those annoying dark spots or even dry flaky skin because GenuCell skincare has you covered. Susan and I love our GenuCell products so much, we want you to try our personally curated skincare bundles. It's risk-free at GenuCell.com slash Drew. GenuCell works so well. You can see the results in this

unplanned live moment on our show when the Redness Repair Cream repaired my skin in just minutes right before your eyes. Their concentrated vitamin C serum helps keep your skin plump and hydrated. Plus, with their immediate effects, you can see astonishing results in under 12 hours. Quick, effective, and easy. Go to GenuCell.com slash Drew right now to try our bundles and save over 60% today. And remember to enroll in GenuCell's world-class concierge program for additional savings and free shipping. Don't wait. It's GenuCell.com slash Drew. G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash D-R-E-W. Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. If this episode ends here, the rest of the show is available at drdrew.tv.

There's nothing in medicine that doesn't boil down to a risk-benefit calculation. It is the mandate of public health to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population. This is uncharted territory, Drew. And we bring in Dr. Kelly Victory. And Kelly, I give you your friend, Pierre Corey. Hey, Dr. Corey. Great to see you. Thanks for being back.

When I was listening to you guys talking about just the hit job that was done on ivermectin, because I'm a huge ivermectin fan as you are, Dr. Corey, I was reminded that the annals of internal medicine, which I might point out has yet today, in September of 2023, has never even published a single paper or study on community-based treatment for COVID, let alone anything. They've ignored every single study, the hundreds of them now, on the impact and efficacy of drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and fluvoxamine. Yet they came out, their most recent contribution was this sort of tepid acknowledgement that there

were two treatments that they thought were appropriate for COVID, and those were molnupiravir and Paxlovid. My favorite fun fact, by the way, in case you don't know this about molnupiravir, is that molnupiravir was actually developed at Emory University to treat, wait for it, equine encephalitis. It was a horse drug, okay? So just, this is my favorite fun fact. After the hit job they did on ivermectin, you know, you are not a horse, you are not a cow, their favorite drug, Molnupiravir, was actually developed to treat a horse illness,

a horse virus, a horse virus. Hey, Kelly. Yes. Kelly, one little pushback, which I keep this particular publication in front of me at all times because this was from May to 2023. This is the day that Annals changed course and started publishing things that were outside of the realm of the other majors. And in this particular article, one of the things they're advocating for is the same thing that Freeman was saying in terms of studying vaccine and having fixed controls and doing the proper studies. But in this article, in this publication, oral fluvalaxamine with inhaled budesonide for treatment of early onset COVID-19, very positive results. So here's a fluvoxamine study that was very positive for early COVID.

Annals was the only one, I want to give them all credit, the only one willing to publish this kind of thing. And it was this day that they started publishing something a little different. Okay. All right. Because their most recent one does not give credit to that uh for what it's worth their most recent uh report says your your two options are malnupiravir and paxlovid um and i they like that for sure dr corey about i am again this is something that drew and i disagree on and i'm all about frankly you know one of the reasons we started this show was to to model for people what is supposed to be the norm, which is physicians having rigorous, robust debate on things. Drew and I don't agree on Paxlovid.

I am not a fan. I have not had good results with it. I think it has a lot of complications and rebound, but I'd be interested... What is you treat a heck of a lot more current COVID patients than I do? What is your experience with Paxlovid? So my personal experience is zero because I've never prescribed it for a number of reasons. But I will tell you, I have seen many patients who have taken it, not done well, come to me for treatment. I have colleagues who are in the system still, they're all using Paxlova, they do not have positive things to say with the rebound, not very robust responses. And then you're also left with,

you know, the reason why I never use Paxlova is because I would never use an experimental drug with 125 different potential drug interactions across 25 classes. That's number one. Number two, rebound is way more common. And then again, the pharmaceutical industry is asking me to trust trials that they did themselves, that they don't share the individual patient level data. It's part of a marketing thing in a market that opened up in the tens of billions overnight. I mean, the incentives and their behavior in the same incentives in the past have led to atrocious tragedies, really. And so I already knew how to treat this disease. I didn't

need Paxlovid and I still don't use it. I'm very happy. My patients are happy. And so anyway, I don't think you can trust these drug companies. And the fact that animals would actually put Molnupiravir in a recent article, would actually put molnupiravir in a recent article, I mean, molnupiravir had a 25,000 person trial treated a median of two days, and it was negative. Why are we using molnupiravir? It's absolutely shocking. Yeah, I think it really speaks to the to this issue of what, why are they so and it's pretty, it's pretty transparent to me.

Why are they so wedded to trying the brand new drug rather than the tried and true generic dirt cheap readily available we've been you know let's say hydroxychloroquine was fda approved in 1942 okay it's been taken by hundreds of millions of people every single year on the list of the WHO's list of essential medications for decades, you know, yet we can't use that. We gotta have the one that's been tested for 15 minutes on three mice, you know. Anyway, the thing I really wanna pick your brain about first

because I think no one is more well-suited to address this question than you are. And I think I probably got some bias here, and so I need to check myself. What in your experience is truly long COVID versus vaccine injury? We have lots of things that are being called long COVID. I have my own bias, as I said, about is it really long COVID or a vaccine injury? Talk us through that.

And if you were to design a study, what would that study look like to prove what's what? Yeah, so I just wrote two long sub stacks actually on this issue on my sub stack blog, but briefly. So here's how I look at, there's actually three conditions. So there's long COVID. There's what I call long vax. And then there's vaccine complications or injuries. And let's talk about the vaccines

first, because many people can get sick after the vaccine. And I think it's in two forms. Some develop complications of the vaccine, which I define as a kind of a single organ problem. So let's say a myocarditis, a pericarditis, a stroke, aortic dissection, a dermatologic eruption, you know, sort of single organ problems. And I think they are tended to by system doctors, and those have defined criteria for diagnosis and treatment, right? So I think they're treated similarly to those conditions caused in the past. But then you have the more chronic syndromes.

And so long COVID and long vax are exactly the same syndrome, exactly the same. How I diagnose them is I use the criteria that it's a constellation of symptoms that develops in temporal association to one of those events. I even outline the time patterns of development. You know, one third or about 15%, it's within minutes to hours or hours to a day. About 80%, it's within days to weeks. And then in a very small proportion, it can occur after two months. But the disease, that constellation of symptoms is essentially a disease called

myalgic encephalitis or chronic fatigue syndrome. It has defined criteria. I will tell you everyone in my practice and I specialize on long COVID and long vacs. That's who I see. Right. Right. And they all come to me with three core symptoms and that is fatigue, you know, new debilitating. They I mean, they don't have the energy to do anything and they feel best when they're either lying flat or even in bed. Many of them are in bed for prolonged periods.

Closely allied with fatigue is post-exertional malaise, which when they try to exert themselves, their fatigue ramps up and or their other symptoms that they suffer from will flare. And then the third is what we call brain fog, which is some cognitive deficit ranging from like word finding difficulties to short-term memory, like forgetting tasks, forgetting what was told to them.

Sometimes it's concentration and focus. And in rare cases, it can be delusion, disorientation. But those three are present in both syndromes. And then there's a whole side list, which I won't list all of them, but the two big ones are dysautonomia. So the autonomic reflexes of the body are altered, the things that control like heart rate, blood pressure, sweating, intestinal function, peristalsis, and then also neuropathies, lots of sensory neuropathies and motor neuropathy. So the small five neuropathy with the burning pain, pins and needles, tingling,

and just pain or numbness can be really debilitating. But I would say that the two syndromes are really the same. My approaches to treatment are the same with the two syndromes. And just one that gets triggered by a COVID infection, and the other one gets triggered by the spike protein from the vaccine. Well, I guess it's if somebody has had kovat and has not been vaccinated and has this syndrome that it's pretty clear that it's long kovat that it's a result of the virus on the other hand if someone has had kovat and has been vaccinated how do you sort that how do you get that Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up. So, so I gave you two clean examples, but certainly at this point, there's what I call hybrids. When you take a careful history, you can identify

what the original trigger was. So like I have long COVIDs who, because of the PSYOPs, you know, pressure campaigns, the coercion, the mandates, ended up getting vaccinated. And about half of them, slightly over half, will get worse. Their long COVID will get worse after the vaccine. And then flip side, I have patients who are vaccine injured, you know, have the vaccine syndrome, then they get COVID, and about half of them get worse. Not everybody are unchanged in their chronic symptoms, but certainly another spike protein exposure, whether it's from a vaccine or COVID, will make the patients worse. But the original trigger, you still, you know, I use it to label it, but Kelly, like you're a real

clinician too. I mean, whether I call someone long COVID or long vax, if my treatment approaches aren't different, that kind of distinction is not too relevant in how I care for my patients. No, I agree. From a therapeutic perspective, it is mock snicks. It truly does not matter. My question is really how much true long COVID is there out there? In other words, if we looked at people who are not vaccinated, who get COVID, what percentage of them actually end up? In other words, what was the real risk in the first place? Was COVID something that we needed to be so worried about? There are lots of viruses, as you know, that have what we used to call back in the olden

days, post-viral syndrome, mononucleosis, Epstein-Barr virus. For a long time, people believed that Epstein-Barr was the root a long time, people believed that Epstein-Barr was the root cause of chronic fatigue syndrome, that chronic fatigue was fundamentally a post-viral syndrome. It was a sequelae of Epstein-Barr. So I guess, and again, I acknowledge up front, I think I've got my own bias because I have believed that most of the things that we're calling long COVID are actually, in fact, related to the vaccine, but perhaps I am wrong in that. No, no, no, you're not at all. So I'll give you a couple of data points on that.

So number one, your point is absolutely correct. So CFS or ME, chronic fatigue syndrome, has many triggers, generally infectious, right? So Epstein-Barr was the classic one. Giardia can do it, Lyme disease can do it, other viral illnesses can do it. has many triggers, generally infectious, right? So Epstein-Barr was the classic one, Giardia can do it, Lyme disease can do it, other viral illnesses can do it, and certainly COVID can, right?

The rates of long COVID after COVID, you know, those ranges vary. I mean, I've seen high ones, low ones. For me, I'm a little biased to those that are really severely ill and essentially disabled, which is my practice. That's a smaller proportion, but i heard tossed around somewhere about 30 percent i don't know if that changes with variance if it's less so in omicron but those numbers are a little fluid but let me

just give you another way to look at it in my practice which i started in february of 22 um and always uh was a specialty practicing focusing on these chronic syndromes in the first six months, I would say 30, 30% of our patients were vaccine injured and 70% were long COVID now for the past year, it's flipped 70% of the patients in my practice vaccine is what triggered their syndrome flat out hands down. No questions asked that the majority of my practice is vaccine injured, but when they go into a hospital, you see any system record, long COVID. There's no such thing, long vac or post-COVID vaccine injury syndrome. There's no centers that are

directed at it. All the centers, academic ministers, they're long COVID centers. They're literally trying to whitewash history. They're trying to bury all of these people who are just absolutely disabled from the the the triggers of this vaccine. And they are so sick, Kelly, so sick. So most of them can't work. Someone can't leave the house, someone can't leave bed. And it's the vaccine that caused it. And I guess that's why so well, I agree with you 100% that from a therapeutic perspective, it does not make a difference

because you're treating them the same. But I think it is important to differentiate and it is important for us to identify these as vaccine injuries for a number of reasons. First of all, these people should have recourse. They have been harmed and many of them were harmed by taking something against their better judgment, against their will. They were coerced or mandated or shamed into doing the thing that resulted in their injury. And for that reason, I think it's important. It's important historically. It's important ethically and morally for us to define these for what they are.

And Kelly, I agree with you. A couple of my patients, based on my consultation notes, one disability cases, because I showed clearly there was a vaccine that made them chronically ill and disabled. And then the other point you made, which is good, is that although I said my approach to treatment doesn't differ, there was a recent paper, a massive comprehensive review of all of the pathophysiology, all the pathologic processes triggered by the spike. And in that paper, they kind of made the argument that vaccine induced spike is likely needs a little bit different treatment, mostly in terms of severity, because I'll tell you the two differences I see

long vax and long COVID is on average, my vax injured patients with long vax are sicker than long, long haul COVID on average. Now there's exceptions, but they're sicker. And then long COVID, some of them can have persistent pulmonary disease where I don't really see pulmonary disease like lung tissue effects from the vaccine. But other than that, they're very similar. Can I jump in, guys, a little bit? Sure.

A couple of things. I agree with you. I've seen the same thing. Kelly, were you part of the interview I brought my friend in here that immediately fell ill after taking the vax? And he's been sick for almost, I think, a year and a half now. That's the other thing about the vax COVID is it seems more persistent in my experience. It really is recalcitrant.

Yes. Though the long COVID from COVID also can be persistent. Would you like to meet somebody that did not have the vaccine, got COVID, and they got long COVID? Yeah. I mean, I know quite a few. Pleasure to meet you guys. Pleasure to meet somebody that did not have the vaccine, got COVID, and they got long COVID? Yeah. I mean, I know quite a few. Pleasure to meet you guys. Pleasure to meet you guys. I'm one myself.

And the way you described long COVID, Pierre, was exactly what I, precisely what I experienced. Precisely. A couple questions. One, did you mention the neuropathies, cranial nerve neuropathies i swear to god my eighth cranial nerve and bringing in my ears ever since i had yeah so that's been sort of persistent the other thing is uh yeah the fatigue the malaise after exertion the fog i got an excellent response to fluvoxamine fluvoxamine for two weeks, plus doing some certain cognitive exercises, really pulled me out of it. Now, would it have happened anyway? I don't know. But I was down for about a month. And the first two weeks, I couldn't move. The last two weeks is when I sort

of pulled myself out of it. But I had one other interesting experience with it. And then I want to talk about two more things after that. One was, and Pierre, I don't know if you've seen this, a glass of, I had this very strange sinking feeling all the time. That was part of the fatigue. A glass of wine would make that go away. A second glass of wine would destroy me, right? Just couldn't get up. It was very odd. It was a very weird thing.

Anybody describe anything like that to you? I had a patient tell me the same thing. It's not common. It's rare. But I had one patient who exactly like you said, they said one glass of wine. I can't actually recall what their benefit was, but they found it immensely clinically beneficial. And I remember. Yeah.

Yeah. It lifted. It lifted. Yeah. I thought there was something there. So I started looking into tannins, you know, the stuff that's in red wine, because it had to be red wine. And I never really figured around why that was. But most of my patients, I think they stay away from alcohol because they're feeling pretty terrible.

But yes, I do recall a case like that. So I'm the second, not the end of two. Yeah. I think, you know, when you talk about the toxicity, we all know that the spike proteins themselves are toxic and they are the driver of these things. Well, it seems to me, you know, it's intuitive that people who are vaccinated would have a worse go of it because the vaccine induces you. Well, yeah, there's no off switch. I mean, you have become a little spike protein factory you are going to continue it as far as we know at this point perhaps in perpetuity to crank out the very thing that is causing you to become ill well we don't know the studies have

been done drew so they have no clue when that when they you stop creating spikes oh you know you're on because that's what I wrote the other day. Because when I said that on average, the vaccine are sicker, and like, actually, Drew made another point, which is they do seem to be sicker longer. I mean, we have seen data from long COVID that a tincture of time can help some of them. They will improve slowly. Not all. I still have persistently a long COVID. But when you look at the two diseases, persistent viral replication, there's very little evidence for that in long COVID. I don't think it's persistent virus that's replicating. Whereas with the vaccine, we had the recent

studies showing that they only watched it till six months, but half of the patients were continuously producing spikes six months after the vaccine. It's scary. And they only studied it for 187 days, Drew. They stopped the study. It's scary. And that's, and that's, they only studied it for 187 days, Drew. They stopped the study. We know that, that a huge percentage of the people were still creating vaccine induced spike proteins, 187 days post vaccine, because that's as long as they looked, you know, this is why I hate to break it to people, but this is why the average vaccine takes eight to 10 years to come to market if it ever makes it at all. Because this is the kind of stuff you're supposed to figure out before you start giving it to the entire world's population.

The other thing that I wanted to point out was that Dr. Patterson and Dr. Yogendra had an observation, I'm just sort of sharing with you guys, that long COVID was associated with persistent spike protein in classical monocytes that cross the blood vein barrier. And with, for some reason, with the persistence of the spike protein, don't go through their normal apoptotic cycle in the CNS, and thereby they're theorizing increased inflammatory process there. So Pierre, you're right. Not your head is all you've heard that one.

Yeah, no, I was well that was that's another piece of evidence for showing the enduring pathologic impacts of the spike. It stays in some of the immune cells. And you're right. Those immune cells, their their their lifespan is usually I think it's around four to six days and now they're they're they're still alive, present, circulating with spike in them up to 15 or 16 months after the vaccine so let's change gears here for a little bit um we were

talking before we came out in the green room about and i was making light of it although it's not so funny uh that you know the next thing is coming and we're all kind of taking bets on what what's the next thing you know my i I said, my bingo card still has malaria and Ebola and Zika and maybe Marburg virus on it, Nipah. They're coming out with something next. Let's talk a little bit about that. And in terms of the seriousness, things like, for example, everything you have learned about ivermectin and other treatment protocols, what is the likelihood that some of the things that those protocols that you have developed that we have all adopted over these past, or most of us have adopted, will there be application to some of these other things, you know, or we start all over from the

beginning? 100%. And as long as they keep doing these viruses, especially RNA viruses, we have so many options, right? So I would refer anyone to the c19early.com website. It's a group of researchers who've compiled every single trial and every single studied therapeutic in COVID. And if you look at their compendium of all of the scientific data and trials, right now we have 43 proven effective interventions against COVID. And many of them are multi mechanistic. And so we have this huge library of

therapies that work against viruses. And you know, let's talk about the easy stuff, getting your vitamin D levels up, you know, and then some of the sprays, the mouthwashes that, you know, are broadly versatile. I mean, D levels up, you know, and then some of the sprays, the mouthwashes that, you know, are broadly vericidal. I mean, we have stuff that'll work against anything. But when you talk about Marburg or Ebola specifically, you know, Robert Malone did this work. Before COVID, Robert Malone, his company was really working in the repurposed drug space and they were trying to identify candidates for emerging pandemics.

And he worked with Ebola and they were using this high throughput sequencing methodology to try to identify repurposed candidates. And ivermectin was number one for Ebola, number one. And even with Marburg, I think it could have efficacy. And if it's not that, then it's any of the other stuff. I mean, hydroxychloroquine could have a role, nidazoxonide could. I'm actually quite confident that whatever they throw at us, just come to the flccc.net website and we will put something together.

It'll be a combination strategy that will treat this. Just like we did last year for RSV and flu. We have an RSV and flu protocol on our website. And so we're ready for them. And this is exactly what I want people to hear because the question is, people have been living in the basement of fear for all these things. Oh my God, what's going to come next?

And we have missed this golden opportunity in public health to talk about all the stuff you should be doing all the time, not just for COVID, but to prevent all kinds of viral infections and bacterial infections, all the things, vitamin D levels. There's a reason, I think, why the pharmaceutical complex doesn't want people to know about the critical role of vitamin D in your immune system. If people just did that one thing, got their vitamin D levels up to 60 nanograms per milliliter or higher, that that by itself would have decreased drastically the deleterious impacts from COVID.

And we have every reason to believe that will be the same. 100%. And just to give you some context, Kelly, so when I wrote my book, the decision I made to write my book came after I was really confused after my ivermectin testimony, our lives were going sideways, we're under horrific attacks, the media was going nuts. And I received an email in March of 2021. From a professor named William B. Grant, he's one of the most published researchers on vitamin D. And he wrote me this two line email, he said, Dear Dr. Corey, what they're doing to ivermectin, they've been doing to vitamin D for decades. And

when you look at the literature, the published literature on vitamin D going back decades, it basically the sum total is that it doesn't work for anything. And it's because they've polluted the literature with trials of too low doses starting too late wrong formulation. And they find they conclude that it doesn't work for cancer for autoimmune diseases for infectious diseases. And now you look at vitamin D literature, and it looks like a total hoax, but

it's not it's literally disinformation over decades. They do not want you to understand how much your life would be helped with not only regular vitamin D supplementation, but sunlight near near-infrared light. That was the major cure for the Spanish flu was sunlight. They found that people out in the sun died at far less rates. There is simple stuff we can do. We can do it in combination.

That's why, Kelly, I'm like, come on, bring it on. Whatever you want to release, we're ready for you. And by the way, there's probably another topic, but did you see the paper out of Japan last week that it literally showing all the genetic sequence anomalies of all these variants, that they were all coming out of labs, these weren't naturally evolving viruses in the wild, literally lab release after lab release, we're, we're literally getting

battered by someone who's really liking this business model of scaring the heck out of the world with these new variants. Yeah, and that appears to be the case with this new Nipah virus that they're running up the flagpole as well, which Nipah being another one of the hemorrhagic viruses, sort of like Ebola, that is a strong likelihood for the next fear fest. And that appears, again again to be a lab created or lab modified virus. So I think, you know, when people say it doesn't,

you know, what difference does it make, you know, where it came from, it makes a big difference because as you said, we are being just assaulted over and over again with this stuff. The other thing we were talking about before we came on was this, what I consider to be very distressing trend for politicians and other leaders, quote unquote, to declare something to be a public health emergency, whatever it is, and to use that declaration to usurp or just egregiously tread on our civil liberties.

You just saw it happen with the governor of New Mexico deciding that gun violence was a public health emergency, and climate change is a public health emergency, and they use these things to usurp our civil rights. I think that that is what we've lived through that. I think listening, part of what I'm trying to use this platform, and I appreciate your speaking out about this, is we have got to keep pushing back or, you know, my fear of losing my civil liberties far, you know, eclipses my fear of COVID or of anything else. I mean, the thing we should worry about is that. Talk a little bit about where you are in terms of your fight. They have come against you,

your medical license, your board certification. You lost more than one position, as I recall, and they're continuing to do this. Dr. Bhattacharya just, I think, won a, is slowly clawing his way back. I've had my medical license threatened over and over. I've had to defend myself in multiple states. Where are things with you on that platform? Yeah. So I'm still standing, but I have a tax on my medical license with the state of Wisconsin. I think I'm up to 11, none from a patient, all from pharmacists and doctors who claim I'm a misinformation is I have a First Amendment, right. And that should be respected if we were still in the functioning society. But

that's one side. And then the other is through the American Board of Internal Medicine wants to go after my board certification, which traditionally, as you know, Kelly, you didn't need that to practice medicine, but then they weaponize that certain age because now it's a requirement for employment in almost every academic medical center and large health system, as well as insurance panels. So really, now luckily, I am in private practice, I do telehealth, and I'm a fee based practice, I can't take insurance. I mean, I would they would shut me down in like two seconds. So it materially doesn't affect me unless I lose my license. And,

you know, luckily, I live in a state where the medical board team is so under resourced, I still have not gotten a decision on the first complaint which came in, which is over two years ago. So they're up to 11. I've responded and defended myself against all of them. I have yet to hear from them as to what they're going to do. Well, you know, God bless you and keep keep up the fight I know how debilitating is because I defended myself seven different times in multiple states it's

exhausting it's expensive it's demoralizing and and they have in fact weaponized the boards they have weaponized this and as you said I think people don't understand it you know Everyone understands what it is to lose your medical license, but if you lose your board certification, again, you can't get reimbursed by insurance. The insurance companies won't reimburse you and you can't keep your hospital privileges. So it is a fundamentally, they might as well remove your license because it renders you incapable. I love that you talked about the exhausting, not to play the violins for me here,

but it really is, you get one of these complaints and they're all over the place, they're totally unsubstantiated, they don't make any sense. And yet I have to carefully go through and construct a line by line, very professional, very mature, academically written letter with all references to defend my position.

And it takes hours and hours. And I'm literally running like my head's cut off. And then I literally have to take a day out of my life to defend myself against someone's instantiated complaint. It is exhausting. Correct. Correct. And mine the same way, by the way, not a one of mine was from a patient. All of them were for people. I heard her on the radio.

I heard her. She gave an interview on Newsmax where she said blank. And furthermore, at least in the states where I have licenses in multiple states, they're allowed to do it anonymously. So you don't even get to meet your accuser, who it is, who- Oh, full and odd. It's unbelievable. So, I mean, the entire thing is so

screwed up and truly I mean from a patient's perspective I'll tell you if this goes on this doesn't just impact doctors this should be terrifying to patients because you a patient every patient out there every American should worry is my doctor telling me what he or she really believes is the right thing? Are they suggesting really the therapy or the course of action that they believe is truly what their education and their understanding of the literature would lead them to conclude? Or are they doing it because they don't want to get a complaint from the medical board?

Are they... Think about that. Kelly, the answer is really clear to that question now, because here's what I how I interpret this action by the American Board of Internal Medicine, like what I was telling you before, when I read the letter, and I heard that I violated consensus based evidence or consensus based science. I mean, I was shocked. I couldn't believe they actually put that in the letter. And what I how I interpret it, they're making examples of me, Professor Paul Marek, and Peter McCullough, because they are very publicly going to strip us of our certifications. It's not about us.

It's about every other doctor. It's about setting an example. You want to go against consensus? You think you have a bright idea? You know more than us? And you want to try to put out some guidance that departs from what we want our doctors to be prescribing, well, this is what's going to happen to you. So who's going to come out in public who wants to

literally blow up and relate their careers? You know, in order to put out good guides, I would, I couldn't do it any other way. But, you know, it's really terrifying. They are going after doctors in this way. And they're using us as examples. No, I agree. And as I said, remember, folks, the consensus was that the earth is flat. That was the consensus until Galileo came out and said it wasn't so and was nearly burned

at the stake as a result. But the consensus frequently is absolutely wrong. And it takes people with, you know, with some backbone to stand up and say, no, this is not correct. And God help patients if we stop doing that, because then you're going to get whatever the FDA or the CDC or the pharmaceutical companies decide you ought to get. And I promise you, it won't be in your best interest. And a consensus on a three and a half year old disease, three and a half years. And we already have established consensus on every facet of it. That's absolutely ludicrous.

Right, right. I mean, just allowing physicians, again, this back to where we started this conversation about allowing physicians to practice medicine. There seems to be some sort of intrusion on that. You know, this got this way in my sort of sense of it, this sort of centralization of authority and decision-making and clinical pathways and all this nonsense that was taking away clinical judgment from physicians. What I've sniffed is going on from the beginning is to be able to put physician extenders in the driver's seat and they don't have the training to use judgment. They're trained to follow pathways and thereby getting rid of the physician and the expense of the physicians.

And they'll move us back a couple layers. I don't know what our job will actually be, but it won't be seeing patients. At least certainly that seems to be the move in general psychiatry, in pediatrics, in internal medicine. It's moving that way fast, and they have to have these clinical pathways in place to cover themselves against liability when they finally pull the trigger on all this. You're not alone in believing that, Drew.

There's a number of us who've discussed it, this proliferation of protocols that now you have to rigidly adhere to. I mean, prior to COVID, what we had was guidelines, right? Society guidelines, general recommendations. But in the language of every guideline is that this was not necessarily applicable to the individual patients. Sort of like what you were saying, you don't even discuss that anymore, but now we're not about guidelines anymore.

We're literally about these are the things you have to choose to treat and anything else is not in the formulary. So you want to use vitamin C, ivermectin, anything else that you think might help the patient, they won't even make it available to you. So, and I think that point about the extenders is absolutely true. They do like protocols, they can employ protocols, one size fits all, because you know, every human being is the same, and every disease is the same, right, guys, the whole factory model of medicine, how that's worked out, and they're making it more. And you're right. I think it's going to, it's going to elevate the extenders. And once they can have extenders just deploying protocols, well, then everything's just going to go all along merrily, I suppose. No, I think that's, this is exactly it. And it's really been a surreptitious. This has been the boiling the frog thing. It's happened very, very slowly. Each thing that they institute, they say it's to make things more efficient.

The electronic medical record was no different. The electronic medical record was going to streamline everything and make it so easy for doctors. Let's face it, the electronic medical record is nothing more than a billing module that happens to capture a little bit of clinical information. It produces horrible narrative in terms of what actually happened with the patient. Okay. And it makes it almost impossible for you to deviate from their algorithm. If you want to do anything different, if you want to change to a different medication,

change to a different protocol of any sort, God help you because it's almost impossible. And so this is all about streamlining it so you can eliminate physicians, so you can make it more profitable for the hospital. They never give you the generic version of the drug. It's always whatever's going to make the hospital the most money. It doesn't produce the outcomes that patients think it will. Does not enhance patient care. Not at all. We're in a heap of trouble. the outcomes that patients think it will. It does not enhance patient care.

Not at all. So we're in a heap of trouble. Pierre, we're winding down the clock. What have we missed? It's been a while since we've had you on. I love you always get everybody all riled up, certainly me. Stimulate. You know. I'm getting upset.

I'm getting depressed. I'm actually getting because this stuff is not good news any of this i'm happy you guys wanted to talk a little bit about long covet and long vax that's where most of my clinical energies are on um and then a little bit on the vaccine i mean the last thing we didn't talk about is this absolute clown world of an approval of a monovalent vaccine for a variant that is rapidly being extinguished and that has not been tested for clinical effect and that's just antibody production. And the most worrisome thing about this latest approval is, first of all, it

was predetermined. I mean, no one's confused that we got approved. I mean, we've seen every single approval sale. But implicit in the language is this idea that these rapid regulatory approvals for these mRNA products are because the entire platform, it's now apparently settled science guys that the mRNA platform is safe and effective. So as long as they just change the image and no real reason to repeat all of that because it's safe and effective. So they're literally going to be doing rapid approvals for this technology going forward on on an evidence base of a platform which is anything but safe or effective. And that's the scary part. And the last thing I want to say is, it's so clear that all this is, is an advertising campaign for the new vaccine,

the booster uptake the last bivalent booster, it was I think at best 17% in the country, the people are wising up vaccine sales are plummeted uptake is plummeted. So what did they do? Same formula, inject fear scream about the variants, but have it running on headlines and newscasts every night get everyone scared that COVID cases are going up, but then remind everyone that there is a solution. The newest vaccine newly approved by good old FDA and CDC. Same formula. It's advertising campaign for vaccines which do not work and are dangerous.

No, I agree with you. I said at the very beginning, Pierre, back when they started talking about the vaccine, I said, this entire thing is about trying to make mRNA a household word, to make people believe that this platform is fully vetted and tested and true, and we can now apply it to everything. We can give it to animals. We can put it in the food source. We can make every vaccine because it's all been tested now. Nothing to see here, people. Move along as if it's gone through the regulatory, the rigors that it should have gone through to get approved in the first place, and it never did. It's really dangerous. Let me finish on a positive note. I think what

we just talked about here, I think the overreach and the constant, you know, propping up of really dangerous vaccines where most of the country now is very wary, if not outright terrified of these vaccines, because they know someone horribly injured, they were horribly injured, or somebody died. I think they've gone too far. And I think the gig is up. I think the credibility in these agencies have plummeted. And I think they're going to shoot themselves in the foot. And I don't think they're going to be able to pull this off going forward. I think everyone, most people who are paying even half attention should know to stay away from that mRNA platform in whatever form or disease they're promoting

it in. I think they've damaged themselves and I'm happy about it because we cannot let these frauds continue. No, from your lips to God's ears. I agree. I think that this is really, really what people need to understand is that mRNA has not been fully... Have we been working on it for more than a decade? Absolutely. But there's a good darn reason that they have never gotten one over the finish line before. And it's sometimes with devastating impact. All the animals in the study died and things. So they've been working. It's sleight of hand.

They always say, well, we've been working on this. This has been tested for over a decade. Right. And failed for over a decade. It wasn't ready. They needed an emergency to roll it out, and they used that emergency to just slam it through regulation. Spot on. Spot on.

All right. Well, we will learn more as time goes on. Pierre, thank you so much to jump on the heels of Kelly. We appreciate you being here and stirring up the conversation a little bit. And no doubt we'll be talking to you again in the future. 100%. See you guys. Talk to you soon. Thanks for being here.

Pierre Corey, everybody. And then Kelly, for us uh caleb maybe you could throw up the upcoming shows this was a big rumble day you guys well here pure corey gets a lot of action there we go head down next week uh nobody beats that down though joshua good cute cow this cow. This is a yes. You Kelly. Yeah. Yes. He was, he was, uh, recommended, um, uh, by Jessica Rose. He, he's a, uh, a colleague of hers and who's got a lot to share about the, what I call the bait and switch on these, uh, vaccines. It's more about the vaccine fraud and the fraud that's gone on with regard to

how they've mainstreamed these enacted as if these vaccines were fully tested and vetted. So he's got a lot to talk about in terms of the vaccine regulation and the regulatory process. And there is some wild stuff going on with the plasmid observations with the DNA segments left behind and that we're going to learn more about that as time goes along. And then Joe Borre barello he's coming in yes and i don't know i don't know the back story on that one hey yep i do and i i see that i'm up there and i'm going to be talking with him i think that's on october 3rd you know what that is he's a

he's a d.a candidate here locally and we're just going to get a no that's john that's john mckinney that's tomorrow so tomorrow is is John McKinney. I beg your pardon. Yeah. The other one is a New York State Senator, Joe Borrello, who's coming in on the 27th. That's a week from now.

I hope at some point we'll be able to get someone in here to talk about the DNA plasmid issue if the observations do bear any fruit on that because there's some really wild concerns that are still lingering around. And as you say, we're learning more about these things as time goes on. So there you go. Right. And it's just so easy to start becoming a conspiracy theorist. People still ask me things like, are there nanochips in the vaccine? Are there radio transmitters? And you laugh about it, then you

think, I don't know, maybe there are. You know, you go, I don't know, maybe there is something in there. So as you know, my elderly patients are all vaccinated and boosted. I can tell you my experience lately is that they are starting to report some concerning side effects there I'm starting to hear a little bit about it and as a result they are refusing this recent booster some very elderly are wanting the booster and there is some evidence that hospitalization might be affected by this and but but they're they're asking and I am I'll let you know how that goes uh they are I'm doing this with primarily spin people over the age of 90 that have been very interested in it. Because for those folks, I mean, COVID offers even this milder version that's going around, it could really harm them.

Well, all I would say about it is that the monovalent booster, to be clear, because Pierre packed a lot into that closing sentence um the monovalent booster the one that is now available is predicated on the xbb sub variant of omicron xbb currently as of this week represents less than four percent less than four percent of all the cases okay in other words there's more than 96 chance if you get coven you've got something other than XBB. So the chance that this booster is going to protect you from anything in my mind is pretty darn near zero. Because it is, and this is why we have never created an effective vaccine against a coronavirus. They simply mutate too quickly. They mutate before you ever get the next booster or vaccine out.

And so I think the idea of taking a booster for a variant that is fundamentally extinct makes zero sense in my mind, regardless of your age. That could be true. And Dr. Corey shared with us some thing that he experienced with COVID. And I was telling him that I'm seeing a, for about four months, I've seen a very specific syndrome here in Southern California,

which is sudden onset. I mean, sudden onset of prostration and fever where people are like paralyzed. It's wild. And some of the elderly patients go right to the hospital. Even the ones that are hospitalized, it generally almost always no cough or nominal cough, almost always goes away in 24 to 72 hours. And you guys were trashing Paxlovid a little bit.

And I'm abusing Paxlovid in some of these patients who get so toxic and they are better in 6 to 12 hours, this particular variant with no rebound now one of the things i worry about is it affecting the immunological response and will that affect their ability to fight off covet in the future so that's that's an unknown from paxton because i have seen pax of it yeah people get packs of it and then get reinfected three months later and that shouldn't be happening right i didn't get that i just got a really bad running down like Pierre. And another interesting thing about the one that's right here in Southern California, our son got it, Susan got it.

But I got it in France, so mine was a special breed. And they both were positive for a long time, longer than they were sick. And I made no effort to not expose myself. I just went about my business. I got nothing. I know. It's just odd. It's just odd.

Because you got the Delta. I guess in here, here's a question for you right now. I'm not talking about back when Delta was around or the original Wuhan strain. And I mean, no disrespect by this, but why, for example, if you've got a cold right now or symptoms, why would you test to see if you had COVID? What would you do?

What did you do differently, Susan, because you knew it was COVID? Well, there's a thing in my family where they don't let me rest when I get sick. So I had to, and I, it felt like COVID. I was like, okay, I'm, I'm going to take this because it really feels. Caleb is actually laughing and you should laugh at that because that is not true. That's her perception. But what I'm saying is, but what I'm saying is, but what was different? Okay, so if, you know, what did you do differently? Because it was COVID versus. Listen, the third day I had a sore throat.

Whenever I get a sore throat and I've had COVID three times, it's been exactly the same. I thought it was okay for her to test. Your point is well taken, Kelly. You're absolutely making the right point. But we have an 80-year-old housekeeper that rolls through here on a regular basis. She was what we worried about, and we kept Susan away

from her. I didn't feel bad. I just had a... Okay, but if it wasn't COVID, so it's another virus, would that not worry you with your 80-year-old housekeeper? It was so mild. It was so mild. It really wouldn't. It was really ridiculously mild, but, but I got something worse. He got,

he got something, he got something nasty from the, from Susan. No, no, it was a couple of weeks later that he didn't get it from me. He got it. I went to the hospital to get a TB test and it got COVID instead. No, but you know what Kelly, Kelly, Kelly, you're making a great point. It's the five day, you know, stay at home, don't try not to give it to your housekeeper, you know, try to stay quarantined.

I don't, I mean, I live in a big house. Right, but would you wanna give another virus to your housekeeper? I mean, what I'm saying is fundamentally, if you're sick, if you're sick and you've got something, correct. So the fundamental, the point I'm making, and Drew knows this well, there is the fundamental rule in medicine is never do a test, the results of which will not change your actions. Okay? Why test? And we've got to stop this insanity of people shoving Q-tips up their noses because we aren't.

Yes, it's endemic. It's endemic. It's not going away. It's endemic. The point is, I had it, so I don't need a vaccine. Like, I just say, oh, I got it. I don't need a vaccine. So it just, you know, takes that away.

It's extremely important, Kelly. And Vinay Prasad's been making this point for a few months now. And so, yes, I think that is a very important point, especially going forward as we continue some of these silly behaviors. Because all you're doing- Because all you're doing- I wouldn't have gotten one. That's it. That is the point. All you are doing is feeding into whoever's making money on the dang COVID test because it doesn't change what you're going to do. If you're sick, you're sick. If you don't feel good, you're not going to go to the gym. If you, you know, if you got a cough or a runny nose or a

fever, you're not going to go to the cocktail party, independent of whether it's COVID or anything else. You shouldn't want to give it to your 80 year old housekeeper or anybody else. Absolutely. I think we need to stop feeding into this, you know, correct. No, I, I, if I, like I said, when we were, we got like each one of the family members got like five free COVID tests, like two years ago and they're just piled up in my, in my pantry. And so, I mean, if I didn't have it, I wouldn't have ran out and got a COVID test. I didn't go in, they were just sitting here and I went, I'll just take and see. Feels like COVID. Yep. It is COVID. But I'm glad that I know because now I feel like I can probably go out and

not worry about getting COVID. Interesting. Well, there we are. So we'll leave it at that. I'm going to fly. Be free. Get COVID again. No, we understand you're defending yourself. But I was worried I was going to get the free no you understand you're defending yourself but i was going to get the same the variant that my son had because he had different symptoms and i brought mine from france and i was wondering if maybe it was a new variant so i stayed away from him we kind of kept distance from each other i mean i don't want to get sick again obviously we are going to leave it at that kelly thank you as always uh good to see you and uh we will be checking in again on wednesday next wednesday is that correct excellent see you then next wednesday

take care okay thanks and for everyone else uh we will ask dr drew is produced by caleb nation and susan pinsky as a reminder the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care diagnosis or treatment this show is intended for educational and informational purposes only. I am a licensed physician, but I am not a replacement for your personal doctor, and I am not practicing medicine here. Always remember that our understanding of medicine and science is constantly evolving. Though my opinion is based on the information that is available to me today, some of the contents of this show could be outdated in the future. Be sure to check with trusted resources in case any of the information

has been updated since this was published. If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, don't call me, call 911. If you're feeling hopeless or suicidal, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255.

You can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at drdrew.com slash help.