Ask Dr. Drew - Dr. Pierre Kory [FLCCC President & 2020 US Senate Witness] with Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 147

Episode Date: December 3, 2022

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. 「 LINKS FROM EPISODE: https://drdrew.com/11162022 」 Dr. Kory's statements were both heralded and criticized by opposing factions, leading to his resignation from Aurora St Luke's after a new contract threatened his freedom of speech. Follow Dr. Kory at https://twitter.com/PierreKory and visit the FLCCC at https://covid19criticalcare.com/ 「 SPONSORED BY 」 • 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 • 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 10% off with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. Hundreds of millions of people have received a COVID-19 vaccine, and serious adverse reactions are uncommon. Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician and Dr. Kelly Victory is a board-certified emergency specialist. Portions of this program will examine countervailing views on important medical issues. 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 「 GEAR PROVIDED BY 」 • BLUE MICS - Find your best sound at https://drdrew.com/blue • ELGATO - See how Elgato's lights transformed Dr. Drew's set: https://drdrew.com/sponsors/elgato/ 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 For over 30 years, Dr. Drew has answered questions and offered guidance to millions through popular shows like Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Dr. Drew On Call (HLN), Teen Mom OG (MTV), and the iconic radio show Loveline. Now, Dr. Drew is opening his phone lines to the world by streaming LIVE from his home studio. Watch all of Dr. Drew's latest shows at https://drdrew.tv Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome and thank you for joining us. I'm Dr. Kelly Victory. I'm filling in for Dr. Drew. Drew and his beautiful family are off on a much earned vacation in an exotic location with their kids where I have no doubt they are sightseeing and drinking some great wine hopefully and eating some good food. I will be filling in again next Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving as well. And Drew and team will be back at the end of the week for a show on Friday. I'll give the lineup of those shows at the end of our show here today. I am thrilled to be joined today by one of my favorite co-truth tellers, truth warriors during this pandemic, Dr. Pierre Corey.

Dr. Corey, many of you follow on social media and have followed elsewhere in the media throughout this pandemic. He has been a beacon of light. He is a critical care specialist with many, many years in critical care. He was the head of the critical care services and the director of the Trauma and Life'm going to let him do that, talking a little bit more about his experience and how it is that he finds himself now at the helm of the frontline COVID critical care alliance and how it is that he got there. He has authored multiple very influential papers on COVID. He ran ICUs in COVID hotspots, but I want him to talk a little bit about how it is that he got where he is now.

I will also read our required disclaimer about the show. The CDC states that the COVID vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. Parts of this show may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. You should always consult your physician before making any decisions about your health. And given that Dr. Corey and I, I think together are exhibit A for countervailing narratives, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up having some issues with this feed. I certainly hope we don't.

But I expect that we will be covering quite a few topics which are currently considered controversial. And Dr. Corey and I will discuss why they should never be controversial in the first place. So I'll be back in a minute with Dr. Corey and to talk more about his background and get into the weeds. So strap yourselves in. Our laws as it pertains 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. Where the hell do you think I learned that? I'm just saying. You go to treatment before you kill people. I'm a doctor for. 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.

You have trouble, you can't stop and you want help stopping, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. I got a lot more to only get with BetMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM.

A sportsbook worth a slam dunk. An authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com sportsbook worth a slam dunk, an authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you,

please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Dr. Corey, welcome to Ask Dr. Drew with Dr. Kelly Victory instead. Welcome. You are a great friend to this show, and I mean that when I say you have been a beacon of light during this pandemic. Obviously, there have not been a lot of people in our profession who have been willing to speak out, speak openly, honestly, and engage in robust, vigorous debate. And you have not shied away from it. there's a method to my madness here in giving a little bit more detail about your background prior to January of 2020, when the entire world blew up, what it was you were doing before the

pandemic hit and how it is that you find yourself where you currently sit at the helm of the FLCCC. Yeah, first of all, nice to see you again, Kelly. And I was looking forward to this chat. And yeah, so if you go back to before COVID hit, I mean, it's shocking. I wouldn't say how far I've fallen. It's how far I've, I don't know, traveled. But where I was is I was in charge of the main medical surgical ICU at the University of Wisconsin. I was the chief of the medical critical care service. I had just spent a couple of years publishing two textbooks, one textbook and a second edition on a field that I helped pioneer. I was well known across the country and world for helping pioneer the field of critical care ultrasonography, where I taught doctors across the country how to use ultrasound to make life-saving

diagnoses in the ICU. And it was my passion. It's what I loved. I was an expert at it. And so I was very well known. And I was a clinician educator. I taught, I gave lectures, I put together courses. And I was, you know, I was invited to give grand rounds on various topics of my research. And, you know, I was like full on in the ivory tower as an academic. And, you know, I saw things go sideways almost immediately with COVID. And what's really interesting, so I've lost three jobs. Now I work in private practice. I'm on practice and I focus on treating long haulers and the vaccine injured.

But, you know, my first job, I actually resigned. And I resigned because when COVID hit Wisconsin, my chief and my chair were insisting on supportive care only. And all of my buddies, I trained in New York City. I used to run an ICU in New York City for 10 years. All my friends are running ICUs in New York City. So I was on the phone with them every day. And I knew these patients were landing on ventilators at massive rates. They were staying on ventilators forever, not getting better. And we knew they needed like blood thinners and stuff. I mean, this isn't complicated stuff. I mean, they were hyperinflating and clotting. And it was so controversial and they didn't want us doing anything. They want us doing anything.

They wanted us to follow the guidelines, and the guidelines at the time would do nothing. That's where I started. I resigned. I said, I refuse. I said, I have a moral and ethical obligation. I cannot morally and ethically serve as a clinical leader if you're not going to let the teams treat these people. I said, this is what you're going to do. I want no part of it.

And I left. So, so, so, you know, as I say, the reason I bring this up and the reason I think it's so important is because this is a story we're hearing over and over again. You are not somebody who has some, you the matchbox medical degree. We're talking about people like yourself, Peter McCullough, Harvey Reich, James Thorpe, and on and on, people with storied medical careers. Paul Merrick. Paul Merrick, who attended some of the most well-renowned academic institutions in the country, have published textbooks, have been lecturers at universities, have had professorships, have published important journal articles, and on and

on. Yet when you started talking about this, you were pilloried, excoriated, censored, shut down. We've had fellow physicians, yours and mine, who have been stripped of their medical licenses, their medical certifications in their subspecialties. We have a physician who is remanded to get psychiatric evaluation for suggesting a particular course of treatment. on the record, North Korea has nothing on us at this point. What they are doing to physicians like you, like me, and our colleagues who have been willing to speak out about this is absolutely unprecedented and very, very dangerous. So here you are, you have this great job. You've been in academics. you've written and published and taught for years and years. You end up losing three jobs. How did the FLCCC come to be? Yeah. So before I resigned from UW around March or April, Paul Marrick, who really was the main founder, I mean, I would say we co-founded, but he was starting to put protocols on his medical school website, because that's what Paul does.

He's always thinking of best combinations of therapies to treat different diseases. And he was starting to come up with just a pragmatic, get your vitamin D levels up, use vitamin C, things that we knew that could help in viral syndromes. And that started to get attention. And then some doctors reached out to him and said, you got to do this big. He said, why don't you get a group together, get some of your close colleagues, you know, come up with a collaborative protocol and try to push that out there, you know, get a website and try to provide guidance. And so Paul asked his four closest colleagues,

of which I'm one of them. I've been very good friends with Paul. And, you know, to your point about the credentials of the FLCCC and a lot of the doctors you mentioned, here's a fun fact. Paul Merrick is the most published practicing intensivist in the history of critical care medicine. I mean, he's got over 500 articles, multiple textbooks, dozens of chapters. He's invited all around the country and world to give lectures. And so we thought our credibility would support us. And we really built it really to guide doctors because we saw the doctor, no one knew what they were doing. And I don't know if you know this, but I testified in the Senate for the first time in May of

2020 on the critical need for corticosteroids in the hospital phase at a time when every national international healthcare agency was recommending against the use of corticosteroids and after i delivered that testimony oh man you should have seen it kelly university of wisconsin lost their minds they started harassing me and i was doing urgency volunteer work in in i was running my old icu in manhattan at the time and i had to get calls from my boss every day, harassing me not to talk to press not to do anything. I was like, What are you talking about? I, I give my opinions. This is my, you know, this is my practice, my opinions. And I mean, you get it. So, you know, I'd already I quickly resigned from University of Wisconsin. At that point, I had to hire a lawyer to get them to

stop harassing me. And I moved on. And what we did is we just continued as a group of five highly published doctors to work on our protocols. We followed all the literature, all the data on any emerging trials on any potential therapeutic. And we were evolving our protocols from dosing and frequency to combinations. And we got nothing but great feedback from the beginning. So many doctors from around the world were telling our hospital protocol was helpful. Historically, the first six months of the FLCCC, all we had was a hospital protocol. We hadn't officially put out an early treatment protocol until by September of 2020, when the first rounds of clinical trials were coming out, because the pandemic hit in March and April. The first rounds of the design trials trials came out and we just could not believe the data

behind ivermectin. It was unreal. It was reproducible, large magnitude, numerous centers in countries from around the world. And so we put together a protocol centered around ivermectin and that's when things got really serious, right? Because Kelly, you know the topic. I mean, we didn't know this when this happened, but when we almost, I don't think that we can laugh, but when we look back to what was about to happen, that, you know, let me put in context for what we did. We didn't know what we were doing, but we had selected a protocol as five very well-known doctors centered around a generic repurposed drug, which probably was the single greatest threat to the biggest pharmaceutical market that had ever

opened up. And we basically put ourselves right into the path of the pharmaceutical army that was seeking to destroy repurposed drugs. Yes. And so let me, and this is a perfect segue, because what I wanted to talk about and what I want people to understand before we get into the weeds specifically on, you know, the IVM or HCQ or any of the other drugs and including the ones, you know, steroids is to talk about the concept of repurposed drugs. The idea of taking a medication that has been FDA approved for, you know, used for whatever and using it for something else is something that is a cornerstone of medicine. Research shows that somewhere between 25 and 30 percent of all medications are written for something for which they were not originally designed.

Once a medication is FDA approved, it means that it is safe for use in humans. Full stop. It doesn't say it's used for humans for this indication. It's just safe for use in humans. We have anti-seizure drugs that are used for chronic pain. We have hypertension drugs that are used for migraine headaches. We have chemotherapy drugs that are used for skin conditions and on and on. Once a drug is FDA approved, if it is safe for use for intestinal parasites, it doesn't become

unsafe if you take it for COVID. If a drug is safe for use for malaria or lupus, it doesn't become unsafe if you then prescribe it and take it for COVID. So this idea of repurposed drugs, and you already intimated, you said, you see these COVID patients, it's a brand new virus. People are having inflammation. I've got a great idea. Let's use anti-inflammatories, steroids. People are having clotting issues. I got a great idea. Let's use anti-clotting drugs. So it wasn't like we were just pulling these things out of thin air. So make the segue now to IVM specifically. What was it about that drug that is typically used for intestinal parasites, not incidentally just in horses and cows, but in humans. What was it about ivermectin that made

people think this could be useful against COVID? Well, that's a great question because when we were looking at the trials, I had not studied the drug very much. I just saw these positive trials popping up from everywhere. But I immediately, I was the first author on a comprehensive review paper. I was, I ate, breathed, slept ivermectin for months. And very quickly in my research on ivermectin, I had no idea, but there was 10 years since 2012, 10 years of in vitro studies showing that ivermectin inhibits the replication of at least a dozen viruses, RNA viruses. So people who started to use it early on, well before we did after those trials came out, I mean, people were using it in the Dominican Republic, in India, I mean, a lot in South America, they learned very quickly, people who

knew ivermectin knew it was a broad antiviral. So it made sense to use it, it made sense to study it. And so, you know, like every piece lined up, it was not only the in vitro, there was in vivo studies, you know, animal studies. So test tube, animal, you know, it literally made the leap from the bench to the bedside. And then the clinical studies, then the epidemiologic studies, like the health ministries, it was, it was so eye-poppingly potent and efficacious. I mean, it was stunning, but let me say one more thing about the repurposed drugs is you covered it so well, Kelly, right? So 20%, I think of outpatient medicines are repurposed, meaning they're not for

their initial approved indication. In the hospital, I think it's 30%. But the most important thing to know about a repurposed drug, it is the single greatest threat to the business model of the entire pharmaceutical industry. If there's one thing that they've learned to attack and destroy for decades, and that's why I want to make this point, it's not about ivermectin. It's about decades of repurposed drugs that the pharmaceutical industry will destroy with counterfeit science, with propaganda, with censorship. They do it in older psychiatric drugs. They want you to take the shiny new pill, right?

The new antipsychotic, the new antidepressant, cardiology drugs, oncology drugs. They never want natural or cheap therapies. And ivermectin, although I lived through the war on ivermectin although you know I lived through the war on ivermectin the war on hydroxychloroquine was fought the year before and they destroyed that drug using some of the most sinister tactics so it's really about and the pharmaceutical industry has to destroy repurposed drugs well and I'm glad you brought up HCQ because that's where I started I I looked the reason I was a big proponent of HCQ early on was twofold. Number one, I had come across, very early in the pandemic, within weeks, I'd come across an article,

a study back from 2005, authored by none other than the NIAID, funded by Anthony Fauci, saying that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were extremely effective against SARS-CoV-1 that had happened in 2003. So given the similarities it said, and given the incredible safety profile of HCQ, it is so safe that it's one of the drugs that we readily give to pregnant women, for example. HCQ is used by millions of people every year to suppress malaria and it's used for, excuse me, for lupus. Autoimmune diseases. I couldn't get it.

Yeah, lupus and autoimmune diseases. It's over the counter in most of the world. So I looked at HCQ and was shocked that I was absolutely pilloried for even suggesting it. So you are exactly right. This has nothing to do with the specific drugs. It has to do with the push back against taking a generic medication that's readily available, super safe, effective, and dirt cheap, and saying that those things can't possibly work. I want to talk more about this before we get into the specifics about the recent hit job study, the ACTIV-6 trial, which I want you to dissect, but I want to sort of tee it up a little bit better because I think people

get lost in the weeds sometimes. They get lost in the details of some of these studies and people don't have a good understanding of this entire concept of using repurposed drugs. And that's what we have always done in medicine. Something that we are very proud of doing in medicine something that differentiates thinking physicians from robots that makes it's what makes medicine and art and not simply something that is done by protocol and algorithm you know this is what differentiates people who have a brain and have experience doing this and rather than being lauded and applauded and really elevated to a level of respect those of us who are

suggesting this all of a sudden for the first time met with incredible derision so let's cut to the commercial break and then we come back we'll talk a little bit more about this and I'll let you get into the weeds, as I said, about that Active 6 trial. Great. I have some pretty exciting news. Our favorite skincare brand, GenuCell, is having a holiday preview sale. It just went live for all the products that Susan and I love. GenuCell Silky Smooth XV Moisturizer soaks right into my skin instantly. And with its immediate effects, you can see the fine lines and wrinkles disappearing within 12 hours. And Susan loves, of course, the GenuCell vitamin C serum

infused with the purest vitamin C that absorbs to the deepest layers of the skin because of their proprietary skincare technology. I am a snob when it comes to using products on my face. The dermatologist makes a ton of money for me. But when I was introduced to GenuCell, I was so happy because it's so affordable and it works great. I was introduced to the Ultra Retinol Cream, which I love at night. All the eye creams are amazing. People notice my skin all the time and I'm so excited because it's actually working. And for a limited time, take advantage of the GenuCell Holiday Preview Sale and save up to 60% off of the GenuCell holiday preview sale and save up to 60% off our favorite GenuCell products. 60% off. Treat yourself this holiday season. Go to

GenuCell.com slash Drew. That's GenuCell.com slash Drew. G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash Drew. My guest is Philip Patrick. He is a precious metal specialist, trains at University of Redlands. He has spent years as a wealth manager at Citigroup, and his current position is with Birch Gold Group. So gold has always been somewhat of a safe haven, particularly in times of great turmoil, much like our present moment, I imagine. Gold has always traditionally been a safe haven asset. Gold specifically has always been about wealth preservation, right? Gold has always traditionally been a safe haven asset. Gold specifically has always been about wealth preservation, right? Gold has always held its buying power. You can look at as far back as you'd like in history. In biblical times, one ounce of gold would buy somebody 400

loaves of bread. And today it does the same thing. So it's a store of value. But I would say in times like this, as you mentioned, it's particularly important when you're dealing with things like 40-year high inflation, the air that's coming out of a stock market bubble. These times in particular tend to drive gold and silver up quite significantly. If things are different, the solution needs to be different as well. So I encourage everyone to get informed. And we have a lot of good information here to help your listeners. Just a reminder, I am not a financial advisor and I do not give out financial

advice nor investing advice. Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, and thousands of satisfied customers. Check them out now. Visit birchgold.com slash drew and secure your future with gold. Do it now. The Dr. Drew Collectible Bobblehead is here. Limited stock for the holidays. Makes a perfect gift for any Dr. Drew fan. And we are having a special Black Friday event offering discounts for all of our viewers. It's a high-quality bobblehead,

handcrafted, hand-painted, and packed in this cool box. Look at this thing. It's got a window, clamshell for product visibility when it is boxed. And it has our logo, Dr. Drew logo, all over the place. Features me in my usual jeans and black t-shirt.

That's right. It's the perfect stocking stuffer for the Dr. Drew fan in your life. Also, for a limited time, save an additional $5 with coupon code DrDrew at checkout. Order online at drdrew.com slash shop. That is drdrew.com slash shop for this special price.

Click on the link and save today. Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. 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. So, Pierre, let's pick up right where we left off. You know, here we are, we're living in this unprecedented time of what I call therapeutic nihilism, okay, with COVID. All of a sudden, for the first time in history, we're not supposed to treat people early.

We're not supposed to give them IVM or HCQ. We're not supposed to talk about steroids or blood thinners. We're not even supposed to say the basics about what you can do to improve the functioning of your immune system, like supplementing vitamin D and taking vitamin C and zinc, the things that we know are profoundly helpful for decreasing your risk from viral infections. And by the way, that's another thing about HCQ is that hydroxychloroquine is a zinc ionophore. It helps zinc get into the cells. That's another reason I was very plucky on it. So we're not supposed to talk about any of that. You're just supposed to hide in the basement, wear a mask, socially distance, bathe in Purell, and hope to hell that somebody coughs up a vaccine in time to save you and the rest of humanity.

That's sort of where we were. And those few of us are looking around saying, what the heck is going on? I don't know about you, but I had never used the word misinformation until this pandemic. I don't think I'd ever used that term before. I'd never even, it's not something that was in my vernacular. All of a sudden, I am the queen of misinformation, according to

all the social media platforms, which is why I was banned very, very early on, and why you and I, it remains to be seen whether this is still airing or if you and I are just having one-on-one conversation. We may have been shut down some time ago. But let's talk specifically, again, we want to talk a little bit about the impact that having other available medications, in addition to the fact that it's something that big pharma doesn't want for financial reasons, about the impact that that would have had on the ultimate rollout of the vaccines under an emergency use authorization. So you just brought up a really good point, right? Because before when I said that repurposed drugs are the enemy of pharma and the competitors

to their markets for patented drugs, the real threat is the one that you just mentioned, right? Because hydroxychloroquine actually works as a preventative for COVID. Ivermectin is actually a little bit more potent of a preventative, but if you look at the trials for prevention with ivermectin, it had 83% protection based on 13 trials. And it threatened the rollout of the vaccine. If you had a safe and available drug to take, you know, you could take it once a week and prevent COVID, who would take an experimental jab using novel gene technology, right? I mean, it would have skyrocketed vaccine hesitancy. And the vaccinators, they knew their number one enemy was vaccine hesitancy.

And so, I mean, that's another reason why they attack. Well, and on top of it, in order to get an EUA, in order to be granted emergency use authorization, a vaccine manufacturer has to submit two things. Number one, that they have reason to believe in preliminary studies that the vaccine will be effective in preventing you from contracting the illness. And number two, that there are no other available treatments. Those are the two things that you have to meet, the two criteria a vaccine manufacturer has to meet in order to even get granted the EUA.

So they needed to continue with this statement that it's effective, it's effective, it's effective. And number two, there's no other treatment for it. So you and I were in the crosshairs from the very beginning by suggesting that there were treatments available. Yeah. Yeah. And you know, the other thing you brought up misinformation. So misinformation is supposed to be the deliberate disseminating of false information. Disinformation is what I talk about now, what my expertise, it's what the other side does, right? So disinformation is essentially propaganda.

It's a story or a message to get you to think or act in a certain way. And it was clear that the powers that be wanted everyone to think that ivermectin didn't work and to not take ivermectin if they were sick. And they wanted the doctors to not prescribe it. And the tactics in which they use, I learned about it from an article called the disinformation playbook. And let's talk about disinformation for two seconds. So disinformation tactics were invented in the 1950s, not by the tobacco industry. It was by a PR firm that the tobacco industry hired because suddenly big tobacco was in trouble. And why were they in trouble in the 1950s? The first science was coming out showing that tobacco was really harmful for your health, cancer studies, heart attack studies. And so

they knew their business was under major threat, their profit was going to be demolished. And they hired this devious PR firm who developed essentially what's called the disinformation playbook. And it has about five plays from harassing researchers to conducting counterfeit science, co-opting agencies, co-opting researchers, and, you know, writing editorials, ghostwriting. And they perfected, I mean, look at what tobacco did, right? They had a 50-year run before that big settlement, right, where they couldn't advertise anymore. But they were able to convince the world that tobacco was not as harmful as it was. And they distorted the science, they tried to counter that science and so the way i sum up uh disinformation it's it's what the what industry does when science emerges

that's inconvenient to their interests and so when when i've met them emerge as effective they started to attack it and you know the major here's the last thing I want to say about that is, I believe out of all of the tactics, the most important one, and the single most powerful tactic upon which all of the other tactics are founded, is the control of the high impact medical journals, right? So you know what they are, Kelly, right? It's New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, British Medical Journal, and the Lancet, and Annals of Internal Medicine. Those four journals, not only are they the highest regarded journals, but they're the only ones that move headlines. When you publish something, some new important trial in one of those journals,

you will find headlines across the world. Now, if you publish an important study in a second or third tier journal, oh, people in medicine might notice it, but it does not go widely across the public. And the corruption at those journals is the lesson that I've learned in these two years. And what they did, the kind of trials that they published in there and the kind of trials that they didn't publish in there. So I am in contact with researchers all over the world who did trials on ivermectin. They all were writing to me, we cannot publish. I'm getting rejected from the New England Journal. I'm getting rejected from JAMA. I'm getting rejected from BMJ. And the group of us networks, we understood from early on, you cannot publish positive ivermectin studies in those journals.

They flat out rejected them. And we can segue to active six, but what they did publish, I call them the big five. There's really been five large trials that have made it into the publication on those journals. And each and every one, they're not flawed. All trials and studies have flaws. I don't call these flawed trials. I call these fraudulent trials. It is very clear from the design decisions and how they conducted the trial that numerous decisions were taken to try to not find ivermectin effective. These were deliberate. These were prospective. They know what they're doing. Pharma has been conducting trials for years. They know how to manipulate a trial to make it seem like it's effective, and they really know how to make a trial to fail.

And that's what they've done. And the most egregious one was two weeks ago in the Journal of American Medical Association. That was the first NIH-funded trial on ivermectin. And it was the most brazen fraudulence I've ever seen. They essentially had to manipulate the data to hide the fact that it was a very statistically significant positive study. And they literally manipulated data and concluded that ivermectin was ineffective. It's absolutely shocking. Shocking when you actually look at the study of what they did.

Right. So what I want to do, because I do want to get into that, that's the active six trial, but my purpose in doing so really is twofold, Pierre. It's number one, because I want to talk a little bit about that drug and the fact that there was always safe, effective treatment and frankly, prevention for COVID, but less to focus on ivermectin as a drug and it's important during this but more to use it as a as illustrative of just how far the corruption goes to really look at the bigger picture the meta picture because although this particular study the active six is about ivermectin don't think for a minute that this didn't happen with many, many other things. These same tactics were used. The same disinformation campaign was used for many things, for justifying the lockdowns,

for justifying masks, for justifying social distancing, the vaccines, and on and on, trying to make it appear that we were all at equivalent risk from a virus from which we knew really was a risk to elderly and people with a well-known set of comorbidities and that children weren't at risk. So although we are using the active six trial, and I want you to point out just how it is that it was set up to be a flawed trial, just why it was set up to fail, why it was manipulative in the way they did it, but to use it to be illustrative to the fact that they have done this with many, many, many portions of this pandemic, not just that single drug. Your point is so, so important because I do talk about this because when you look at,

let's say you take ivermectin as a case study, you know, you just gave a half dozen examples. So when you look the actions, so again, what I want to make a point of is that all of those examples you gave, the fraud is conducted at the level of the high impact journals, because that's where they establish, I'm using my air quotes here, the science, right? Once the science has been established at the very, you know, venerable venerable, esteemed journals, once the science is there, now they can spin whatever tale, whatever propaganda, whatever they want you to do, because they're based on science. And so that's the most shocking thing to me is that those high-impact journals will do that. So the vaccines are the mirror image of ivermectin. So whereas all the high impact journals rejected positive studies and only published negative, the vaccines, they only published positive studies and rejected all summary analyses of toxicity and lethality.

And so, I mean, and then when you talk about lockdown, same thing, mask, you saw positive studies on masks. And it's all tactics that emanate from those journals. And that's how they corrupt and co-opt science. Yeah, you're right. And unfortunately, as we say, your average lay person, frankly, your average physician, isn't very well trained in how to read a research study. And that's the unfortunate truth. Most physicians have become lazy, intellectually incurious, and they are strapped for time. So they read the abstract at most. Most people don't even read it. Your average lay person isn't in a position to read and understand what all the counter variables are. What are the potential

flaws in this? So I don't fault the lay people for buying into what they hear on the mainstream media because somebody marches out and says, this is what this big study showed. It's printed in a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, hence, this is now the science. And that's why it's so important. I can't expect the average, you know, individual to pick up a journal article, sit down and dissect it and understand why it was flawed. So take us through, at least at a relatively high level, you know, what are the flaws? What was it about Active Six that made it so absolutely ridiculous as a quote study yeah yeah let's we'll go into active six but you've made such brilliant points so it's you're absolutely right doctors read abstracts they do not have the time to delve deep into the methods into the appendix into the actual first submitted protocol to see all the shenanigans that can be pulled that's one problem. Late people, you're right, they're not in a position to. But I would say what I think is the biggest problem,

and this is what I believed three years ago, is that there's an implicit faith and trust that what gets published in those journals is the most correct, the most sophisticated, the most peer-reviewed by the experts. And that's the problem is it's the implicit faith and trust in those journals. Those journals are totally captured just like our agencies are. And to keep believing that they are telling the truth, it's literally pharma talk. If you want to trust pharma, read those journals. Okay. No, in fact, by the way, by the way, I was just saying, if somebody died and made me king, um, I would change the rules so that the conflict of interest statement that occurs at the very bottom of the,

you know, 39 page, uh, study, uh, should appear before the title, put it before the title. I want to know what the conflicts of interest are there to determine whether or not I even take the time to read the thing because the conflicts are so deep that it's really corrupted the very basis of what we now call science. So I'm sorry. Now, go into active six. That's probably... So I used to teach doctors how to analyze and critically review studies and we always taught that it's important to look at conflicts of interest, but it was one thing in a checklist that I had them do. If I were to teach that class now, it's exactly what you said. I would say the single most important thing you

have to understand about a trial is who did it and what are their conflicts and what is their background? Because that says everything. Okay. So active six funded by the NIH, large trial. They wanted to study mild to moderate outpatient illness. It was started in late Delta, early Omicron. And by the way, active six, the six means it's their sixth round of funding of trials. They've funded dozens of trials in NIH. Three years into that, or two and a half years in the pandemic, they decide to fund a repurposed drug. None of the first five and a half rounds were about repurposed drugs. So here they go. Now they decide to research a repurposed drug. So who is the main funder? It's the NIH. We have to be clear, NIH is pharma, right? Fauci funds research in the service of pharma. So you're ready, you're in trouble here, because the has funded this trial and we know the NIH is not about discovering repurposed drugs.

Right. They hire a whole slew, they give $155 million to Duke University and the team there to study ivermectin. The principal investigator was on the treatment guidelines committee that two months before the award voted to not approve ivermectin. So you already have a conflict of interest on a personal level. She knows she's got $155 million grant riding on studying it. How could she possibly vote to recommend it? Okay. But they did the same thing they did with all of the other big five high-impact journal trials. And I'm just going to tick off the list. So number one, they gave the drug at the lowest dose they possibly

could. Already lower doses had failed. They used a little bit higher dose, but it was lower than previous trials. And they gave it for a short duration as possible. There is no antiviral that is used for three days only. Paxlovid is five. Miravir is seven tamiflu is seven to ten i mean it's absurd you don't use three days only but they purposely limited to three days because they wanted to minimize its efficacy they invented a weight limit so oh if you're above 198 pounds you did not no longer receive dosing per weight and that's how you dose ivermectin it's if you're above 198 pounds you did not no longer receive dosing per weight and that's how you dose ivermectin it's if you're 300 pounds of 350 pounds you're supposed to get the same amount per kilogram that you weigh and they put in this invented ceiling never before been invented until

this pandemic with these trials done by these, you know, conflicted researchers. They started just putting in these ceilings. So they shortened the duration. They put a cap on the total, on the obese. And by the way, as you know, who's at highest risk? The obese. Who got most underdosed? The obese, right? And so those are two things. Then they pulled their other trick, which is they gave the medicines as late as possible into the disease, right? We know antivirals should be started within the first two days of symptoms, right? Paxlovid, their trial, they got everybody in the trial within three days from first symptoms. Molnupiravir, 25,000 person trial, which failed, but they got 25,000 people a median of two days

from first symptoms. What did they do in this trial? It was a median of six, and 25% were more than eight days. And in fact, we got to interact with a subject of that trial who showed us his papers, his informed consent, and he showed us his timeline. I would just briefly say that when he reached out after being sick for a couple of days to try to get in the trial, by the time they got back to him, registered him, informed consent, got the mail, shipped to him, he got it on day 13 and he was already recovered. But that's not even what they did. So despite all of those machinations, Kelly, here's what happened. They actually screwed up. They were trying to prove it didn't work. And guess

what happened? The data showed that there was a statistically significant reduction in the time to recovery. Symptoms at day 14, they were comparing symptoms at day 14, was very positively, statistically significant in favor of ivermectin. So what did they do? Six months into the trial, they changed the endpoint. The original endpoint was difference in symptoms at day 14. Wait for it, Kelly. They changed it to difference in symptoms at day 28. Now, I hope your viewers can understand what that does if you get coveted on day one by day 28 you're either dead or you're fine right right so how can you find a difference a month later after you got ill right right so despite the fact that they underdosed they gave it for too short a period of time too late in the disease, and then ended up

change. In order to show, to prove, quote, that it didn't work, they had to wait a month when, as you said, either anybody who had COVID either would be better or dead. So, I mean, this is so many, and there's no way, the problem is there's no way that the average layperson and frankly, that the average physician would necessarily pick up on these purposeful design flaws in this study. As you said, there is no infectious disease, frankly, that benefits from waiting until day six or seven for treatment. When you have strep throat, when you have tuberculosis,

if you have influenza, you have, you know, meningitis, you have pneumonia. It's, in fact, the clock is ticking and we are graded as physicians on how quickly you get the patient on therapeutics after they present with those symptoms. Waiting until day six,

half the dose, you know, and for too short a period of time, all of those things tee up to an absolutely fraudulent trial. And then they still had to manipulate the data. Okay. So go from there. Yeah. So let me, let's go into one other thing, that timeline of that subject that we talked to. So he's, he's interacting with the trial investigators or coordinators. And then all of a sudden he's like waiting to get registered and get his medicines. But guess what happened? Saturday and Sunday came about.

Radio silence. So you have a potential subject ill with COVID, and they appear to be closed on weekends. No communication on the weekend. They enroll him the next week. I think he gets his meds the following Tuesday. So that's just another just absurd and comical maneuver that they pulled, they literally were letting people like hang in the wind on weekends. Okay. The the main thing is, when they changed

their primary endpoint from difference symptoms of 14 days, they said in the paper, they said we did this because we were underpowered. And you know what underpowered means. It's a little bit of an arcane statistical concept, but basically it means that they didn't have enough outcomes to compare. So they said, that's why we're changing it. So they gave some, I'm going to say some silly excuse, why they're changing the endpoint. And as you know, it's a huge no-no in prospective randomized controlled trials to change your endpoint. And it's considered not only not to be done, it's not acceptable, it's really bad science. But when they changed it to this ridiculous

28-day difference, they said that it was underpowered. But here's the kicker. In their paper, they never published the original endpoint data. You would think if it was truly underpowered and not a significant result, present that. They did not present that data. They just presented the new outcome data. But you could see from some of the other secondary endpoints that it was statistically significant at seven days. It was statistically significant at 14 days. And at 28 days, there was still a benefit from ivermectin, but it was statistically significant at seven days. It was statistically significant at 14 days. And at 28 days, there was still a benefit from ivermectin, but it was not statistically significant. And so they write the abstract conclusion, just like you said,

this indicates that ivermectin has no role in the early treatment of COVID-19. And that's what the doctors read. They trust these journals. This is the NIH, the revered NIH, the top doctors and scientists in the country. You know, the usual nonsense that most of the doctors are believing and they're being lied to. They're being lied to blatantly and brazenly right on the cover of these medical journals. Right. And it's been, that study has now been called the quote, final nail in the coffin for IVM as a treatment for COVID. And don't think that the same thing didn't happen, as I said, with HCQ and the other medications at the FLCCC and others have protocols that include not a single drug, by the way, that's also really important. It's this cocktail of drugs that is tailored to the particular symptoms an individual is having. And it

certainly includes IVM and HCQ, but also steroids and fluvoxamine and blood thinners and vitamin D and vitamin C and zinc and all of these other things. So it's a protocol. And that, as I said in the past, is what physicians have been lauded for. It's what differentiates a great physician from a mediocre one. And I think it is absolutely unconscionable that these journals have gotten away from it. And it is critical, the work you are doing to expose it. This is something that you have been indefatigable in terms of exposing this level of fraud and corruption. So let's now transition a little bit to talking about my favorite topic, the quote vaccines. And that's where I'll use my air quotes, the vaccines. And I will put it on the record. I am not anti-vaccine. I've been called a vaccine

zealot in the past because I have spoken and written prolifically on the importance of vaccines. It's these particular vaccines and the fact that they were launched with an absolute paucity of safety data behind them. We have no idea what the long-term impacts are. And I mean, even 24 months,

let alone 36, 48, 60 month data is going to look like with regard to fertility issues, autoimmune diseases, cancers, neurologic issues, and on and on. So I was listening back to the original FDA advisory hearings and the most recent ones now recommending this new bivalent vaccine. And it is clear, they know there's no data behind it and they don't care. They have actually said, we don't have what we need,

but it looks like it could be good and we're gonna study it going forward. Talk a little bit about where you stand on these vaccines. We have got countries all around the world now, including, you know, Sweden, the UK, Australia now, stopping recommending these vaccines. Talk, you know, where do we stand here in the US? Why are we doing what we're doing? Yeah. So that's really important, Kelly, what you just said, those countries stopping these vaccines, they're starting slow, just in young people, just males. Denmark's the farthest.

They said no one under 50 at low risk. But the data for a stopping point was reached in January of 2021, right? You know that, and I know that, right? When these were rolled out, just in VAERS database in the United States, within three weeks, you had well over a thousand deaths reported and many, many thousands of adverse events. We've never seen something this toxic and lethal. And when that was brought to my attention, literally like the second week of January 2021, I was encouraged as anyone else, all right, we have a vaccine, maybe we can get out of this

craziness and make things go sane. But then I saw that data and then I started to follow it. And you have to be very careful because the US data is really corrupted. But if you start looking at different health departments, agencies, different countries, health data are much more transparent in what they shared. The story got worse and worse and worse and worse. And then now that you had the Pfizer documents, now you can see, Kelly, they knew these things were toxic and didn't work right at the trial. They doctored and manipulated those trials. And so you cannot go deep enough to find the beginnings of this fraud.

But what was alarming is watching the data around these vaccines, the adverse data showing toxicity, lethality, and inefficacy. Yet, as the data mounted, the craziness over vaccines was doubled and tripled. The mandates, the divisions, the polarizations, the attacks, the non-invitations to Thanksgiving and Christmas, the breaks up of longtime friendships, even partners, husbands and wives over these vaccines, and the vaccines were built on lies. And now, let's move away from that, because now we're literally in the middle of a humanitarian catastrophe. You know, you mentioned birth rates, it's much worse than that. I mean, we're seeing plummeting birth rates never before been described on a month to month basis, starting the first quarter of 2022, about nine months after the ramping up of these campaigns. The second thing is we suddenly started

jabbing pregnant women. I mean, we have a century of an ethical practice around pregnancy, right? Which is that you really want to make sure it's safe for the mother and baby before you subject them to a medical intervention. It wasn't tested in pregnant women, yet the entire system, suddenly a novel experimental product, which has really ugly data around it, is starting to jab pregnant women. That I will never forget what they did to pregnant women. And now we see from the Pfizer documents, the miscarriage rates were through the roof. They buried it into these small little tables and pretended that the data wasn't really there. They didn't calculate the percentages, but you're talking about, I think it was a 78% miscarriage rate in the pregnancies that they followed. And so the fraud is so immense and the damage is indescribable. It literally is a humanitarian

catastrophe. And that point you brought up about this country and that country, like it's the first time anything's made sense around these vaccines is finally I'm seeing countries at the country level saying enough. But the one thing that gets me angry about that, it's about myocarditis. It's not about myocarditis. It's about everything. It's about tons of side effects and deaths and strokes and heart attacks and cancers. Exactly. So, you know, another thing that the Pfizer documents said they hid that there were skeletal abnormalities in the fetuses, that they were rib abnormalities. Since when do we give, does anyone remember thalidomide? You know, we've had other drugs that got rolled out where there were profound skeletal abnormalities,

yet Pfizer hid that. They also hid, we know from the beginning, from before these vaccines were launched, the three, what I call the three big lies. Number one, we were told that the vaccine would stay in the deltoid muscle where it was injected. When we know from their leaked document prior to the vaccine rollout, that they knew that that mRNA went to every major organ system within hours. And importantly, that 11% of it concentrated in the reproductive organs, the ovaries and the testes. Number two, we were told that you would eliminate the mRNA very, very quickly within hours, within days at most. They knew from the beginning that the mRNA stuck around and continued to form spike proteins in excess of 30 days in all of their subjects.

And thirdly, we were told that no way, no how could it get reverse transcribed and make it into the DNA of your cells. That's not how it works. And I believe that because in the past, we haven't seen that, but they knew already that that happened, that it got reverse transcribed within six hours. So this was all, and these were fraudulent documents or documents that have only come to be exposed as fraud because of aggressive FOIA requests recently.

So, and you are right, they keep focusing on myocarditis. Not that that, you know, every single bit of heart muscle is critical, and that's certainly a huge thing. But what about all of the other things? The huge increase in all-cause mortality, the increase in disability, the decrease in birth rates that aren't, by the way, happening. Those same things are not happening in areas of the world that haven't been highly vaccinated. Places like sub-Saharan Africa and India, they aren't seeing a change in their birth rates. They aren't seeing an increase in all-cause

mortality, and they aren't seeing an increase in disabilities. It's only in the highly vaccinated areas. So really, big picture. You and I have been physicians for a long time. Where are we going? If these numbers continue at the rates we are seeing them now, increases in cancers, increases in heart attacks, strokes, fertility issues, increases in autoimmune issues, where do you see this going from your purview? Yeah. So yeah, I have negatives and positives. So let's go back to the statement, right about these countries now starting to roll back, pull back the boosters. I also think they're doing that because the people aren't showing up anymore. I think there's enough of the population who

doesn't need to listen to journals anymore. They have a first degree relative, a first contact friend who've been injured or dead. Okay. So I think the uptake for these vaccines are going to be less, but the damage has already been done. And I think the uptake for these vaccines are going to be less, but the damage has already been done. And I think for the next year or two, you're going to see this huge spike in the cancers, excess mortality will continue. But as we start moving away and hopefully there's more vaccine hesitancy, what we need is more vaccine hesitancy and that is being created. So I don't know what the next two years will look like. But here's another thing, Kelly, you didn't mention is RSV and flu right now. We are seeing higher rates at this point in the season, like 10 to 20 to 30 fold, depending on what age group we're talking about and what kind of vaccinated state you're in.

We've never seen those numbers in any prior year. And what that is, it's not necessarily a direct result of the vaccine. It's actually what I believe it's the lockdowns. It's the fact that nobody has had natural immunity from March of 2020 to around March of 2021, when the lockdown started to get pulled back. And so now that with the immune suppression of these vaccines, this mass vaccination campaign, I'm really scared about the winter just in terms of flu and RSV. We have a lot of natural immunity to COVID now. I don't think COVID's going to come so much anymore unless some crazy new variant comes out. No, I think you're spot on. And I agree with

you. I think the increase in severe cases of RSV that we are seeing is directly related to those two things. It's because people's immune system, particularly children, have become senescent. They've gone to sleep fundamentally because of two and a half years of not being exposed to anything and social distancing and bathing and Purell and all the rest of the lockdowns. So people's immune systems are stunted, but then the immune suppressive effect of the vaccines themselves. We know these vaccines have an immunosuppressive impact. We know that people do not mount the expected immune response in the future when they are exposed to COVID. It's why at five months

after the third shot, there's actually negative efficacy. You have a higher risk of contracting COVID than has you never been vaccinated at all. And it's the reason why I have grave concerns about increases in cancers, because people have got to realize by now that your immune system is the first line of defense against cancer. The immune system doesn't just fight bacteria and viruses. It fights, it recognizes or is supposed to recognize abnormal cells and say, wow, that colon cell doesn't look right, right? And gobble it up. You know, that breast cell doesn't look quite right and eliminate it.

If you have a suppressed immune system, God help us. And there's no question we're seeing resurgence of cancers that had previously been deemed to be in remission. So I have really big concerns. I agree with you, however, that the vaccine hesitancy is coming. My concern with that piece is you're asking people to specify that to vaccine hesitancy about COVID. My concern as a public health person is, will they expand that and say, you know, that was such a debacle with the COVID vaccines, maybe I won't get my kid vaccinated for polio or measles

or mumps or chickenpox or all of the other vaccines that really have reasonably good safety profiles behind them and what I don't want to see is a huge increase, and I suspect we will, in things like polio because of that vaccine hesitancy and the fact that people just aren't going to get the routine things. So how do you message it so that they run away from any more COVID boosters, but not the others. I don't know.

You're asking, one of the questions is how do you repair the trust when you saw such a flagrant violation of medical ethics, good stewardship, good medical guidance from authorities who are pushing other vaccines? The challenge is I've looked into other vaccines and a lot of them have not very good support for them. So I'm not, I don't want to get into that bigger topic, but I think what's going to happen is what you said. People are going to start now asking real questions and wanting to be sure what is the data? How much protection? How safe is it? And I actually think that's a good thing.

Again, if it leads to vaccine hesitancy, which causes other epidemics, luckily we have treatment. How about that? That's one thing we learned in COVID, Kelly, is we have like over, I looked at the meta-analysis that we have 43 effective antivirals with trials behind them. So I actually think that if we can get out the repurposed drug war and people start using pragmatic, safe and effective medicines, we can handle stuff. No, and I agree with you, by the way, I've become far more circumspect about my blanket trust in vaccines because of this myself.

Looking at things like the HPV vaccines and some others. So the topic for another day. But I think repairing the trust that the public has in public health, in our agencies, CDC, NIH, FDA, is going to take a long, long time, frankly, if it ever happens. One of the things, we just got passed here in California, where I sit today, AB 2098, which fundamentally criminalizes a physician speaking against the accepted narrative. So now, I have to tell you, Pierre, it's less scary for me as a physician than it should be for anybody who's a patient. Because now you need to wonder, when you go to see a doctor, at least in the state of California,

if that doctor recommends something, says, well, this is absolutely what I think you should do, Pierre, or this is the course of treatment I recommend, you need to ask yourself as a patient, is that really what Dr. Corey believes? Is that really what dr. Corey believes is that really what dr. Corey would have gained from reading the literature from studying it from looking at at the research or is that just because dr. Corey has to pay his mortgage and doesn't want to lose his medical license and and that I will tell you is a scary place to be as a lay person as a patient no question it's the patients that are going to suffer i mean the doctors and patients right right right so i know you know this is really

an opinion question but one that drew and i ask each other a lot um we talked about it a little at the beginning with regard to big pharma uh and money but it's really gets down to this whole package, the why. Why? Why did this happen? I didn't fall off the turnip truck. I know that money is a great driver of behavior, but you'd be hard pressed at this point, Pierre, in the pandemic to say that this is just about money? No, you're absolutely right. So when I speak, I only go to that level. I put it at the feet of pharma and financial seeking of profit, but only because it's the most, I think, relatable, ingestible, understandable by most. When you start going to what could be the other objectives, and they are apparent. So there are some who hypothesize that this was about

consolidating control over society. Clearly that happened. The control and absolute rigid control of not only the health system, but general society almost overnight happened. So if that was their goal, they accomplished it. Some others think this is a depopulation thing, right? There's data showing that. I mean, I have lots of data on dropping birth rates, miscarriages, and excess mortality. I mean, they're literally, we're losing, we're not replacing those that are dying, they're dying at a higher rate. So you could say, check, if that was their objective, there's data to support that. And then there's the ultimate objective, which is this great reset, right with

this digital currencies for ultimate control over all of society. And you're starting to see smatterings of evidence of that, that there's these proposal for digital currency, there's a lot of evidence to show that the WF has some really strange plans for the globe. And they seem this seems to be marching along on those objectives. So I think there are multiple things that could be achieved, but I'm most comfortable just leaving it at pharma. But I agree with you.

That's why it's an important question. And I know that's why you and Drew talk about it a lot. No, no, I agree. As I always say, the only thing that differentiates a conspiracy theorist from a truth teller is about three months because the stuff ends up coming out. So anyway, we got to start to wrap this up. I so appreciate you being here. And I meant it was not just greasing your skids when I said you are one of my favorite truth tellers in this entire thing. You've been

indefatigable and out there on every step of it. So I appreciate you. Anything else you'd like to get on the record before we sign off? Yeah, I just want everyone to know that my organization and my practice, we focus on treating long haulers and the vaccine injured. The nonprofit where we have our protocols for treatment and we just gave a good, the first, world's first conference on the treatment of spike protein related disease, which is long haul and vaccine injured.

That's at flccc.net. My practice is at drpierricorey.com. We see patients with all those illnesses and we're getting really good at helping them. And so, and then lastly, my Substack, which is pierrecory.substack.com. I write a lot on these issues that we talked about. Well, thank you. You are brave and you have integrity and there's not much else you need in this world. So thank you for joining us. I really appreciate it. We'll talk soon. Thank you. Definitely. Take care now. And thanks to all of you who put up with my filling in for Drew.

Hopefully, I don't think we had any technical difficulties, although we may have been kicked off. I'll find out from Caleb later. I will be hosting again next Wednesday, day before Thanksgiving, with Dr. Harvey Reich. So make sure to put that on your calendar. It's the day before Thanksgiving. It's a perfect time to tune in and arm yourself with facts, figures, and data so you can show up at the Thanksgiving table. Arm to enter into uncomfortable political and scientific topics that will be sure to be a real showstopper.

You know, hopefully you won't get people to leave. But feel free to follow me for uh more family holiday tips um if you want to discuss uh to discuss science at the if it's anything like my tape you know my family you know at least three people have left in a huff before the giblet gravy has been passed so um you know hopefully we will give you some some really good data harvey re Reich is always wonderful. And then Drew and team will be back at the end of the week for a show on Friday, the 25th day after Thanksgiving with Tulsi Gabbard.

So it should be a really interesting conversation. And then we've got a great lineup going forward on our Wednesday shows. We've got Dr. Ryan Cole on November 30th, and then Joe Latipo, the Surgeon General from Florida, the following Wednesday, which I believe is the 7th of December. And then David Weissman coming up on December 14th. He's a PhD pharmacologist who's got some really great background and information to share. So we've got lots, lots more good shows coming, but thank you for joining me here today. And I will see hopefully you on Wednesday, day before Thanksgiving with Dr. Harvey Reich.

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.