Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 506 | Doctor Exposes Shocking Plot to Demonize Ivermectin | Guest: Dr. Pierre Kory

Episode Date: October 14, 2021

Today we're talking to Dr. Pierre Kory, president of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, who has dedicated much of his time to spreading accurate information about COVID and ways to treat the virus. Specifically, Dr. Kory is adamant about correcting the record on ivermectin, which the mainstream media has dubbed nothing more than "horse dewormer." However, the situation is much more nuanced than that, and Dr. Kory explains how the drug works and how it interacts with COVID. We also discuss the deep corruption in the medical industry and the coordinated effort from these major companies to spread disinformation about ivermectin and suppress its use. *Disclaimer: The content of this clip does not provide medical advice. Please seek the advice of local health officials for any COVID-19 and/or COVID vaccine-related questions & concerns. Timestamps: (00:00) Intro (01:30) Interview: What Does Science Actually Say About Ivermectin? (15:25) Interview: Why Is Big Pharma Suppressing Ivermectin? (39:29) Interview: Dr. Kory's Thoughts on the Vaccine (45:01) Interview: Why Some Pharmacists Won't Fill Ivermectin Prescriptions (52:19) Interview: How to Get Ivermectin (53:42) Interview: What About Natural Immunity? (58:42) Outro --- Today's Sponsors: Annie's Kit Clubs are a great way to be creative & enjoy your favorite hobbies without the hassle — and they have an amazing selection to choose from: crocheting, knitting, card-making, jewelry-making, quilting, sewing & more. Go to AnniesKitClubs.com/ALLIE & save 50% on your first kit! Fundrise provides access to diversified portfolios of private real estate to ALL investors with their industry leading, easy-to-use platform. See for yourself how 150,000 investors have built a better portfolio with private real estate at Fundrise.com/RELATABLE — it takes just a few minutes to get started. Good Ranchers safely deliver American craft beef & better than organic chicken right to your door, individually wrapped, vacuum sealed, & ready to grill. Go to GoodRanchers.com/ALLIE to place a one-time order OR subscribe & save 20% on each box of mouth-watering meats. Plus, get an additional $20 off & free express shipping when you use promo code 'ALLIE' at checkout! --- Show Link: Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance: https://bit.ly/3DB9g4I --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Hey, guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Thursday.

I am super excited for you to listen to today's interview with Dr. Pierre Corey. He is Dr. Pierre Corey of America's frontline doctors. As you probably know him, he has been on several podcasts talking about the benefits. of Ivermacton. This is a controversial topic. It's probably going to get us taken off YouTube because you're not allowed to talk about this. So I have to say this disclaimer. The content of this clip does not provide medical advice. Please seek the advice of local health officials for any COVID-19 and or COVID vaccine related questions and concerns. I know that you're going to, I know that you're going to appreciate this conversation, though, because he is very knowledgeable.

He has been treating patients for the entire pandemic. He has a lot of experience. And he's not just going to tell us about Ivermectin what it is. Is it just hors dewormer? He is going to bust some myths about it that have been perpetuated by the media. And then we're going to uncover some of the corruption that we are seeing in our public health bureaucracies. And I'm super excited for you to learn from him. So without further ado, here is Dr. Pierre Corey.

Dr. Corey, thank you so much for joining us. I know a lot of people, myself included, have been following you for a very long time. People in my audience know who you are. But in case there are a few people who don't, can you tell us who you are and what you do? Yeah, so I'm Dr. Pierre-Core and I am a lung and ICU specialist. And I'm also the president and chief medical officer of an organization where a nonprofit organization of five, sort of experts in our field in critical care medicine, ICU medicine, who got together and our only mission was really to create the most effective treatment protocols for COVID-19. And we've

done that and we've just tried to disseminate the efficacy and knowledge around them. And you are most famous, or depending on who you talk to, infamous for your promotion of ivermectin. Now, some people only know of ivermectin as a horse to wormer, the people, people have been overdosing on left and right that is very dangerous and is irresponsible to promote. Can you correct the record on that? Yeah. So, yeah, the word promote sort of gives me the sort of it, you know, because it's not really promotion.

It's we're really trying to disseminate knowledge around a treatment. But this, this conflation with horse paste, you know, I've been at this fight for so long that I've stopped mincing words and I just call it like I see it. Go for. And I'll let history be the judge. But I've had a front row seat to the science and how it's been distorted. But this conflation with horse paste is an absolutely egregious, concerted and actually pre-planned action. You're actually watching a PR campaign unfold.

It's what's called disinformation tactics. And they've been long employed by corporate interests when science. is inconvenient to their financial interests. Okay. And so the disinformation tactics were first developed and absolutely used to incredible effect by the tobacco industry for 50 years. And you're actually seeing those tactics play out again with Ivermectin. And they are absolutely expert.

There's billions of dollars behind that effort. They have one goal. They have to suppress Ivermectin. And so they called it a horsy worm. They put out misinformation about poisonings and people going to the hospital, which were quickly debunked. But it's very hard to roll back in a lie. And then you had the entire media calling Ivermectin a horse drug when it's actually, you know, the discovers won the Nobel Prize for eradicating two like globally endemic diseases, which which absolutely elevated the health status of massive amounts of low and middle. income countries. It was so profound the impacts on public health that they won the Nobel Prize.

It's a human drug. It treats a number of diseases, mostly known for its antiparacetic infection, but it's now known as a profoundly potent antiviral. And so I'm just going to call out the distortion. It's willful. It's deliberate. And it is being conducted by those with financial interest. I'm sorry, as a scientist, as a researcher, as a doctor, I have to call that out because I literally have had to get a crash course in why the science is being distorted. I couldn't understand it at first. And every day, it's clearer and clearer. And I want to ask you more about that. But first, for people who don't know, who maybe have only heard kind of the mainstream narrative about it, that, okay, it's a horse dewormer at worst. At best, it might be an antiparetic

drug that was used to treat, you know, river blindness and in Africa, but it has no antiviral components. That's actually what I've heard some people in my audience say when I've talked about it in the past, citing you, that people have said, well, yeah, it was used for that, but it's not used for, it's not used for COVID. It's not effective towards viruses. Can you explain to us how you have found that it is actually effective in treating COVID? So, Ali, I appreciate that question because I just want to talk about that question because that's a good example of, you know, I get accused of misinformation a lot. And I feel, I see people, you know, expressing opinions with no knowledge of the topic, no deep read in the topic, but yet they're able to dismiss

it as not an antiviral. When, you know, when you talk to scientists who've been studying this, and I consider myself one of the foremost experts on the drug in COVID, it is a potent antiviral. And here's the thing, little-known fact that nobody knows is that it's been known as an antiviral since 2012. You know, there's a decade of basic science studies in a number of viral models. So Zika, Dengue, West Nile, HIV, influenza, and then SARS-CoV-2. Because scientists knew that in the lab, it was absolutely stopping the replication of viruses for 10 years, they did a lab study in April of 2020.

And they published it then. And it rocked the world. Everybody saw that study. And the challenge you had is we had a pandemic. And all you had was a basic science like cell culture model. And it showed profound efficacy in the lab. But very few drugs actually make it from the bench to the bedside. But after 10 years of bench positive results, people brought it to the bedside.

And that's what I'm sitting here. I'm the clinical expert. I'm not a basic science expert. it, but it stands on a mountain of evidence showing antiviral properties. And it's been proven now in COVID. And how exactly does it work? If you are able to explain it to someone who doesn't have a medical background, how does ivermectin work to either treat COVID or even I think I've heard you spoken of being able to prevent COVID, right? It's, yeah, it's perfect. So the first thing I want to say about it is it literally has, we don't even know how many mechanisms it has. We have at least

seven that are reasonably elucidated, and so it has multiple mechanisms. The one that I put at the top is that in numerous studies that are called encylico, which is interesting words. Insilico means computer modeling. So in computer modeling studies, Ivermectin is like the tightest, the drug that one is most tightly binds to the spike protein. It also binds to the ACE2 receptor domain. If you know anything about COVID, the virus enters the cell through the ACE2 receptor via the spike protein attaching to it. So now you have a drug which attaches to both of those components. It prevents entry. And so when you ask about what could it be how it works in prevention, well, if the Avrimectin attacks the virus when it comes into the body and binds to it and prevents entry, that's why you don't get sick.

So I think that's the prevailing mechanism for prevention, but it has numerous other ones. So it interrupts a number of viral replicative process. So it interrupts the enzymes that it needs to make copies of itself. It interrupts the formation of what it called non-structural and structural proteins. And the list goes on on the antiviral bucket. The reason why I say bucket is because there's another bucket of mechanisms which are anti-inflammatory. And those are just fascinating. It decreases cytokine production.

It decreases the levels of one of the most potent instigators of inflammation. So as my colleague, Professor Merrick, who started our group, I mean, he's sort of the big brain of the operation. He's actually the most highly published practicing intensivists in the world. And he's the leader of our group. And, you know, as he says, this drug was a gift to us. The way I say it is that if you were to design a drug for the disease that is called COVID, you would want a drug that has potent antiviral properties as well as potent anti-inflammatory properties so that it could work in each phase.

The evidence besides on ivermectin is the strongest prevention, very strong early, and then its efficacy wanes with everyday delay in the disease, which is as to be expected. And that's why our protocols employ combinations of therapies. It's not just ivermectin, but it is centered around ivermectin. And even though America, or at least the pharmaceutical industry in America and the mainstream in America is, you know, trying to. as you put it, you know, disseminate misinformation about it. There's a PR campaign against it.

There are other countries that have been using Ibermacton as part of their official protocol, correct? Can you talk about that? Yeah. And so that blitzkrieg of misinformation in the U.S., you know, it actually is really strong in numerous other Western countries. So like we have a map. And when I lecture, I have a map of the countries around the world. And I shade in the ones where it's in the national guidelines.

and or regional. And you'll see just dark areas over Western Europe, North America, Australia. I mean, that's where the, that misinformation suppressing its use is the highest. But if you look at Central America and South America, it's in numbers of national guidelines. You look at two states in Argentina. And I'm going to point out the ones with the most clear data. Because the problem that you read about, if you read about it, this, the media, is they say, oh, it's used in these countries, but it doesn't help. Look at their

case counts. And it is true in some countries, like, for instance, Brazil, it's sporadic, it's fragmented, it's over the counter. You don't really know if they're using it the right doses, the rations, who's using it. But if you look at, for instance, Argentina, there's two states in Argentina. One is called La Pampas and the other one is called Missiones. And their health ministries started an early test and treat program with ivermectin. And anyone who tested positive, they gave them actually a good dose, a pretty high dose, which is three times like the standard dose from historically for five days. And they're reporting between, you know, 55 and 88 percent reductions in mortality. And the reductions in hospitalization is the same. And these are just,

You know, they compare it to those in their state who got the treatment versus those don't. And the patients are well matched. And so it's dramatic impacts. And Mexico City is the same. They also did a test and treat program. You know, 25 million people live in Mexico City. They increased their mobile testing units. They went to the hardest hit areas.

And in rapid test and treat, anyone who tested positive, boom, you got three days of Ivermectin. And in that program, they actually gave 12 milligrams, which I considered quite a low dose for COVID. And so I call their results the minimum of what Ivermectin can achieve. It's the minimum. And with three days of 12 milligrams, they found basically around a 70 to 75 percent reduction in hospitalization. They emptied their hospitals last winter with this massive treatment program in Mexico City. And, you know, Ellie, again, part of this misinformation, not only it's distorting the science, attacking the trials, but you hear crickets about this in the United States. No newspaper will cover it.

No academic medical center addresses it. And it's beyond absurd. And I'm going to put a placeholder, because I know my answer is long, but at some point I'm going to revisit the test and treat program of all the test and treat program. which is what happened in Uttar Pradesh. But we'll get to that. And I just wanted to put out there that numbers of countries, numbers of regions have used it effectively in a really aggressive public health policy with just tremendous results, tremendous results.

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos.

If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this Steve Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Let's talk about the why a little bit. You've talked about this before. I've even seen it on your Twitter page. You're talking about the corruption of these pharmaceutical industries colluding with, well, this is me saying this. This is not you. It seems like they're colluding with the federal government. They're colluding with people like Fauci. They're colluding with the media to try to suppress information about Ivermactin. But why? I mean, we've been told that these three entities so care about our health. They're the ones that take the virus most seriously. And, you know, they might call people like me COVID deniers, which is not true for simply asking these questions. So, so what's behind it? If they really say that they care about our health, why are they suppressing the science on this? So, Ali, that's the question is the answer. So let's just talk about the question because I want to say that I have been, I have gone through

this. I mean, I will, I've said this before. I will never be the same. man or physician in society again. And it's because what you've heard, Rita talked about in books, what you've heard intimated in articles about this concept of regulatory capture. And regulatory capture is when agencies, which are purportedly have the primary mission of the public health of its citizens, are captured by those with other interests like financial. And that's been well described. can go to any university in this country and you can take classes on the topic of regulatory capture. I mean, I'm not the one inventing it.

Right. And you would think, you know, I always, I kind of make this joke, although nothing's funny, but I always might feel like, you know, okay, the normal state of regulatory capture, you know, now that we're in a pandemic and societies are being created, cratered around the world, you know, okay, boys, can you take a break on the regulatory capture for a bit until we get the shipwrited and then you can go back to business as usual. What I found out was that the opposite is true. The regulatory capture has reached absurd and humanitarian crisis levels.

They are rapacious and they won't stop. And so when you say that these agencies have public health as their primary purpose, I went into this pandemic fully believing that. I mean, I would have, everyone assumes that the guidance that comes out of agencies is best on the best available science, by the best experts, you know, who the top of their fields who are in that, that is simply not true. Those are Byzantine bureaucratic organizations. I would say the majority of people in them are very committed to what they do. I would say they are principled. They are expert. They try to do the best job. Where I feel that it's rotten is it's

brought in the top, you don't get to lead agencies where at the head of a massive biomedical industrial complex, literally a biomedical industrial complex where billions of dollars are at stake. You don't get to lead those agencies if your primary purpose is the public health of the citizens. And that's what I've had to learn. You get there because you know how to cooperate, work with, and essentially become influenced by pharma. And so I just have to say that the question is the answer. You're asking, like, why would the agencies do this if their primary purpose and primary mission is to elevate and maintain the public health of the citizens?

As a physician, I used to believe that. And I cannot accept that question because it's just false. And you know how I know it's false is because I became an expert at a drug that is life saving that literally is what I've called the penicillin of COVID that's that effective. And all I've seen is that science, which is unassailable because it derives from observational control trials, randomized control trials, case series, thousands of doctors' experiences around the world. And then these epidemiologic studies, like I just cited.

And despite all that, the agencies recommend against use. and it's inexplicable, indefensible, and it's unconscionable. And it violates all the principles of science. Like, people don't understand how perverse this topic of ivermectin is. So let me just give you an example of how perverse it is. If you look at the approval of ivermectin for the disease stronglydeysis by the FDA in the 90s, they approved it based on five randomized controlled trials. and 594 patients. Five randomized controlled trials, 594 patients. Ivermactin now sits on 34 randomized

controlled trials involving thousands of patients, and yet they can't seem to recommend. The observational control trials, if you total the both of them, it's 64 controlled trials with only three that don't show benefit. And when you summarize them and you perform that analyses, they're profoundly effective. And in the history of recommendation, guideline recommendations from the WHO, especially on repurpose drugs, because you'd never get big pharma trials around repurpose drugs. There's no money. There's no incentives. And that's actually what's wrong with our system is that it's really kind of designed for pharma drugs to sail through the regulatory process and repurpose drugs just can't, the bar is too high. But in the WHO, in the history of their

recommendations, most of their recommendations are based on a paucity of trials, very few randomized controlled trials, and all with like low to moderate quality. But in a pandemic, with 64 trials, observation randomized, no major agency around the world can even give a cautious recommendation. And so if someone at, so I'm putting that out as evidence. I don't want to sound unhinged and crazy by, you know, calling these assertions. My assertions are based. on anomalies and aberrancies between the science and the behavior of the agencies, which are inexplicable and indefensible. Wow. So what you're saying is these agencies, the CDC, I'm guessing, and you can correct

me if I'm wrong, CDC, WHO, the NIH, and the heads of these organizations are what, they're in bed with pharma because they are also trying to, achieve the goal of pharma to just make profit. And that's why they're focusing almost exclusively on the vaccine and they're not interested in something like ivermectin because ivermectin doesn't make them money. Like is it mostly a profit motive? It's clearly a profit motive. It's a career motive.

It's how you keep your job. How is that? Can you explain that? Like how does Dr. Fauci benefit from, you know, being in bed with pharma? Ooh. So if you want me to do in a psychological analysis of Dr. Kousi, you know, I also have to, I have to reach the limits of what I can say to an accurate fashion. So my last answer is really based on the fact that I find it as someone who analyzes problems, who's a problem solver who looks at data, makes conclusions. based on the data and the behaviors, the only conclusion I can reach is that they are non-scientific

objectives that are being pursued, non-scientific objectives, which are financial or policy, okay? But they're not based on science, period. Now, when you ask me, how does that work? Why would they behave that? What are their interests? Well, the two main interests that I've seen in the behavior of masses of physical, physicians and public health officials. The main incentive is to remain employed. If you speak up,

if you challenge what is clearly forces that are saying, you know, we need to do this, which is, for instance, if you've ever heard of the term the noble lie, so the noble lie was actually first to describe by Plato. By the way, if I'm going too much into rabbit holes here, you just let me know. We'll get back to. It's great. It's great. But, you know, what I think is happening with this pandemic is the agencies are employing what are called noble lies. I have a lot of trouble calling them noble anymore. But the noble lie is a lie in which it's used to further a higher purpose. Okay. Yeah. So if you view, if you choose to view Ivermectin as an enemy of this mass vaccination policy, as an impediment, as something that will disturb it, then

you can convince yourself and you can go to bed at night that you participating in attacks and suppressing ivermectin is for a higher goal that by the way that is the most kind interpretation i will ever come up with yeah and and i think that maybe in the beginning some thought they were participating in a noble lie or not even a noble lie they're all being influenced to say you know they're actually listening to farm if you ever see you ever see If you know the history of what's happened, like Merck actually put out a statement, Merck, a pharmaceutical company, put out a statement in February, damning the idea that Ivermectin is infected.

There's no clinical evidence. There's no reason to think it would work. And we don't think it's safe. By the way, it's one of the safest drugs in history. When that came out, anybody knew anything about Ivermectin was appalled. And guess what? Agencies, even the WHO has cited the PR release. by Merck as evidence that Ivermectin doesn't work.

They never gave any data to support that. No authors, no papers, no manuscript, nothing. And yet the agencies are citing the public relations office of a pharmacy. So when I talk about the absurdities, I can't get there. But going back to like how they do it, some of it is nobly. I think they're trying to further policies so they suppress Ivermectin. But what I really think is you don't get to the top unless you know how to play well with pharma. And if you promote an advance and approve a repurpose drug in lieu of these massive profit makers,

so what I believe is this pharmaciden and ivormectin, which occurred since August, where you saw through the media, the newspapers, the CDC putting out their cautious bulletins, the FDA attacking it as a horse drug and unsafe, the state departments of health following suit, all the academic medical societies jumping in, what you're seeing is actually the structure of a system. And you see the awesome power of those agencies. Because when they come out with a recommendation, literally you see everyone follow suit. Like the societies, they're dependent on federal research dollars. They're all researchers.

If they speak up or fight that central narrative, what happens to their research career? what happens to their institutional funding? Nobody can speak. They want to remain employed and they want to preserve their careers. And so when you ask me about incentives, that's so much what I've seen, the paucity of whistleblowers on this is absolutely historic. Yeah. And I've also noticed that when a lot of people, if they're arguing against the use of Ifermectin or some other things that we've talked about on our podcast, like the masking of two-year-olds that's still happening in some states absent of any data that's proving that that is actually helpful, people will cite not data, but they will cite a statement by Merck, not in relation to masks, but they'll cite a statement

by a pharmaceutical company or they'll cite a statement by the CDC or the AAP or something like that. But then that statement isn't actually backed with data. And yet, that is what people mean when they say, look, I'm just listening to the science. I'm following the science. What they mean is press releases. That's pretty incredible. It's worse than that.

I'm actually hearing physicians who are practicing media medicine. They're literally giving me their opinions formulated on press reports, newspaper articles. And what you just mentioned is you need to look at the underlying data. But let's go back. It's almost in reference to your prior question. It actually might be reasonable to make all. arguments citing agency recommendations if they were actually behaving with the public health interested part.

If they had clearly expert committees and panels deeply studying this and formulating clear objective scientific recommendations where they could be trusted for the veracity and accuracy and really pragmatism of theirs, you know, because that's the other crime that that you see. when I talk about these anomalies, you know, on a risk-benefit analysis, let's say, let's say you were left with, okay, all of these studies show benefit, but we think it's low-quality, it's inconclusive. On a risk-benefit analysis of a pandemic, it's one of the safest drugs known to man.

You cannot arrive at a non-recommendation on a risk-benefit analysis. So I'm just bringing back, it might be okay to cite these agencies if there was evidence they were behaving in a scientific objective and public health manner. And unfortunately, I think most of society is conditioned to continue to believe that. And I feel like that, is that going to be my mission now to call foul on these agencies? I mean, it's not my mission, but it's part of my expertise now. I used to be an expert at Ivermectin. Now I'm an expert at how that science is being distorted by the system.

Yeah. And the last thing I want to say about that is, Ivermectin is not unique. Ivermectin has to be understood as a repurposed drug. Repurposed drug are those that are off patent, approved for one use found to be effective in another. Pharmaceutical industry, one of their main tactics and the foundations of that industry, is to seek and destroy all repurpose drugs. You have no idea what repurposed drugs mean to that industry.

They can decimate markets. And there are decades of examples of attacks on repurposed drugs. So I don't want to make this about ivermectin. This is about repurposed drugs of which ivormectin happens to be one of the most potent in history with one of the biggest markets in history. And that's why you're seeing this craziness. So I object to you're correct. To cite science say, oh, you're not following the science because it's not what the agencies say.

I have to say that is 100% incorrect. You need to cite the scientists who are objective and independent. I get to tell you, the ones that are speaking out like myself, like my group, we are independent. Some of us are tenured. And so they have freedom of speech in the society. Well, they used to. I don't even – actually, some of them are getting horrific attacks in their – academic institutions of higher learning, which is unconscionable.

I mean, as faculty members in society, you actually have a duty to society to share your knowledge and expertise. And tenure protects you even further for doing that. And we have tenured professors in our group who are being attacked. Yeah. And so you have to have that independence. I would listen to independent researchers and scientists without conflicts of interest. And that's the key.

Listen to the independence. I don't listen to people in agencies or institutions because none of them are able to speak freely. They will lose their jobs. Right. And now Merck is coming out with an antiviral drug. So is that an example of what you're talking about of why they are not, you know, they don't allow the, I don't want to use the word promotion or they don't allow the correct information about something like Ivermacton to be disseminated because. it competes against, you know, the kinds of medications that they would be making money off of. Is this an example of that?

So, so, Ali, I mean, we're putting the puzzle together, aren't we? Right. So when I talked about how there's no real thread that I can explain that discord, that, you know, how disparate their behavior to Ivermectin is and the science, there's such a huge gulf. It's inexplicable without something really terrible. And so one of the pieces to that bridge would be war on repurpose drug, which I also call nonprofit drug, so that you can keep the market open for a profit drug like Molinopiravir. And I would argue that the market that Ivermectin threatens, and I want to talk specifically about Molonovir, it's beyond Molinopirivir.

So the market that Ivermectin threatens, I think, is the largest in history for a repurposed drug. It not only is monopiravir, but it's the monoclonal antibodies. It's remdesivir, which is a essentially ineffective drug, which is used in almost every patient in the United States at $3,000 a dose. You said ribdesivir is effective? Ineffective. Ineffective. Almost completely ineffective. Is it harmful?

It is harmful. It causes kidney toxicity. It has caused multi-organ failure. It is, you know, again, going back to the science and the agencies, if you want to explain their behavior. So you realize that remdesivir was approved with a very modest benefit. It wasn't even life-saving, didn't reduce hospitalization. It basically led to supposedly a few days less.

hospital duration. Multiple trials from around the world have shown no effect. The WHO doesn't even even, even the WHO, who is actually captured as any of our U.S. agencies, they don't even recommend remdesivir. And so to see remdesivir as literally the mainstay and foundation of our therapeutic approach to COVID in the United States is again another example of absurdity and deviation from the science. And that was approved on like one trial with a thousand patients done by a pharmaceutical company. And just because I'm doing a lot of education on the pharmaceutical industry, let me just continue. On that issue of pharmaceutical trials, it's been well described in numerous analyses over decades and best sort of summarized in a book called Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre, where in numerous

disease models, when they compare trials done by pharmaceutical companies and those done by government funded grants and academic medical centers, in one disease model, 86% of trials by pharma were positive, 50% by governmental agencies were positive. And that's been played out in numbers of disease models. So the things that they do is they change endpoints. They actually literally bury adverse data. They will remove people from trial to inflate the right. They literally will do this. They will do this. It's been well described by people in the pharmaceutical industry.

So when you have a pharmaceutical industry sponsored trial that comes out as a press release and moves markets, do you understand that mold of beer of your press release, the market cap from Merck has gone up $20 billion since their press release. They have every, every incentive. to bury a few adverse patient level data, okay? So when I hear that it reduces hospitalization by 50%, I call BS on that. And I'm almost, I don't want to sound grandiose, but I, you know, in medicine, you have all these doctors that have their names attached to discovery.

So I want to call it the Corey Correction factor. So when they say 50% reduction, it's probably 20 if that. Because you can't believe the data that it's, you're talking about decades and there's no bigger financial incentive than bringing Molina Pier of a market as the standard of care. Because by the way, the FDA has left that. And that's that Merck antiviral drug. Yes. That's the Merck antiviral drug. And so, you know, going back to that, so it's not only the markets for this antiviral drug, the antibodies, remdes severe. There's also a long-acting injectable antibody that I think it's AstraZeneca that wants to bring to market. Pfizer also has an oral antiviral. And then let us not

speak of the enormity of the vaccine industry, which clearly views Ivermectin as a threat. Yeah. And that's, that is, was clear because we, the forces that brought to bear on the WHO's non-recommendation, we believe those were vaccine forces who view Ivermectin as a threat. And if, again, maybe I thought that was a noble lie at first, their actions, but it's not a no by law anymore. Now, do people have any real legitimate reason in your opinion to be concerned about the vaccine? There are people who aren't anti-vaccine, but when it comes to this one, I don't know, they just feel like they don't know enough about it, or maybe they'd be more

comfortable trying something like Ivermectin as a preventative or as, you know, to treat their COVID if they do get infected? Do you think that's a legitimate way to think? Or do you think people who are worried about this vaccine, you know, or just paranoid? This is what I will say about the vaccines is that the behavior around the data is so alarming that I can't tell you what to believe. I can't tell you what to believe. It is so clear that the data is non-transparent. It's purposely not being shared.

And when you can recognize that, you have to conclude. that there's a reason. They're not sharing source data. They're doing everything that they can. You know where the data is coming from? It's coming from statements by health officials that are then published in media. Where is the source data? So you're talking about data as far as breakthrough cases, as far as side effects?

Exactly. And then there's so much anomalous behaviors around how that data is collected. They're making up rules on the fly, which I've now seen legal actions against the CDC. One came out of Oregon the other day. Again, this is not an opinion on vaccines. This is an opinion on the behavior of the agencies around the vaccine data, which gives me a lot of caution and a lot of pause, which is I don't know what to tell people of vaccines because we don't know enough about the vaccines. First of all, the data is rapidly evolving and non-transparent. And so I would express deep caution, and I would say get more data, put more pressure on the agencies to be old.

open and honest. And given the litany of behaviors I've seen around, like I said, remdesivir, around it, Ivermectin, and the behaviors around the sharing and collection and how they collect vaccine data, I mean, I can only be left with deep concerns and desire from more clear data. So you can make informed judgments. Yeah. I think that's how a lot of people feel too. And if anyone out there is like me, which I'm sure there are people. I'm someone who, I never really thought about the pharmaceutical companies. Yeah, I know that any big bureaucratic system has its corruption, has its profit motives. Of course, I'm a conservative. And so I'm always skeptical. Right. That was me. Yes, I'm skeptical of big bureaucratic institutions anyway, but I never thought about it.

I never thought about vaccines or anything like that. But I'm sure there are a lot of people who were willing to accept anything that the CDC had to say because why not? I'm not a scientist who, now find ourselves skeptical of everything they say and everything they do because to me they have shot they have just shot their trustworthiness so much that even if they came out and said something that is true like that's I think a huge risk that even if they did come out and say something that the public does need to believe that is scientifically true you have millions of people who won't believe them because it seems like everything has been so politicized and ascientific especially when it comes to things like masking two-year-olds and we've yet to see the

data on that. Is that a fear of yours that people are just going to not trust actual science? Ali, that's not only a fear. I believe it's a reality. It's also what we've long predicted, because we've seen the behaviors not being scientific and clearly ruled by other. And the other, yeah. So what you just said is really alarming to contemplate because what you said is totally accurate. We're now at a place where, you know, you said a lot of your listeners, a lot of people we talk to are skeptical. And I love, like, I got to tell you, everything that you've said is like, you're describing me in this journey.

Like, I used to think, yeah, you know, I've read lots of books in college. Yeah, the system's corrupt. There's influences. Like, I always knew it was there. And like, but it was, I don't know, subtle theoretical. I didn't, I didn't realize like just how powerful and rapacious it is. And, and that's why I told you, I will never be the same again. What I've seen and what I've learned is absolutely, it's, again, I can never look at the world again.

But when you ask, like, first of all, based on that litany of behaviors and inaccuracies and doubling down on policies which are clearly failing ineffective and likely harmful, you have to be skeptical. In fact, if there's one lesson, I would say, be as skeptical as you can. Ask for source data. Look for source data. Go to the people who actually are looking. a source day. And I got to tell you, you know where I find the most accurate information? It's really on independent podcasters who don't work for large corporate media organizations. They're only allowed to really publish narratives. And, you know, if you look at like people like

Chris Martinson on Peak Prosperity or like Crystal and Sagar and Jimmy Dorr, like, there's really people who give very credible objective looks at all the data. And I just find like that's where the accuracy. I would be very skeptical of what's coming out of large institutions. You can't, you can no longer believe that that really has your best interest at heart. Yeah. My other question is like how deep do you think this goes? Because just some anecdotes that I've heard that I've actually experienced. For example, my mom was prescribed. I've remacked him by a doctor. She went to Walgreens to pick it up. They wouldn't fill it. They wouldn't tell her why. So we started digging in. Are more people experiencing this with CVS, Walgreens? I found out a lot.

lot of people were. Then someone that I know well, just on social media, we follow each other. She has a large following and she told a story about how her dad died in the hospital of COVID. His doctor had prescribed. I've remacked into him. Then when he got into the hospital, the doctor there refused to finish the prescription. Now, I don't know if that prescription would have saved his life. Maybe he would have died anyway. But can you imagine just the trauma of the family wondering what if, what if, what if? And these doctors, basically just treated them like their idiots for even suggesting that this person finish his prescription of ibermectin i mean this is happening in a lot of places a lot of well-meaning i think doctors

are refusing to treat patients with this pharmacies refusing to fill it i mean it's just crazy it's like it's everywhere so you're describing my everyday life for many many months now and you know in many months ago, I did not get the blockade from the pharmacist, as I do now. And that's really, that was one of the great successes of what I call Farmageddon, which is that mass media blitzkrieg attack on Ivermectin in the media, newspapers, and agencies, is that, like I said, the societies fell in line, and then the state boards fell in line. And then the pharmacy board started putting out caution. And it's just, I just, I just. find it absolutely there's nobody's willing to stand up critically say you know the evidence shows

everything but this but you're literally now pharmacist and everybody's scared like you know i call them sheep i don't want to call people sheep but i got to tell you they just they're too trusting of the directives and so listen when you go to the counter and try to get an ivory rectin filled you're this ignorant horse piece horse paste eating anti-vax person that's how you've done you've done been labeled and caricatured, while the pharmacist in their white coat behind the counter has it on good authority from the agencies that this drug doesn't work and it's likely harmful. So in all of their expertise and their authority, they're doing the right thing by depriving you of Ivermectin.

So many of them are simply ignorant and too trusting, not critically thinking, and no one's done the deep dive. Now, let me switch that to more positive thing because I've been so negative in this whole interview calling out all the, you know, the malfeasance. But there's actually a lot of pharmacists who aren't buying that, who know the data because they're trained to look at data and they know that our metin is incredibly safe and very effective. So there's pharmacies in every town that are prescribing and filling, number one. Number two, during Farmageddon, prescriptions continued to increase. Farmageddon was triggered. I call it the Farmageddon on Ivermectin, right?

Which was this mass media campaign triggered by the FDA and the CDC, and all of media fell suit. But during that time, Ivermectin prescriptions continue to increase, which, you know, again, I don't want to sound again like two philosophical grand jos, but we've sustained ourselves as a group and all the attacks and all of the misery that we see with the mantra that the truth comes out. The truth will win out over the end. And I really do think the truth is starting to win because despite these attacks, prescriptions are increasing. Doctors aren't listening. Patients know who to seek out, how to find out how to get treated for this because they know

it's safe and effective. And the other thing that I think is also helping that movement is because the efficacy of the vaccines have plummeted so deeply, you know, both the vaccinated and unvaccinated need treatment. And so you're having a groundswell of people who are looking for early treatment options. And so, you know, like a friend says, there's only three things that are guaranteed to come out, the sun, the moon, and the truth. And I think some of that is starting to happen. Yeah, we like to say on this podcast that the truth is like a beach ball.

You can try to push it under the water for a long time. You might be successful. It'll end up coming back up. Now, one thing on that, what you said reminded me of something you had tweeted about, apparently there are, what, 100 members of Congress who have used your protocols, including Ivermectin. I don't think that you can reveal their identities. I would love for you, too. But can you say, are they Democrats and Republicans?

So, so, so first of all, no, I cannot review that because not only wouldn't if I knew, but I don't know their individual identities. I just know, I have, it's just, it's unassailable, it's unassailable data. But the one thing I tweet is, they're probably, well, I don't want to say which part of they are. You can guess which part they are. But that was a mistake is I don't want it to make it sound. like it's Republican or Democrat. Yeah. And the reason why- Because it would be interesting because it does seem to fall along party lines who

is criticizing Ivermectin. And it would just, of any politician on any side, I find a lot of hypocrisy. So it'd be interesting if the people who are speaking out against it are also taking it. Here's the thing. I don't, my mistake in that tweet is by leaving people with the interpretation that those people who are treated are hypocratic. They're actually not. You know, large factions, so I'll say it's largely probably, almost certainly almost all Republicans, but those are the same people who have been fighting for the recognition of early treatment, for a more sensible recommendation scheme to be followed by the NIH. And they haven't done that. And so they've done what all of America has done. So I don't want it to be interpreted like they get some sort of health care that the others.

don't, they actually have had the same struggles, the same difficulties. And then the other thing is that I know from one of the congressmen, not that he was treated, but he was trying to get Ivermectin for his family in case they got sick. He had the same problem as what you described, which is that he couldn't get Ivermectin. He had to go to two pharmacies. And then he finally got it from a compounding pharmacy. This is a congressman in U.S. Congress. So it's not that they had a a different access to it, you know, since Farmageddon, they're running into the same problem. So they're not different. They're just, they're fighting and seeking good, sound, medical care. And I champion them for it. Yeah. Wow. So I know that you have this on your website,

but how can get, how can people get Ivermactin if they're looking for it? I imagine a lot of people are going to listen to this and at least say, I want some on deck just in case. So we have a document on how to navigate getting far. So we have like a loose, not validated, not curated list, but of many telehealth providers that have reached out to us that use our protocols or, you know, have early treatment. So there's a long list on our website, which is FLCCC.net. Okay.

We'll include that in the description of this episode. Yeah. The other thing is that we have a way to navigate pharmacies. And one of the main ways, because. because it's so laborious to keep trying pharmacies is that if you email one of the main producers of Ivermectin in the country is Edenbridge Pharma. If you email sales at Edenbridge Pharma and you just give them your zip code and ask what pharmacy in my area fills Ivermectin prescriptions and they know who's buying and they can tell you this pharmacy is clearly supplying Ivermectin. And so it's a really

efficient way to find a place that will fill. We also have on our website, other places where you can order overnight as well as internationally. Okay, one more question that I wrote down and I forgot to ask. And I'm guessing, I think I know your answer, but you talked about some of the leakiness, so-called, of these vaccines. And we've talked about the corruption that is profit-driven. Do you think that's also what's behind, what seems to be an anti-exemptive? anti-scientific denial of the effectiveness of natural immunity. Is that part of this whole thing, too? Well, the first answer is absolutely.

So what I've done, right, what we've talked about, Ali, is all I've spelled out is this anomalous, aberrant, non-scientific behaviors repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, in multiple areas, right? And so when you ask about the vaccine policy, the one and most absurd, the only The only one that I have a very strong opinion on is this policy which does not allow an exemption for a naturally immune person, someone who's recovered from the disease that they still want to vaccinate. It's based on no science. There is 29 studies showing the profound protection of natural immunity. And yet they want to subject someone to the risks of a vaccine with very little added benefit, if any. They'd like to pretend that there's some sort of added benefit.

It's negligible and it nowhere would match the risks to it. So we literally have a national policy which is propagated through institutions, companies, corporations, to immunize naturally immune. It violates every principle of science that we've always learned. And so, again, a barren behavior that you have to question who's driving that. Are they scientists or people with financial interests? Yeah. Gosh, there are so many questions that we haven't even gotten to. And I know that you're not necessarily political,

but my wheels are turning about how China is involved and how we don't depend enough on our own industries to supply ourselves with the medical supplies that we need. There's a lot. There's a lot that is involved with this. And I just encourage people, as you have encouraged us, to remain skeptical and ask questions and to listen to the independent people that are not being driven by profit to perpetuate a particular narrative that may or may not be attached to science.

So if they want to support you and your organization, how can they do that? Just go to our website. You know, we have a donate button. We appreciate the support because I almost joke when I say this, but we're not a big organization. We're running at full tilt and we're literally up against you can't even. calculate what those financial interests are that are really want to suppress early treatment early treatment signs. Yeah.

Well, thank you so much. I know that you're super busy, like you said. Thanks for taking the time to come on our show. And we'll make sure to include those links so people can't support you guys. Thank you. Thank you so much, Ellie. Okay, guys, hope you enjoyed this episode. Again, we are not giving medical advice.

I personally, I'm not a doctor, so I'm not suggesting. you what you should use or don't use. You should ask, you know, your doctor or whoever you want to ask. That's what I have to say. But you should continue to follow Dr. Pierre Corey because he's a super interesting guy and he's been talking about this a lot. Definitely check out his website and all of the information and the science that they have compiled and put together. It's good to ask questions. It's good to be skeptical. Also, I would just ask if you love this podcast, please leave us. us a review on Apple podcast. Leave us a five-star review. Tell us why you love the show. It mean a lot to us. Subscribe on YouTube if you haven't done that already. All right, I'll see you guys back here on Monday.

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort, we ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this

D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.