The Highwire with Del Bigtree - CRITICAL CARE PIONEER EXPOSES WAR ON REPURPOSED DRUGS

Episode Date: June 17, 2023

World-renowned Critical Care Pioneer, Dr. Paul Marik, is back in the news as the CHEST Journal, which published his benchmark life-saving Vitamin C Protocol for sepsis, reaffirmed the study after it came under attack. Dr. Marik joins Del to detail the pharma-driven war on repurposed drugs, and cheap early, non-pharmaceutical interventions for weight loss, overall health, cancer, and more. These are the treatments that pharma doesn’t want you to know about.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

About 100 protesters are here to support Dr. Paul Merrick. You've done something that's so transformative, that's so maverick. Dr. Merrick has treated over 150 septic patients the same way. Time after time, they survive. Dr. Paul Merrick teared up outside the Norfolk courthouse Thursday, surrounded by a group of supporters. And what they're basically doing is telling me how to treat patients and what to use or what not to use.

Dr. Merrick has been cited over 48,000 times in peer-reviewed publications and it's certainly one of those doctors who've been persecuted for treating patients. What's happening now is completely unprecedented in the history of medicine and across the world. We have the federal government, we have state agencies and hospitals telling doctors how to practice medicine. They're interfering with the sacred patient physician relationship. Dr. Merrick had been reading about the healing powers of vitamin C, and just on a hunch gave it to Valerie intravenously, along with hydrochortosone. This is quite miraculous in that patients who are critically ill, who are at death store, when we give them this very simple combination of medications, it turns around their septic process, and within hours they significantly better. Reaction from the medical community to what you had proposed and done has been very mixed at best, hostile at worst. People are displeased with me because here we found a very simple, cheap, easy way of dealing with sepsis.

They just didn't like the idea that a vitamin, which is cheap, could save people's lives. It was against the narratives. The question is to you, if your daughter was in the ICU dying of septic shop, would you deny her a therapy that we know, we know absolutely for a fact is safe and that may potentially save her life? That's the question you need to ask. There are no downsides. There are absolutely no downside. The only downside is you may save the patient's life. To deny it, I think, is unacceptable.

Traditional medicine does not like challenges. to the status quo. We need a reawakening because this current medical system is broken. Our goal now is to educate clinicians, healthcare workers, and the public that they need to be empowered. And we hopefully will live happier, healthier, and more fulfilling lives. Well, it's my honor and pleasure to be joined by Dr. Paul Merrick today. Really.

Thanks, Del. It's always an honor to be here, one of my heroes. Well, then feelings are mutual. You know, the other times that we've had you on the high wire, we've been talking a lot about COVID and all the work. You know, obviously you really were one of the ones fighting for repurposed drugs to save patients. He had an incredible testimony with Senator Ron Johnson, the emotional testimony where you basically said I was forced to watch my patients die when I could have saved them. But I don't want to really, let's move beyond that a little bit today. because your work before COVID really is instrumental,

and that came under attack. We've talked before about vitamin C. So just to remind people, what was the actual discovery of vitamin C when it comes to sepsis, which is a major issue in ICU's, right? Yeah. So the World Health Organization estimates

that about 11 million people die of sepsis every year. It accounts for about 50% of deaths. Is that the leading? Would that then be the leading clause? It seems like that's pretty high up there. It's the leading cause of death in children. And obviously it's about third or fourth in line in terms of adults. So it is a very important cause of death. And, you know, it's treatable and it's preventable. But it wasn't always. I mean, this was a real problem in hospitals before you made the discovery. So how did it, you know, really sort of how did it work? How did you discover vitamin? C in this?

Yeah, so it's an interesting question. So what people may not recognize is that almost all species on this planet, except humans and guinea pigs, actually make vitamin C. And it's really not a vitamin. It's a stress hormone. So when your cat or dog is stressed, it's what it does is its liver makes vitamin C because it's an important stress response. Humans have lost that ability.

So then the obvious next step. would be when humans are stressed, give them vitamin C. And the more stressed you are, the more vitamin C you need. And probably septic shock, which is a severe form of sepsis, is the most extreme form of sepsis and one of the most extreme stressors on the body. So it only makes sense to give vitamin C because it's a stress hormone. And so this was really built on the work of many people before me, but particularly Dr. Fowler at Virginia Commonwealth University did a study looking at vitamin C in sepsis. And so I'd read his work and I thought that's really interesting. I kind of stuck it in the back of my mind. And then when I had this patient who was dying,

you know, a doctor's, you know, traditionally do what they can to save a patient's life. That's what we do. That would be the jam, I would think, like to be able to say, I save someone today? Yeah, that's the democratic principle, which seems to have been lost, that doctors will do whatever they can in their power. You know, they'll think out of the box because, you know, when a patient's dying, they're dying.

What do you have to lose? And so you'll try anything within, you know, within reasonable bounds. So this patient was clearly dying, and I remembered the vitamin C study. I wasn't sure in the dose, so he had postulated two different doses. so I went smack in the middle, and I thought, you know what, for good measure, I'm going to add

corticosteroids because I had, you know, long-studied steroids and thought they had a role in sepsis. And for good measure, I threw in thiamine. So I gave the patient this cocktail of a vitamin C, hydrochortisone, and thiamine. We called it the Hatt Protocol. And so in this first patient, I was not expecting anything. You know, you do what you have to do, and you hope for the best, but you assume the worst. And the next morning, I was completely dumbfounded. She was sitting up in bed. The kidney function had improved. The liver function had improved. We actually took her off the ventilator. And she walked out of the ICU three or four days later. Wow. And so obviously, you know, one swallow doesn't make a summer. So I thought, you know what,

I'm going to do that again. So, you know, in discussion with our nurses and the patients, we did this again and again and again and again and again and we saw the same thing. And so at that time, you know, I really didn't realize what we were doing because patient came in the ICU and we treated them immediately. Yeah. It's such an obvious thing. And so that's really the key is early treatment. They came to the ICU. They were critically ill. We gave them antibiotics. We gave them a little bit of fluid and we gave them had therapy, which seemed like the obvious thing to do. And so that's really was the key to the success, is early aggressive treatment. And my friend, as you highlighted, Pierre Corrie had the same experience.

Unfortunately, what happened, you know, with the powers that be is whether by design or just because of sloppiness, they designed or did studies which were going to fail. And essentially what they did is they gave the vitamin C cocktail at least 20. 24 hours after the patient came to the ICU. They gave antibiotics, they gave fluid, and they delayed treatment. And so it's pretty obvious. It seemed like, you know, I know talking, we've talked about this before, like in about a lot of different studies, but where they set out to try and make the product fail instead of saying, let's use it exactly the way Dr. Paul Merrick is using it. Of course, you had published on this, that your article, you know, your publication was accepted and touted worldwide as a cure here.

was hydrochortisone, vitamin C and thiamine for the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock, a retrospective before and after study. This was seen by tens, hundreds of thousands of physicians of people around the world, but then as pharma usually does, they sort of attacked, and they attacked from several positions.

So you're absolutely right. What they didn't do is try and replicate my study. Right. That's not what they try to do. They try to disprove the concept. And so there are really two important things that actually I realize after the fact. One is timing that it must be given early. And secondly is we chose medical patients because medical patients are patients that have a medical disorder that responds to medical therapy.

If it's surgical sepsis, for example, you have a ruptured appendix, you have a ruptured gallbladder. That's a surgical problem. And trying to give vitamin C to treat a surgical problem. Got it. It obviously doesn't make a lot of sense. Right. So our paper was only medical patients because that's where it has a role. Many of these other studies enrolled patients with surgical sepsis.

Okay. Because they knew, they knew it wasn't going to be a benefit. Right. What you need is the, it's obvious. You need a good surgeon. You know, when you have a ruptured gallbladder, you need a good surgeon. Right. While vitamin C will help and is part of the treatment.

algorithm, what you need is a surgical intervention. So they didn't replicate or duplicate the study that I did. And so, you know, last time you were on, we talked about this event in, is it Belfast? I think it was, where they brought you out, basically Tarr and feather you. They took one of these studies that refuted your statement, made you sit in front of this giant scientific body and try to humiliate you. Your paper has been under review. And one of the attacks, though, what we're here to really celebrate is I think one of the great victories I'm finally able to talk about on this show. So many scientists whose papers are retracted and pulled and yanked and you know it was solid, you know it was done, right? They're not being given any opportunity

to refute the arguments being made. And by the, and we've talked about this. This is the scientific method. The way these journals are designed, you put forward what you found. Other scientists were allowed to attack it even with a study like you said. But then you come back and say, well, look, you added people in your study that, you know, had surgical sepsis. I never said that it would work there. And you didn't do it in the timing. You used the protocol the way I did. And then we all get to read everybody's statements on this and decide whether or not we want to add to this. This is how science is supposed to work. Instead, they keep yanking these papers, yanking them down, and disappearing these foundational principles that maybe need adjustments or should be a part of not

against the scientific method, but the method is dying here. But you decided to sue. And so I want to get into this story. First of all, just so you know, folks, that, you know, a doctor decided to attack Dr. Paul Merrick's perspective. This was an Australian doctor named Kyle Sheldrick. And this is what he, I think it started out, he tweeted out, thanks. Somebody linked the Merrick study an hour or two ago. It is clearly fraudulent. I have requested retraction. A copy of my complaint is here. He did submit this complaint.

This is it. This is what he had to say. Unfortunately, within about five minutes of reading the study, became overwhelmingly clear that this is indeed research fraud, that the data is fabricated. While I understand your need to act fairly, there is overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that data presented in this paper cannot have come

from the method described and can only have been fraudulent, even from the data in the paper alone without any further evidence. I urge you to retract this paper or at least issue an expression of concern as soon as possible. I have CC, the institution's integrity officer in case. They wish to institute integrity investigation proceedings and disciplinary action. Just out of curiosity, is he an ICU doctor? What gave him the foundation to believe he had this level of expertise? Yes.

So what's interesting is this came four years after the paper. was published. So that should firstly raise a red flag. Secondly, he's some kind of an orthopedic doctor, as I understand. He's not a statistician. He's not an ICU doctor. He doesn't treat sepsis. So his background in both ICU medicine, sapsis and statistics is just not there. Wow. And so why did you decide to bring a lawsuit against him? Yes. So we actually took legal action against him rather than some specific lawsuit, you know, that's what it's kind of called. So obviously what he did, you know, he accused me of fabricating the data.

And he essentially was defamation. Okay. So obviously I had to defend myself. Right. I had to defend the study and I had to defend what it represented. And so, you know, he made, he subject, so firstly he tweeted this out, it then went to many of the social media medical organizations who assumed I was guilty, you know, without actually investigating the information, I was assumed to be guilty. And so, you know, his accusations

were pretty interesting. You know, he claims that after reading the results, in five minutes, he knew it was fabricated. But the statistical techniques he actually used were completely infounded. And we had real statisticians look at what he had complained of and found his thought process, his thought process was not correct. But nevertheless, the social media medical organizations took it seriously. And I was assumed to be guilty and having assumed to have committed scientific fraud. Wow, yeah. And so obviously the complaint went to the medical journal and they obviously had to take it seriously, which they did. They went through the, I provided the data.

And initially they said they found no credible evidence for his claims. But then they received a second complaint, which was anonymous, stating that my inclusion and exclusion criteria, were very suspect. So that led to another year-long investigation. Finally, the journal basically vindicated me. Wow. Basically, they said they can find no data or no evidence to support his claims or the subsequent claims. And after having statisticians and methodologists and clinicians pouring over the paper for over a year, all they could come up with was two words, two words in the entire paper that they wanted me to change in the method section. So the results stood, the conclusions stood, which is really astonishing

because you can take any medical paper and you can find fault with it. It's just the way it is. And so they, after a year of intense dissection, two words. Two words had to be. Is what they want to change, which were really inconsequential in the whole paper. People are going to ask, what were the words? I mean, you're not getting too deep with the weeds. I know they're like, what are the words, Del?

Why don't you ask you? What are the words? So the two words is we said they were consecutive patients, but in a clinical trial, it's very difficult to be absolutely get consecutive patients because you don't have researchers there all the time. Sometimes of the patients you just can't get access. so we had to change consecutive to non-consecutive. Okay.

Because we originally said consecutive, but we meant consecutive patients that we were able to enroll. Got it. You know, if it's 2 o'clock in the morning, and there's no clinical investigator around, you can't enroll the patient. That happens in all clinical trials. Your goal is...

So the ones that you can safely put in, but not necessarily everyone that came to them. Yeah, so they were trying to imply there was a selection bias, but we actually showed them with the data. we tried as best we could to enroll consecutive patients, which is what we did. And the second was the dose we wanted was 1.5 grams Q6. But this was a pragmatic study.

So the pharmacies didn't always supply the dose exactly every six hours in the way we wanted it. So we had to put, we targeted a dose of 1.5 grams Q6 because sometimes it wasn't Q6. sometimes the patients left the ICU a little bit early. So the two words they want to change was consecutive to non-consecutive, and the dose had to be, we targeted this dose. Got it. And so if anyone who knows anything about medicine knows, that's what happens every day in real life.

Right. Well, awesome. So not only you vindicated, not only around the world now, all of these attacks on this paper, it stands, the evidence stands, the claims of fraud, have been wiped away. And this chucklehead that decided to attack you, what did he have to do? I mean, what was it, you know, you sort of brought this litigation in his direction,

or at least to, you know, legal action, as you put it. Yeah, obviously what we wanted him to do was to recognize that he made a mistake and to make a public statement recognizing that his accusations were not grounded. So you didn't ask for money or retribution for, like trying to, destroyed and smudge my career. I believe we have this statement. Can we take a look at this? Here it is a statement. On 22nd, March 22, I posted a blog post called the Scattered Corn. This post was a copy of a complaint I filed with the journal Chest, identifying features of a study led by Paul Merrick titled Hydroxychloricorotosone, hydrochortosin, I'm sorry, vitamin C and

vitamin for the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock published on 3rd of February. in identifying that I believe them to be signs of fraud and linked to this on Twitter. Those complaints have since been formally rejected by the journal Chess, which I consider to be the definitive conclusion to the matter. I realize that this letter was used to imply that Dr. Merrick personally acted deceptively and falsibly reported study data, which was not my intention, and this caused him significant, hurt and distress. I regret this hurt to Dr. Merrick. I will inform those who have reported on this complaint that it has been rejected by the journal.

Dr. Merrick has also indicated to me that some subsequent control studies have found some positive outcomes for vitamin C and sepsis, and I accept this. The statement is not endorsement of the use of vitamin C in sepsis. Well, he can go ahead and go on his merry way. I just love this because, you know, I think so many times people just walk off and just let this abuse continue. And you are not only winning for yourself, you're winning for science. We've got to start standing on ground in these situations. And, you know, when you think about this issue of sepsis, I mean, you know, what is your dream that the treatment will be and what could it do for people around the world? So, Del, I must say, I am grateful to chess because the journal chest, they could have taken the easy route that many other journals have done. And under pressure just said, you know what, this is scientific fraud and we will retract the paper.

So I'm indebted to them for standing up for the truth. Yeah. For training, standing up for science. because ultimately that's what we need to do. You know, all of us need to stand up for the truth because the truth will always prevail. And so although they tried the best to take me down, they failed.

And I think it's an important point because this was one personally, obviously, for me, but more importantly for science, that scientific truth and integrity can survive. And it's also important for the vitamin C protocol because otherwise it would be assumed that, you know, Our protocol was fraudulent.

It was based on false data and would have buried the use of vitamin C in sepsis. And so now I think it resurrects this very important form of therapy. Yeah. And so let me say this again. Timing is important. So there's no reason across the world, vitamin C is cheap. It's non-patible, non-patentable. So that's why a big farmer doesn't like anything that can't patent.

So there's no reason that. people across the world who have severe sepsis can't be treated with a similar protocol which is very simple it's very cheap it's very safe and has the potential to save lives and so what more important a task should we have than to help people save their lives and many times these are people who when they recover much like my first patient recover completely these aren't people who have severe comorbidities. These are people who have the potential to recover and live healthy, meaningful lives. And as we said at the beginning, you know, sepsis accounts for about 50% of

deaths in children. So there's no question of doubt that this is a treatment modality which we can build on. You know, sepsis is an important cause of death. And so timely use of antibiotics, really important, appropriate management of fluid, and then adjunctive therapy with corticosteroids and vitamin C can be very helpful. Well, I mean, that's a huge win for science and medicine, but you sort of had a huge personal win, I would say, in your own health. So I kind of want to get into that a little bit

because it's really fascinating. And my understanding is this story sort of starts with COVID and the vaccine, which we've talked a lot about. But what was it about spike protein COVID the vaccine that sort of got you into a health kick? Yeah, so basically this started a new journey for me. And I suppose I was a traditional physician. I was a professor of medicine.

I was tenured. And I believed everything we were taught and everything we were told. I mean, that's what doctors believe. Yeah. And I had no idea the extent to which medicine has been bought and corrupted and deceived. And so COVID- You're a professor. You wrote an ICU. I mean, it's amazing that someone, because you imagine,

from a lay perspective, I imagine if you get as high up as you were, you know, cited tens of, by tens of thousands of doctors around the world and all the work that you've done, we assume that you don't get that high without seeing all the skeletons in the closet, right? You just sort of have to imagine, if there's a problem, Dr. Merrick would have seen it. So I always was a person who challenged the status quo because I think scientists have to do this. You have to have an open mind. Don't believe anything. But I, despite having an open mind and despite challenging, I was brainwashed, as almost every clinician is. Not so much in terms of ICU medicine, because ICU medicine is based on physiology and manipulation of

physiology, but just in terms of medicine in particular. And so my journey really started off with figuring out how to give a spike protein. Okay. Because there are these questionable practices of detox. And detox is something which doesn't work. The body has enormous capacity to heal and self-heal. And that's part of how vitamin C works. It helps the body heal itself.

And so I came across this process called autophagy or autophagy where the host or the cell basically gobbles up these bad proteins in the cell. It's called autophagy. It's truly astonishing. I mean, the human body is so brilliantly designed. Whoever designed the body did a really good job. A really good job. And so there is this process called autophagy where the cell gobbles up, misfolded, damaged, bad proteins. And the most efficient way to stimulate or activate autophagy is by something

called intermittent fasting or time-restricted feeding. So what was your, why did you have the focus on spike protein yourself? Why were you concerned? Had you gotten the vaccine? So not for me, but I was interested in how we could help these vaccine injured patients. Okay, okay. As you know, there are quite a few of them in the U.S. And FLCCCC, of course, the work that you and Pierre Corey have done, you've been on the front lines with that. So you may know about the, I can group. Yes, that's them too. They're really great. You heard about the, you know, the V-scan study, which shows the 18 million at least vaccine injured people. And so obviously we have, this is a humanitarian disaster. Right. We have to figure out a way to help these people.

And so I figured out that one of the ways to do this was through intermittent fasting. And through this journey, I realized that intermittent fasting actually may be the solution to many, medical problems. And so I was a type 2 diabetic. In addition to being a type 2 diabetic, I have, I would admit this on TV, I was a food addict. Okay. And so what you may not know is maybe 80% of Americans are addicted to processed foods. It's a really, it's a DSM-5 diagnosis. This is a real psychiatric diagnosis. Wow. And I was a food addict. And we can talk about what the features are of being a food addict, which is, you know, eating processed foods, eating snacking, eating bad foods, eating processed foods.

Yeah. And so what I figured out was that... What's your weakness? Is it sweets? Is it salt? For me, it's like chips and things like that. Yeah, it's changed. So I'm no longer a food addict.

I'm a rehabilitated food addict. I'm glad to hear it. So what I used to do, this is what I used to do when I was like a normal human. I'd go to work, I'd go to gym, I'd come home, then I would sit in front of the TV and eat chips. I would eat chips and snacks and potatoes and candy for hours. I was a processed food addict. That's what I did, and that's what many Americans do.

And then I realized that, well, I was an addict, and I realized that what I needed to do was to eat real food. Imagine such a thing like that. To eat real food and to do intermittent fasting or time-related feeding. And so that's what I started doing. I lost 40 pounds within a few months and the diabetes that I had went away. When you say intermittent fasting for people that may just be sort of tuning into this or, you know, time-controlled eating, what system are you using for your body? Yeah, so it's really important to distinguish starvation because this is not starvation.

Right. The second thing is that diets don't work. If you are a food addict, the diet doesn't work. It's like telling someone who's an alcoholic, just don't drink. Or someone who's addicted to cocaine, don't take it. That diets don't work. This is a mental disorder, so you have to get to the problem. And so I changed my philosophy about eating, my approach to eating, changed cooking,

changed completely. And it took me a little bit of time to adapt, but it's not difficult. So basically, I stopped all snacking. I stopped snacking. And then what I did was I ate between a window. So you want to eat, the easiest time-restricted feeding is miss breakfast, and then eat between a six-to-eight-hour window. The rest of the time, you fast. Fasting means you don't eat. Right. And you can drink, you can have fluids, and you can have coffee, Coffee is actually really good. Coffee prevents Alzheimer's disease, prevents dementia, it prevents cancer, and it activates autophagy.

So coffee is really good, long as you don't have it just before you go to sleep. So I change my diet. More importantly, I changed my lifestyle and my approach to food. So before when I ate processed food, so I went to the cupboard, where we keep all the food, I threw out all the processed food.

Just dumped it out. And what I kept was real food. And so what's the difference between real food and processed food is quite simple? If it looks like food, it's food. I tend to think if it has more than like two or three words you're describing the ingredients inside of it, and certainly if you cannot understand what the word is or means, probably not real food.

It's probably not food, yes. So if it comes in a box and has a label, comes in a package, it's probably not food. And the more, the longer the ingredients and the more undecipherable the ingredients are, that's not real food. I almost ate a little snack pack, honestly, just the other day. I was on the plane. It was like, you know, it was like a little snack mix. And I was like, oh, hold on a second. I turned it over and looked at the ingredients.

And it was like, it was bigger than the package. It wrapped the package. And it was like, there's so, I was like, what would this little snack need this many ingredients in it? And so many of their additives actually are addictogenics. So they are put there by design to make you addicted to the food that they're making you eat. And so there's actually some good data, an award-winning lecture which actually showed that the processed food that we eat actually causes oxidative injury in the pancreas. It actually damages the pancreas and causes the pancreas to release insulin, which may be. part of the reason for type 2 diabetes. It's the actual, the chemicals, the colorants, the toxins

in synthetic food. So we, you know, we don't eat, we're not eating food. We're eating synthetic chemical compounds. Which are causing diabetes. Which are causing diabetes and they're causing a whole host of other disorders. So it's really getting back to nature and getting back to the way we were meant to be. And so you, and was there any guidance? is. Were there any books for anything you read that sort of led you towards this, you know? Oh, yes. So what actually took me on this journey is a book by Jason Fung, who's a nephrologist in Canada, who wrote the book, the Bible on intermittent fasting. It's an outstanding book. So I have no, I'm not in, I have no investment in his book or in him. But it really, if anyone's interested in

intermittent fasting. I would truly recommend this book because it's a very simple he lays it out in a way that anybody can do it. This is not complicated. The nice thing about time-related feeding is you can adapt it to any lifestyle,

any person, any time. It's simple. It doesn't cost you anything. I'm doing the same thing by the way. I mean, everyone that's watched this show for the last couple years watched me almost die. I guess it was almost two years ago now. year and a half ago. Where I mean, again, I was, you know, thought I was being healthy even.

I don't really eat a lot of, you know, bad foods. Some, I guess, when you travel a lot, you know, and just working too hard. But I have really looked at my diet, looked at things that I, chips, you know, I have these weaknesses. I'm eating whole foods in the middle of time, but you're right. I'm having a nice breakfast with eggs and, you know, toast, but then I have chips and, you know, for me it's the salt and oils and things. It's the addiction. Yeah. And so, So you know what, if you think of it in that terms that, you know, this is not a personality trait. You are addicted to the substance. And the data shows that carbohydrates and sugar and fructose is more addictive than cocaine.

Wow. If you were to give mice in a laboratory cocaine or sugar, they will choose sugar. All right. Well, let's show me your results because this is outstanding, folks. And this is one of those things you're watching this show. A lot of you say, well, you know, we talk about problems all the, but how about it? about some solutions. Look at, you were monitoring yourself as you went through this process, which is really cool. I'm glad you did it. So we have some graphs and some things to show you.

This is your continuous glucose monitoring. What is it, when we look at this, what does this mean? Why is this important? Yes. So, you know, we have the technology now to monitor blood glucose continuously. So if I'm a bad boy, I do what you did and ate a bag of chips, it would cause my blood glucose to spike. So my blood glucose runs around 100, which is really quite good. What would happen is if I do what you do, or dead or sometimes did, it would shoot to 200. And so what that does is, firstly, it tells you being a bad boy or girl. Secondly, it gives you this instantaneous biofeedback. So you can tell what different dietary elements do to your own blood glucose. Wow. Can anyone do that? Really? So you can sort of model, go through a day and

to say, how are these things I'm doing really affecting my body? Very effective by a feedback because we're all different. We all respond to foods differently. But it basically tells you how you personally respond to any particular food type. And so it may even differ from day to day or for the time of the day. Or the order in which you eat food is very important. So there's a woman in Sweden, I think, who's known as the glucose goddess. And she wrote a book, it's very interesting, that the order in which you eat food can determine your glucose profile.

So if you eat carbohydrates at the beginning of the meal, of course, it's a big spike. But if you start the meal with greens and fiber and then end with carbohydrates, say a sweet, you have a much flatter blood glucose profile. So it becomes very important in teaching you, you're learning how your body reacts to a particular food type. or group of foods. And there's no question it's instantaneous biofeedback. It moderates your behavior. So through the blood glucose monitor and also then monitoring, you know, my hemoglobin A1C, my blood pressure, my weight. We can show that. We can show your, you know, A1C throughout this. You can see these are, as the weeks go on, you started out, your A1C was at eight. Also you have your weight there and

the, what does that mean, fasting blood glucose. So then at four weeks, looks like you didn't monitor your A1C there, but as, you know, when we go to eight weeks, look at it, you've dropped down to 5.7 from 8, and then at 12 weeks, we're at 5.4, which is in sort of side of the space you want to be. So that's, yeah, if a hemoglobin A1C is below about 5.8 means you're not diabetic. Okay. So I went from being a diabetic to being a non-diabetic. So it's really important because we told... In just, you know, just in... Four to five months.

Four or five months. Wow. So it's really important because the medical establishment wants you to believe type two diabetes is non-treatable. So it's not just the medical establishment. It's the food because they want you to eat all this bad food. And it's Big Pharma who sells you all of these drugs. Well, speaking of Big Farmer, you were on all these drugs. Let's take a look at this.

This is... Look on the left here. My story, Type 2 diabetes. diabetes, drugs prescribed by my internist, Metformin, you're on a thousand milligrams, Jardians you were on, 20 milligrams a day, Altease, if I'm saying these things, right, 10 milligrams, amloidipine, ambloidapine, and blotapine at 10 milligrams, lipitor, 40 milligrams, Zoloft, 50 milligrams. I guess all of this was making you depressed. But then look at this, four weeks after intermittent fasting and real food, you've done. You've done.

drop down your metformin was at 500 milligrams, not 1,000. And you're here just all the rest of the drugs disappear. Omega-3 fatty acids, resvatrol, spermidine, melatonin, and vitamin D3-5,000. If someone wants to sort of read about this or understand how to do this for themselves, is just somewhere where they can find this information? Yes, so on our website at FLCCCC, we have a protocol firstly on how to eat. Okay. How to eat?

Okay. Eat well. Great. And second, we have a protocol on insulin resistance and type two diabetes. And so this is not difficult. They want you to think it's difficult because they want you to be on medications forever. They want you to develop diabetes complications. They want you to go blind and they want you to go into kidney failure.

It's preventable and it should never happen. And it's a treatable disease. So I must add that on top of this which I subsequently learned, I started taking a specific supplement, which is probably one of the most potent anti-diabetic medications. But nobody knows about it. It's a Chinese herb. It's been around for about 3,000 years. But no one knows about it because you can't get a patent on it.

And if you can't get a patent on it, you're not going to make money on it, and no one's going to sell it. And it's called berberine. Berberine. Berberine. Berberine. Okay. So Berberene actually is probably one of the most potent anti-diabetic medications we have. And this is looking at science.

I mean, if you actually look at scientific data, it's probably a more potent antidiabetic medication than metformin, which is considered the standard of care. Wow. So, by the way, I take metformin for another reason, not because of diabetes, but it's a very potent drug to prevent cancer, which maybe we can talk about. Well, we just tagged that on. I know we were brought to you in the talk of this diabetes. I just want to see I had a friend just this week say, you know,

I'm dealing with type 2 diabetes. I hope you're watching. Otherwise, I'll send you this episode and make sure that you're watching it. But you just dropped just a brand new explosive look into cancer. Yeah, so basically I've gone on this new journey of, you know, challenging the status quo and challenging everything that we told. And so it became obvious to me that cancer, you know, cancer is a big problem. You know, half of the people in this world are absolutely shit scared of getting cancer.

They're petrified. And it's now the commonest cause of death of men and women. So something like one in two men and one in three women will in their lifetime get cancer. The costs are enormous. and what will be stunning to you is that 60 to 80% of cancers are preventable. Preventable. It's a preventable disease. Obviously, the most important is smoking.

Stop smoking. Yeah. Obviously. The second is insulin resistance and diabetes, which links into what we were talking about. Insulin resistance, and this is not my data, this is CDC data. This is, you know, the establishment medical data that about 40% of cancers are due to metabolic syndrome and being overweight and diabetes. So just controlling your weight, preventing insulin resistance and treating your diabetes goes a long way to preventing cancer. And then there's some other things you can do, vitamin D.

So there's, they don't want you to know this because vitamin D is so cheap. Right. Vitamin D is very effective in both preventing cancer and in treating cancer. But again, it's so cheap. It's wild to think about that because, you know, probably the best way to get vitamin D is to get out there and get a little bit of sunshine. And we're literally told don't get sunshine because it causes cancer. Yes. So the problem is you're absolutely right.

So I have, you know, my good friend, Dr. McCola, who, spends his life outdoors, he's naked in the sun. He can get his level up to about a hundred just from the sunshine. Right. And so that's what you want to ideally do. But most of us, so what he does is he cycles half naked at midday for at least an hour to get sunshine. That's the best way to get vitamin D. Yeah. But most people can't do that. Right. And most, and there other people, you know, they live more north or more south and they just don't get it, can't get enough ultraviolet B. So you can take vitamin D orally, which is completely safe. It is exceedingly safe. So in fact, there was a randomized double-blind placebo study. You know the gold standard,

ivory tower standard, the way the powers that B want. They did a simple study. They took patients, they randomized them to double placebo or to give them vitamin D, I think it was 2,000 units a day, omega 3 fatty acids, 2 grams a day, and a home exercise program. Three simple interventions. Reduce their risk of cancer by 50%. Wow. Wow. Wouldn't you think that's important to know? Yes.

Exactly, but that I want you to know that because cancer's big business. Cancer is a business. They make money and it would be, it would bankrupt the medical establishment if we annihilated cancer. I always think, you know, and I feel bad have all been suckered in this when I drive down the road and I see kids out there, you know, raising money for cancer, put your quarter in here for cancer and St. Jude and all these. And I know these, a lot of this means well, but I just think for all the years we've been putting our quarters into these things, cancer just continues to rise. And really, as I started investigating, working on the doctors, I thought, you're never going to get a cure. to cancer from pharma. I mean it would put so many people out of business, but take so many

of these machines, you know, all these machines that cure cancer, all the oncologists, you know, what would happen to all that? I mean, an entire billions and billion dollar industry would come crashing down if we discovered that a vitamin or something like vitamin D could actually, you know, keep you from getting cancer. It's just not going to happen. Yeah, so that's a problem. So that's why patients need to empower themselves because they They can't trust the system and they're things they can do to reduce their risk of cancer, which is really important. And then healthcare providers should know this because their goal should be to improve

the health of their patients. Firstly, they should engage in a conversation with their patient. That never happens because they have like three minutes. And so they should talk about lifestyle changes, you know, really important things they can do. So patients can change their life. style and empower them to improve their own health. And then of course if you have cancer, there are very important things you can do.

So there are a list of about over 200 off-label drugs and nutraceuticals that have been shown and proven to be effective for treatment of cancer. Well where do we find this paper if we want to sort of let you just sort of dropped and all this information, repurposed drugs and vitamins to sort of help us with cancer, where do we find that at? Yeah, so we just have posted on our website three days ago a monograph which I wrote on Cancer Care. It can be downloaded from the website,FLCCC.net.

And it basically goes through what I've just told you. It challenges the conventional dogma on what causes cancer because probably that theory is probably not correct and the treatment is based on an incorrect theory of the causation of cancer. So there's actually some data that the chromosomal theory is not correct. That's why you don't get, it's not due to genetic mutations that causes cancer, which is a big deal, because all the treatment is based on screening for these gene mutations and for treating the genetic disease. But the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that it's not a genetic disease. It's a metabolic disease. And so probably the strongest evidence...

This is amazing, right? They love this word genetic because it means there's nothing you can do about it. Now all we're going to have to do is treat your symptoms and try to hang in there, right? Whereas... So can I tell you? You know who James Watson is? No. James Watson was from Watson and Crick. They were the two gentlemen that that discovered the DNA. They describe what DNA was, Crick and Watson. Dr. Crick, Dr. Watson,

wrote an editorial in the New York Times saying he does not think cancer is a chromosomal and genetic disease. Wow. And if it comes from him, he's the father of DNA. Who am I to challenge it? So that's how far along we are in this theory,

challenging this accepted theory of cancer, which is really, really important. Because if cancer is not what they think it's due to and it's due to some other cause, that means your treatment's going to be radically different. But that would mean throwing away all their chemotherapy and all their therapies which they make trillions of dollars. Amazing. Dr. Merrick, your pioneer you always have been. And it's wild to sort of watch you up close as you've really transitioned as sort of a top pharmaceutical medical specialist into a top health care professional, real health care.

And it's really excited to have you. I want to thank you experimenting on your own bodies. You know, also awesome because, you know, you get to say it worked for me. Thank you. And, you know, I think our goal ultimately is for people to empower themselves. Yes. So that they're healthier, happier, and live more productive lives. And so, you know, we've spoken a lot about diet, but there's also exercise, and there's also good sleep and stress control.

So there are things people can do to control all those five pillars of lifestyle. And I think if people did that, you know, we live in a really healthy, happy world. A healthy, happy world. I think my staff's into thinking, Dell's got like three of the four, the stress control lately. I've taken out a little bit too much in a few places, so it's been a little bit. little bit stressful, but I definitely sleep well. I've been exercising food, so I'm with you on that. You look fantastic and welcome to sort of kicking your diabetes to the curb. It's super exciting. Thanks for having this discussion with me because I think it's all about just speaking.

Yeah. Having discussions, you know, honestly, openly and without censorship. Agreed. Love it. Dr. Paul Merrick. Stay in touch. We can keep watching all of your great discoveries as you move forward. Thank you, Dr. Bigtree. Right.