The Highwire with Del Bigtree - DR PIERRE KORY EXPOSES THE IVERMECTIN SCANDAL

Episode Date: February 15, 2022

DR PIERRE KORY EXPOSES THE IVERMECTIN SCANDALBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

This is a doctor who I've wanted to speak with for quite some time now. So I'm really excited that we're about to be joined by Dr. Pierre Corey, who some would say is the godfather of ivermectin, at least when we're talking about its use against COVID-19. Take a look at this. Dr. Pierre Corey, the godfather of ivermectin. Dr. Pierre Corey, an infectious disease specialist. Dr. Corey has traveled across multiple states in the U.S. to care for COVID-19 patients. throughout the pandemic. Dr. Pierre Corey joins us now.

We have Dr. Pierre Corey. Those of you that know them, you better buckle your seatbelt. We are fighting against Big Pharma. They have controlled and captured our health agencies. Every single policy that they have issued out of those agencies, the entire pandemic was written by the pharmaceutical industry. Four-profit medicines are favored to almost the total exclusion of nonprofit medicines. And so you see, all of this moment.

money being thrown at pharmaceutical companies to develop new therapies when we already have existing repurposed drugs that are highly affected. We have a solution to this crisis. There is a drug that is proving to be of miraculous impact. And when I say miracle, I do not use that term lightly. Ivorymectin is known really for combating parasites. In fact, it transformed the health status of a good portion of the globe after it was invented. The discoverers won the Nobel Prize. So when I hear people asking for randomized control trials, I point out we have them. We have thousands of patients in them. Each showing remarkable, reproducible, consistent benefits in terms of reducing transmission,

reducing deterioration, hospitalization, and reducing death. We are sitting on a mountain of data, and we're not using it. On average, a 62% reduction in death when you used Ivermectin from all of these randomized control trials. So basically, you'd save two out of every three people that you treated. And I would also, again, argue that's the minimum of what Ivermectin is capable of, because not in every trial where they treated early. In Mexico City last month, they adopted it throughout the city, every testing booth where you get positive, they give Ivermectin. Their hospitals are emptying and their death rates are plummeting. We're seeing it play out in a number of countries.

Panama is the same. Czech Republic, Slovakia, all of them are showing these dramatic reductions in deaths and hospitalizations. I am absolutely exhausted. hearing about vaccinated and unvaccinated. There's only one category you need to care about. It's untreated versus treated. Stop with the vaccination. My dream is that every household has Ivermectin in the cup

work, and you take it upon development of first symptom of anything approximating a viral syndrome. They will never develop a drug that is more effective than Ivermectin. They are killing us with censorship and propaganda. They are manipulating the minds of millions. Most of the healthcare system, many of my fellow physicians, are completely brainwashed into believing that there is no treatment. We are tired. I can't keep doing this. Any further deaths

are going to be needless deaths, and I cannot be traumatized by that. This is corruption. Plain and simple. It's corruption. Enough with the medical tyranny. Live, free, or die has never meant more to me than it does now. We must live free or we will die. He's passionate, he's brilliant, he's dedicated. His name is Dr. Pierre Corey and is an absolute honor to have you joining me. Dale, it's nice to see you. All right, man. I have to say, I have a bucket list, and you've been on that bucket list.

We've been talking to you for some time and trying to find the right time, so we're finally here. I really want to thank you for coming to the studio. I'm a pleasure to be here. All right. So before we get into sort of the details of almost what appears to be, may go down as your life's work. Let's just talk about the rally for a second. all, that first rally. I mean, did you ever think you were going to be like a rock star? I remember, like, standing in audiences of 40,000, like, seeing, you know, my favorite bands play

and thinking, God, what does that feel like? And then to stand there, what was that moment like? Amazing. I mean, the whole time I was up there, we were up there for 40 of my minutes, and I spoke for a couple of minutes, but, I mean, I was tingling the whole time. You saw the energy. It was so peaceful. And everybody was just, like, coming together from all walks of life, races, political stripes. And the speakers were great, you know, we're just speaking the truth, speak in science and I mean it was just and I you know at my organization I saw a little signs in support of my organization it's just I mean it's a moment I will never ever forget yeah never forget it it still gives me chills when I think about it yeah it's such a

beautiful moment I agree it was absolutely outstanding and I think that we're about to have an event that is going to rival that I think that this one is going to be just off the chart so I know that you're working as as I am with the people that oh yeah together. So did you have any thoughts as we sort of look at this rally? You know, you covered it. I want to just say a few words about it. I mean, you did this beautiful piece on the Canadian convoy, right? Freedom Convoy up there. So in solidarity with them, you know, the U.S. truckers, taking that example, seeing what they could accomplish. We're calling it the People's Convoy. And they're going to join our march against the mandates,

which is going to be in Southern California on March 5th. And that's actually in the heart of mandate country, right? We're going right to where like they need to. our help the most. The heart of the bees. And so, you know, the marching route is going to be a one-day event. It's going to feature many of the same prominent doctors and speakers, right? There was at the first one along with, we got some recording artists, musicians, actors, and athletes.

And then the next day, March 6 is when the convoy kicks off. The people's convoy. They're going to leave from Southern California to start their track from California, D.C., sending them off in a spirit with peace and love, right? Amazing. And, you know, this defeat the Mandate's March,

it's just going to add more momentum, right? We're starting to see that momentum build. The U.S. is behind, right? You just covered that. You see all these other countries doing it. Even Canada, which was one of the most lockdown and, you know, totalitarian COVID regimes, I guess. You know, they're starting to break down. And I always think of them as sort of like a mild-mannered people, right?

You know what I mean? I actually went to school up in Canada for some time and love Canadians, just loving, heartfelt, you know, if they take to the streets, you know you got problems. Them in Australia. I mean, the two of them were just shocking. When you think of their national character and their general disposition, you know, and the way they turn, I mean, it was, it's really shocking. But, you know, in adding to that momentum, right, and let's just go over those objectives, right? You know, when we say defeat the mandates, it's not just vaccines, but it definitely is vaccine. So it's no to vaccine passports.

It's no to forcing COVID-19 vaccinations on children, the absurdity of which I'm sure you've covered, you know, million times. No to coerced vaccinations without accepting risk. I mean, this is simple foundational principled stuff. No to censorship. I would even say no to propaganda. Those two go hand in hand. Those are tools that are being used. No to limits on reasonable debate.

What happened to that? Exactly right. And then, of course, yes, in the power of natural immunity. That is a real thing. That's real science. And somehow that's been distorted. And then, of course, we insist, yes, to inform consent. And then my personal pet issue, which I'm most focal about, is yes, to doctors and patients making decisions without interference and without restrictions.

Amen. And for that, I really, like you said, everybody's got to show up. And we've got to turn this country back to more of its foundation. I mean, you know, so many countries have lost their way from principles that have, you know, protected us and given us our freedoms and our health and our spirit. And look where it's all taken us. And you think about the United States of America, the beacon of light for liberty and freedom, and to see that we in this nation have lost our power over our own body, our power to go to work, our power to leave our house, our power to breathe the freaking air.

Are you kidding me? I mean, I don't know what it takes to wake you up, but we got to get that back. Yeah, I mean, you know, the phrase that we keep using, me and my colleagues, you know, we just look around every day and each and every new absurdity, the world has gone mad. Yeah. I don't think it has to stay mad. I think it's going to find its way. It's sanity.

And I think we're helping to do that. And so, you know, we're going to keep trying. We're going to keep fighting. And I think, you know, we are seeing positive change finally. And I just, we've got to keep that momentum going. Absolutely. All right. So let's get down to there's so many things I'd like to cover.

So I'm going to try and keep this inside of today before the sun goes down. But let's start out with Ivermectin. Sure. You, even in that video that we just played, you make some really bold claims, saying things like they wouldn't be, they wouldn't be able to develop a drug that works better than ivermectin for this case when it comes to COVID-19, you know, that you could have saved, you know, all these lives and how good the studies are. So before we get into sort of the details around that, what is ivermectin and where does it come from? Yeah. So it's got such a

beautiful story behind it. So it was discovered by a Japanese researcher who basically they were looking for microorganisms that secrete substances that kill other organisms because they figured if they could isolate that substance, they could use it as medicines to try to kill infections. And it's such an interesting story because it's a professor named Satoshio Moro, who was a microbiologist in Japan, and he was looking for taking soil samples on a golf course in Japan, and he found this organism. And then in the lab, they noticed that this substance that they secreted, it was a bacteria called Streptomyces, which is well known.

This particular form, what's interesting, is the particular form that makes the Ivermectin family of compounds has only ever been found in Japan. Really? Yeah, it hasn't been found anywhere else. I mean, obviously, they've replicated, they've used it, but that original source is, so it's just an interesting thing that that microbiologist used that golf course in that area and found it.

And so what they found was that it was really toxic to nematomans, or worms or parasites. Okay. And so it was very quickly discovered to be a highly effective parasitic agent with almost no toxicity. And so it was quickly, along with Merck, and I have to be clear here, old Merck. Okay. What is a different century? What year are we talking about?

What is this is? This is late 70s, or mid to late 70s when it was discovered and we started to develop it. The Old Merck, they were as a partnership between the Institute of Professor Murr, there's a man named William Camel, a chemist with Merck, who then purified it from its original compound, which was avermectin to ivermectin. And they saw that it was a really powerful antiparacitic. And so they developed a medicine. And what's interesting is the first parasitic infections that they learned that it treated

were largely concentrated in low and middle-income countries. And they recognized that there was not a huge profit to be made, but there was a huge almost like global human health impacted. So from the beginning, Merck decided to produce it and distributed through WHO programs for free to huge portions of the globe. Wow. And the two main diseases that it was treating at first, although it works against many of them, was a disease called River Blindness or Onco-Sarchiasis. And that disease is particularly nasty in that it causes blindness. In many communities, Africa, most of the adults over the age of 40 are blind.

And they're led around by the children with sticks. So there's the epidemic of blindness. It essentially restored the sight of millions. Even after they were blind, they'd get their sight back? No, not that. But after the introduction, you stopped it up. That's true. I shouldn't say restore sight, but essentially it preserved the site of future generations after it was distributed.

So it has this beautiful story about it. It transformed the public health status of a good portion of the globe. And for those impacts and that beautiful, really public-private partnership, if those beautiful, the beautiful ones still happen? I'm always down with saying when an industry and a multi-billion dollar industry actually sets out and does some good in the world. Let's definitely recognize Merck for having done that. And I think it used to happen more often. But, you know, that impact led to the awarding of the Nobel Prize in medicine to a,

William Campbell and Satoshi Amora. Wow. So it has this beautiful backstory. And it's long been called a wonder drug for those things. But let's go. Let's move to now. Because that's my question, right? I mean, like if it's, this is, and this is what everyone says, right?

This isn't a parasite. It's a virus, you know, nuts, you know. So why does Ivermectin work against the virus? Our same question before we discovered, you know, the science behind it. But here's what we now know about Ivermectin. It's this incredible drug because it not only has antiparacetic properties, it has anti-bacterial properties, it has anti-inflammatory properties, it even has, get this, anti-tumor properties.

But here's the thing. When we first, and I have to give credit to my colleague, Paul Merrick, you know, the co-founder of the FLCCC, that he originally brought us together in our organization, really just to develop effective protocols. We did not have Ivermectin on our first. Was that done just for COVID or is this going back before that? Totally for COVID. So I'll talk about that and I'll get back to I remind.

So our organization, so Paul's a very well-known physician, very well known for his protocols in treating sepsis. You know, we're both, all of us in the group actually are ICU doctors. And some of us are lung doctors like myself. And some prominent doctors, they saw that there was not really an effective early response. There was no protocols being offered. The NIH was basically saying supportive care only. All the hospitals were just.

just giving Tylenol, fluids, oxygen, and ventilators. And we were seeing mortality rates that had never seen in ICU care before. Yeah. And so two different doctors around the same time, one from California, one from New York City, a doctor named Howard Cornfield, and then Keith Berkowitz from Manhattan, they reached out to Paul,

and then they started talking to me, and they said, you know, you guys got to, you know, get your group together, get a group together, put out some protocols, we'll help you, and we've got to disseminate the folks. And so Paul and I, we were already working on protocols. I was writing one almost like a will to my wife.

I was like, honey, if I get COVID, this is what you're going to do. We're going to do this, this, this, and this. I had like a 14-step protocol for myself. And so we all five of us, you know, we were reading just voraciously. I mean, it was a crazy time. I mean, our email inboxes every day to each other, this paper, that paper, we've taken off pre-print servers. We were talking to doctors in China and Italy.

I'm from New York. I trained in New York. I've trained a lot of people in New York. I've been trained by others in New York. I know everyone in the ICU in each ICU in New York City. I was on the phone every day when they were getting hit. I was in Madison, Wisconsin. So we were just like vacuuming up knowledge, experience, figuring out what was working.

One of my partners in the FLCC, Amberta Moutur, who was a famous intensivist and expert at steroids and lung disease. He was talking to his colleagues back in Italy. So we were just putting as much information together as we could. And, you know, so we formed this group. In the beginning, we were like five guys with the website kind of, you were pretty modest. And we put together our protocols and we hired like a website designer. We started to post them and they started getting some attention. And over time, you know, we first came to prominence.

I testified in May of 2020, you know, calling to the world for the critical use of cortical steroids. Okay. And that was actually at a time when all national and international health agencies specifically recommended against use. So don't use cortical steroids. Do not. You came out and said... They were convinced it would increase mortality.

We knew it was life-saving. We knew this was a steroid responsive disease. We knew it was critical. But when we came out, and I was given that platform in the Senate testimony, and I called out to the world that you need to start using this in the hospitalized patient. Boy, that was our first round of attacks. Now, the thing is, we were saved there because eight weeks later, a huge trial out of Oxford came out, showed that it was absolutely like.

saving and it became the standard of care worldwide. Now nobody remembers our advocacy, you know, eight weeks prior. Right. They do remember the trial. But, you know, we got that right. We got blood thinners, right. So many of our first protocol we put out in March is still there. It hasn't changed.

It's only has evidence as deepened around. Like, we know what we're doing. Yeah. It's something called expertise. You don't need trials for everything. Let me ask you a question just very quickly, because you said something that from the NIH and basically, you know, the health department of our country,

Their recommendation was just comfort care, give them Tylenol, if they get really bad. I know that they were just sending him home, put them on oxygen ventilator. We all watch that, devastating. As you're saying, death rates for the route. Can I ask you this? Is that the normal approach to any sort of new ailment that hits America? Don't do any, like the mandate is don't do anything at all, or was this something unique? Sure.

I have to be honest, I in my career don't, well, I think they, I guess the best, The best analogy would be HIV. So HIV, the first throws of HIV, you know, happened before I became a physician. But I have lots of older mentors. You know, if you think about what, you know, one of the biggest analogies with HIV is if you want to talk about Ivermectin, its best analogy is Bactrum. So Bactrum for the devastating, you know, HIV-associated pneumonia called PCP or now it's called PJP, it was killing thousands of young men, you know, with AIDS in the 80s. And the AIDS activists by then were beseeching and we're, you know, calling on Fauci to please come up with a recommendation of Bactrum. And I'll tell you why.

This is how absurd it is. They knew it worked. And you know why they knew it worked? Because cancer patients, like with leukemia on chemotherapy, would get the same pneumonia. The oncologists figured out that Bactrum worked. So it's not much of a leap to say if it works in those patients, why wouldn't work in the AIDS? So this was being used to treat this very incidence in cancer patients, but when the gay men mostly were dealing with this issue,

they're saying it's the same issue we want Bactrin to be in Boucher was saying no. Would not do it. Wow. Would not do it. And, you know, it's unfortunate, and we're probably going to get into the more sinister aspects of the public health system and our structures, but it's the same thing. You know, they're probably leaving the market.

They wanted to develop other drugs that are probably more profitable. Right. And they sat on it, despite increasing activism, increasing protests against the NIH. Then finally they approved it. But in that interim, it's estimated something, 59,000 AIDS died prematurely. Wow.

And so, you know, the reason why that's analogous to Ivermectin is the same thing. Like, we know it works. Right. So you got this group. Yeah. It's taken two. So this group of doctors, passionate, all ICU doctors, you got Merrick, who is, I think, the second most published.

Well, I like to call him, he's the most highly popular. He's the most highly published practicing intensiveness because the guy who's more published than him actually doesn't practice medicine. Got it. He's got a lab. He's got researchers. All right. Got it. So the most published practicing ICU doctor.

In the history of the field. Wow. And I mean, he's a giant. And he's always questioned orthodoxy guidelines. And, you know, when I was a younger physician in training, I mean, he was like a god. You know, when I became friends and colleagues with him, I'm just so exhilarating for me. We connected on another disease and another specific. interest some years ago. And so when we became good friends and colleagues, so when, you know,

COVID broke out, you know, he called on his closest colleagues and I happened to be one of them. So, you know, it's, it's been an honor and it's, it's, I'd like to say it's been a pleasure. But it's been, it's been, it's been, it's been everything. But, you know, you know, so we developed a protocol for the hospital first. Paul had a little protocol of prevention, vitamin, You know, just to really optimize your health in case you got it to afford years, but we didn't have a specific therapy like an antiviral And what we were doing and Paul started the system is every possible therapeutic that was being considered or Trial or tested or even used empirically We had on a list and we were following the data behind it

The ones that we believed work were in our protocols, but the ones that were still under investigation We weren't sure of its role we just followed the data followed the trials and around September I October of 2020, a whole slew of trials, because now you're about six months, eight months and dependent, a whole slew of trials started to report on numbers of therapies like toacilizumab, which is, you know, a cytokine blocker, hydroxychloric and randomized controlled trials, convalescent plasma, and they were all not satisfied. None of them were producing positive results. And so one week, Paul, as he's reviewing all these trials, he starts to look at Ivermectin.

We'd always had Ivermectin as like a question mark. like a possibility. It was not on our protocol, but we're following it. And around that time, Paul noticed there was this consistent reproducible signal of benefit from this country, that country. It was like, it was just so consistent and reproducible from so many different centers and so many different types of trials. We hadn't seen that in COVID before. And Paul actually put up, and he put up a lecture on YouTube in mid-October of 2020, essentially saying that it was the solution to that pandemic. And, you know, I'm listening to Paul, We were on our weekly calls and Paul's lecturing us on Ivermect and I hadn't really been, I was always a step behind Paul.

And so I jumped in right behind him. I just dove deep. And over the next month, we just, I mean, it was a crazy time to write the paper. We did what's called a comprehensive review, which is not just looking at trials. We looked at the basic science, the biological plausibility, what we knew about the mechanisms. We looked at case series, case reports, observational trials, randomized control trials, even epidemiological reports from health. ministries that used it distribution programs and it's everywhere I looked everything was positive I've never seen that I could not find any consistent or substantive

negative signal and and so we were like I was like overwhelmed with this I mean I was consumed and all I did was read read read and we were writing this paper and it was hard to write the paper because every time I would write a draft I'd wake up to next morning new trial just reported I have to put it in my reference manager was not working well, so it was taking me hours to update the references. But anyway, fast forward to November 13th is, I posted it, I finally had a mature draft that I was ready to go, you know, and I posted on a preprint summer, and I still remember like kind of trembling, because like it wasn't a delusion of grandeur, but I literally felt that the solution to the

pandemic. Like we finally identified it in a mature scientific manuscript from five highly credible, highly published researchers, all of us with reputations. You know, I was also a minor light in my specialty. I'm an expert and a pioneer in a subfield of critical care. It's called Point of Care Ultrasound. I've had a textbook that's seven languages, two editions. So I was well known in the country and the world for that because I traveled around lecturing. And so I figured our credibility, you know, and our longstanding careers and our achievements in our careers would carry some weight. And so we posted on the preprint server,

crickets. Like, not a lot of... And at first, and I think this is probably... At first, I think it was just so much noise. There were so many papers. I think there was like a million papers in the first six months. And so, like, everybody was saying this, that,

the other thing. So I can see where it got lost in the noise. And so we kind of realized that, like, dissemination of scientific knowledge, not that it was broken, but it just wasn't working. It was too much high volume, too many things. And to get into the high-impact journals, they're very narrow on what they take. And so it's very hard to get attention to this. And so we actually recognized that we probably needed to be more public-facing.

And, you know, speaking to doctors, doctors are extremely skeptical. They've all been kind of trained to not believe anything until it comes out of a large, double-blind. multi-center, randomized control trial from some high-impact journal. So a pre-print server by even a group of highly credentials got, it's not going to change the world. And so we did a press conference in Houston at Joseph Rohn's, one of our founding members' hospital. It got picked up by a lot of TV stations.

It got some attention, but then it kind of died down. And then where we got lucky is, you know, I was asked again to give testimony. You know, Ron Johnson, who he's just been such a great leader. he noticed from the beginning that there was something off with this health care. He couldn't figure out, like that supportive care only you mentioned. He couldn't figure out like why the country wasn't trying to treat this disease and go after it. And the first time he called me to testify, he said, I want the doctors to take their gloves off. And he saw our protocols.

He saw our website. What we were doing is exactly what he thought doctors should be doing. Try to help these patients using your expertise, your knowledge of the disease, your insights and your understanding experience with the medicines that you know. And so we were doing like just straight up doctoring, you know, no conflicts of interest and patient as our former, as our foremost, you know, concern. And so he appreciated that. So he asked me again to testify in December and I'll tell you a little back story because

I was pretty impassioned and fired up. Right, right. I got insulted before I spoke. The ranking member of the Democrat Party, which is a very important, which is a very important which is my old party. I don't have a party anymore. But at the time... I'm still about politically maroon. Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, totally. So, but he, like, gave this speech saying that this is an empty exercise. These are politically motivated, scientific opinions or something. And I was fuming. So when it came down to speak, I just ripped. And so that got me angry. But also, you know, what I had talked about and what we'll talk about today is, like, I couldn't figure out why there was no focus on.

using readily available, studying readily available drugs that are off-patent, generic, widely known, widely used safety records that we clearly know, why wouldn't we focus on building protocols there? Every, the first six rounds of the active trials, which is the NIH-funded trials for COVID, every single one was a novel, high-cost, patented pharmaceutical agents. Brand new, with no history whatsoever, no idea what it could do. Let's use the things we have decades of information on what we've seen it can do. try it over here. It's similar. None of that. Let's just go with brand new, flying blind,

expensive drug. That was my first inkling like, there's something wrong with the system. And I touched on in my testimony. And so, you know, I think the, the, the, sort of the anger, the frustration, the fatigue, like, you know, COVID is hard, you know? Like, I've been running ICU's for, you know, 15 years. And, you know, going into an ICU, you see every patient in the bed has COVID. that the x-rays are the same. The oxygen settings are the same. It's hard to differentiate names and faces. It takes days to understand that because everyone is so similar.

And they're so hard to recover. Even with our aggressive protocols, we had pretty good success in the beginning with later variants. By the time they got the ICU, it was harder and harder to recover. Once you're at the ICU, you're past that. It's late in the game. We now know it's one of the things I found so interesting being at the hearing after the March in D.C. that you guys had

is I really hadn't wrapped my head around the fact that you have two different parts of this. You have the five days where we've got to stop the proliferation of this virus, which is where Ivermectin, hydroxychloric with these repurposed drugs are so effective. Then once you're past that, now it's all the results of this thing

having gotten inside of all of your cells and inflammation and all the problems. Now you're treating those problems. So in ICU, you're really at the back end of this by the time they're there, which is tough. You know, like any, it's one of the founding principle of any acute disease. Earlier treatment is better. You don't wait until organ failures develop to treat.

You treat early to prevent the organ failures. And so, you know, that testimony went viral. And it put Ivermectin into, I think, the minds and thoughts and psyche of a lot of the public. And so I would say we got lucky because it, you know, for whatever reason it went viral. So I think it was. Well, we were the ones in one that's. putting out there, I think we had something to do with that. I was like, look at this. You basically opened it up, addressed the senator that just insulted you. Yeah.

Insulted, like what you're calling us. You read off your degrees and everything, one of part of this group, the great doctors, and here's what we're seeing. There's no drug that is working as well. So, you know, and I think for me, I mean, I grew up in film. I'm a filmmaker. That's where I sort of come from. And I see things as movies in many ways. And I imagine as you're telling the story, I'm thinking, what an amazing movie this is going to be. You know, you've got a handful of doctors. You've got a pandemic, if you will. It's a perfect setting for a movie.

People are dying. No one can figure it out. And then a couple of doctors get together. And like, wait a minute, I'm seeing in this village and this, like piecing together these pieces. There's this one drug that's rising up, you know, that nobody's paying attention to. But five guys were really looking. You're thinking, this is how the movie. And then the moment they announced, they put the paper together.

And boom, it changed the world. And then nothing happened. I feel like I'm living in a movie. It's so surreal everything that's happening. And there's dark chapters. There's stuff that I've seen. I've learned. I've been transformed.

I've learned so much not only about science, but about the corruption of science and how science is really run. So I've learned life lessons like all over the place. And so, but, you know, let's go back to the, you know, because I do want to talk about that. You know, you brought up the idea, you know, I've met it's an anti-parisicist. Right. Yeah. How does it work? It has all these properties.

So I mentioned antiparasitic. It has, you know, interesting case reports and antitumor activities as some antibacterial, anti-inflammatory. But here's the thing. When Paul started talking about Ivermectin, I started digging deep more into the science papers, the in vitro studies. And I find out that for 10 years now, since 2012, dozen different RNA virus models in vitro of Ivermactin stops. replication of Zika, Dengue, West Nile, HIV, herpes viruses, influenza. I mean, I literally was like, wait, what? This has these amazing antiviral properties, and we're not talking about it more.

No one's researching it more. And so, you know, we already saw it clinically. So as I go back, like I said, I kept finding positive, positive signals. So the biologic plausibility, the mechanisms that were being discovered around trials is that it binds to the spike protein. and it alters the entry. So there's a whole host of prevention trials. That's the other thing.

When I looked, I was finding treatment trials and then these wickedly positive prevention trials. People who are taking it regularly, in some trials, nobody got sick and others, very few got sick. It was rivaling and besting the efficacy of the vaccines, which is a problem. Right. And that's when you were saying it,

if you have a product that handles Zika, West Nile, all of these things that the vaccine makers are lining up. And here's the thing. I mean, I don't know if you've thought about this. Maybe you have because I've been focused on vaccines for some time. Vaccines are like no other product. Like if you think about a drug company, right? If I make a drug, then a drug's only used on those people that get sick.

Yeah. Right? A drug is only for that percentage that get a disease. A vaccine, on the other hand, is something that's given to everybody. So if I'm going to choose what part, what I want to invest my time and energy in, Do I want a product that's only used for the small group of people that maybe have an issue with this? Or do I want something that I can say the entire world has to take it? Oh, and I got a better slogan, it only works if everybody takes it.

I mean, this thing is, you know, right there, the financial benefits of calling something a vaccine and keeping anything out of the way that just deals with the illness and those that have it. It's obvious why it seems to me the entire pharmacy going to be moving towards vaccinations. I haven't thought of it in that way, but almost in, yeah, I haven't thought about it, but you're absolutely right. The market of people who could be a recipient of a vaccine to prevent the possibility of getting disease is... Everybody.

Magnitudes more than those who get sick with it. So is that why there's this terribly troubling, sinister, and criminal history of the vaccine industry? I mean, the profit incentive is so absurd and obscene. And so we find out that it has this decade of antiviral properties and then all of these studies showing these really potent inhibitors of inflammation, right? Because going back to COVID, simplistic, two phases, early antiviral, right, where you get kind of fever, stuffy nose, short throat headache, you know, myalges, things like that. And then in a

proportion of those, for whatever reason, it'll cause this severe inflammatory reaction in the lung. It's actually essentially a macrophage activation syndrome. It stimulates one of the resident, the most popular resident immune cell in the lungs, and they get activated and they start attacking. And so the lungs become inflamed. You lose gas exchange. You go into respiratory failure. And Ivermactin has these myriad mechanisms against the virus.

It's not just one mechanism. It works on many different things, from binding to interrupting, like, these enzymes that it needs to replicate. then it has all these anti-inflammatory properties. So when I say things like, it would be hard to design a drug better for this disease than something that has myriad potent antiviral and then multiple anti-inflammatory,

that's a truth. I mean, there's not a lot of antiviral anti-inflammatory combination medicine. It's a miracle drug. It's like a little miracle to take place. Paul calls it, you know, like a gift from, you know, heaven. Right. I mean, it really was like... So that...

That's its role in COVID, right? It's an anti-paracic that has all these other properties. And, you know, one of the things I'm looking forward, if we ever get out of this little war that we're in, is the future of Ivermectin and other viral models. You know, what's it like in influenza? What's it like in herpes and all these other things? I think it has so much potential.

But let's stick to the cold. You said in that piece I see your future where everybody should have Ivermectin in their cabinet, because it's just so effective, so safe. Before we, I want to jump in and really get into what this real story is, is how did it get covered up, what happened behind scenes, things we didn't see. But first, for those right now, there's going to be doctors, and I want people sending this to their doctors,

do you have a website that sort of lists all of the studies where they can really see this many studies, show Ivermectin work, all that? So our website has a lot of information, a lot of summaries, So the different summers of different things, summers of the safety studies, summary of the health ministry programs, our review paper. The most up-to-date, which has the most up-to-date compendium of all the studies, is something called c19 early.com. Okay. So C-19. Early.com.

Okay. And it's the group of scientists that prefer to remain. All right, here we are. Is this, so this is, is this an IVM meta.com. Yeah, so that's another way to get to just the IVM page. So this page is really cool, everybody. This is something I was looking as well as getting to IvMetna.com. Well, you'll see there is the list of like each issue that is dealing with, the amount

of studies that looked at the success rate of those stories, studies, and then the statistical significance in which case you see just powerful amounts of studies, metadata around this. And my understanding you also have a page like this for hydroxychloroquine also, right? Yeah, that's a similar thing. That website also has hydroxychlorine and showing really similar benefits. So if you, so just very, just very quickly. Just, and here's the hydroxychloroquine, same thing. So folks, you've all been asking for this.

You've been asking for where do I send doctors to, I mean, where is the proof? Here it is. If you're a doctor and a scientist, look how many studies had this right that are saying, look at the percentages, the success rate. This, this body of evidence is why Dr. Robert Malone is saying 500,000 people have been killed in hospitals in America that didn't need to die. Right? I mean, essentially, that's where we're at. The suppression of this evidence around repurposed drugs is really what I talk about now.

You know, it's like when you look at those are called forest plots and you see the amount of people in the trials, the number of trials, and the large magnitude of benefit, the farther the boxes are to left shows you the more potent the benefits. There's not many drugs in history that have such tight, precise, and large signals of benefit in any disease model. And so it's truly remarkable. And what's absurd is the government, the NIH, is currently running randomized placebo-controlled trials right now. It has proven efficacy. It's really just shocking that they're actually entering people and giving them placebo.

When this drug, so it's not only the trials, right? So in my Senate testimony, and I know you were there and you listen, I cited the health ministry programs from many different countries around Root, remarkable results, real-world data. They gave patients treatment kits they compared them to those that didn't. And you saw these dramatic differences in deaths and hospitalizations. And so we know it works in trials.

We know it works in the test tube, in animals and case theories, you know, I mean, there shouldn't be any question. So, I mean, this just gets down to something that, you know, I keep saying. One of the things I've been saying is the double-blind, I always say inert placebo study because we started changing this word placebo to being other vaccines. when it's supposed to be something that has no effect on the human body. So I always throw this word inert, like no effect on the human body, double-blind study. But what I'm finding, and this is something that we were talking backstage about it, is that, you know, I only hear Tony Fauci refer to a double-blind randomized trial

when he's talking about something he doesn't like, right? I mean, it feels like that's his way of bearing. He did it during AIDS. He did it, you know, with all those drugs that repurpose drugs that were working, That's why we have the Dallas Buyers Club, you know, movie about the fact that they just create this black market because he just says, until I see a double-blind study, I'm not even going to consider that drug. And what, I mean, behind that really is he knows that those studies, to do them right with the right amount of people for the drug, and the drug companies are the only ones that pay for it, tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars based on those studies, they're not going to fund it because most of the time, as you said, they're repurposed. they're off patent. They make no money for that drug company. We're not going to do it. And so this is what, and just to be clear with my audience, and something I didn't know, I think we

always think the FDA and the CDC are the ones funding these sort of trials. What I didn't realize, and to be clear, we make a bad guy out of the drug companies because they don't do proper long-term studies or whatever, but we don't realize how much that actually costs, right? So when they say, for instance, when I've heard arguments, I'm a little bit off track, but just to bring people up to why I'm not anti-pharma. When the pharmaceutical industry is saying, we can't have this go off patent yet. We haven't made back our money. And be like, oh, they're just a bunch of money grubbing.

They're paying hundreds of millions of dollars. And that's for the drugs that worked. How about the ones that didn't work? I mean, they're doing that. If we want this system to work, we have to realize billions, in fact, dollars are being spent on drugs that never got to market. So when these drug companies are trying to recoup their money, I'm just giving their side of it, we need that to be on patent long.

enough that it pays for all of the other drugs that we did the right thing, didn't put them on the market, didn't poison you with them. And so that's their argument, right? Yeah, there's weaknesses. Right, right, right. Okay. So one of them is, so certainly there needs to be a profit incentive for them to invest, develop drugs, and test them. Right. The problem is, is they claim otherwise they can't make money. Meanwhile, the standard operating procedure of pharmaceuticals, they spend billions and billions on marketing. Right. They do illegal practices. It is a criminal industry. The last 20 years, the

biggest 20 settlements, right? 13 billion in civil penalties. Six billion in criminal penalties. They do not care. They will bury toxic effects of drugs. They'll bury the evidence around toxic effects of drugs. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands,

die. We're still living through the opioid epidemic, which is unleased by a pharmaceutical company. That penalty has not yet been settled. And so they're repatriation. They're repatriation. And so when they cry poverty like they're somehow not going to get profit, well, then why are you spending so many billions sending these drug representatives essentially manipulating doctors into using their products?

You know, why don't just go develop good ones? So, you know, the cries of poverty that there's no profit, they make obscene profits. It's one of the most profitable industries. But the reason I bring it up is because what I, and I'm, I think people watch this show because they're like Dell's reasonable. I'm being reasonable about this. I'm saying, I see all sides of this. And we have a real quandary here.

We have a quandary because the need to make money, and you're right, obscene amounts of money, but to pay off your stockholders, there's a way that business is set up. And we have a real problem moving the future that we're going to talk about right here, which is what do we do when the best, what if there's a cancer cure that exists?

What if there's a cure for cancer right in front of our eyes? Maybe it's Ivermecta, something like that, right? In this case, but it's off patent. It makes no money. I might as well say water cures you. They're like, what am I going to go near it? I don't want to sell my old drug because I don't make any freaking money from it.

And so we live in this world where literally things are getting shelved. I always think of it. It's sort of like that scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark when you finally find the Holy Grail and they just shelve it into the catacombs of a museum. It's never seen again.

They don't want the world to see it. We literally live in that moment now where the drug companies go out of their way to hide. Even Merck came out against, I think was Ivermiction, right? Saying, no, no, no, we don't believe in that at all. Well, even Merck doesn't believe it. They don't believe in it because they can't make any money.

What they say to Fauci is, yo, brother, you know what I mean? We're not going to make any money off. So we're not doing that study. So you're safe to tell the world it's not safe because the proper study will never be done. But we'll have this brand new drug. We'd love for you to, like, get NIH funding behind. And so this is the, this is what you ran into. That's the system.

That's the system. So I learned, I didn't, I didn't understand how pervasive and how damaging it is and how destructive of our public health it is, and how it's not new. So what you just described, right, is actually the business model of the pharmaceutical company. They need to develop new drugs to protect obscene profits. They could make a profit off of vitamin.

It would just be, they're not used to those modest profits. It's not that it's a nonprofit drug. It just doesn't, you know, afford them the obscene ones that they're used to that they run on. And so what you have here is you have a decades-long warning. now on what are called repurposed and generally off-patent generic drugs. Right. So their model is destroyed, distort, suppress, and deny any efficacy of the older drugs,

or just say they're not as good as the new shinier pill. Right. Because that's how they protect to keep the profit machine going. And the way in which they conduct that war is what I've had a front row C2 this year, and I've been transformed. I would call myself somewhat of a broken physician. I don't really know who to trust anymore. I can't even read journal.

because what I've learned about the capture of the journals, the capture of the agencies, all of the policies I've witnessed around therapeutics and vaccines, you just have to ask yourself, when you read a policy on therapeutics or vaccines, ask yourself, what policy would a pharmaceutical company write? And then read the policy and say, gee, that seems consistent entirely in line

with the interests of a pharmaceutical company. They've essentially control and are integrated with our, federal health agencies. And so I've had to witness and learn of the complete capture of a public health system and how it's destroyed public health for decades. And by the way, Ivermactin is not unique. It's just the latest, right? So you put up a slide before on hydroxy chloroquine.

There was a huge war, and that was a sinister war. It was well documented in Bobby Kennedy's book. It's one of the most chilling chapters to read of a public health episode, what they did to convince the world that hydroxychloroquine didn't work when they knew it were. Essentially, you're referencing. Fauci's on record knowing that it worked in other coronavirus. Correct. And just to be clear, what they did was they gave lethal doses of hydroxychloroquine

in the studies they finally recognized. None of the doses that were being used by doctors all over the world, including DDR, Vladimir Zelenko, and others. But to get to the bottom, I think, of, like, to launch in this next part, what happens when the pharmaceutical industry is funding the United States, you know, our government, which is what happens, is in this revolving door of working at the CDC, the FDA, they're all in bed together, this entire thing. And you're in this place where they need to make money, and Fauci seems to be doling out that cash and protecting them from ever having to have an off-patent drug get in the way of profits and sales.

What happens is that mandate comes down and it affects the doctor. And I think the best way to look at that was the great testimony by your friend and partner, Dr. Ralph Merrick. Paul Merrick. Paul, I mean, this is Paul Merrick, just giving his testimony. Listen to what he said when they took away his use of ivermectin, the other drugs, that he was having a 50% increased result over all the other doctors around him. They didn't go to him and say, hey, how's that working? Why don't you teach everyone else?

Instead, they took it away from, look at this. I was using our protocol to treat critically ill patients in the ICU with a whole host of repurposed drugs. I then, this is a memo, this is a memo sent to the entire healthcare system, but they targeted me personally. And what did this memo say? These medications will not be verified or dispensed for the prevention or treatment of COVID. This list includes either mectin, bechalutamide, etopsycide, fluvoxamine, dutesteroid, and finesterite. And then just to stick it to me, they added acorbic acid. What was I to do?

My hands were tied. As a clinician for the first time in my entire career, I could not be a doctor. I could not treat patients the way I had to be to treat patients. I had seven COVID patients, including a 31-year-old woman. I was not allowed to treat these people. I had to stand by idly. I had to stand by idly watching these people die. Incredible testimony, powerful, emotional.

I can't even imagine, you know, as a doctor, having your hands tied like that. The total destruction, the doctor-patient relationship, being forced to go against the Hippocratic oath to first do no harm. And here you are, you're being forced to basically, you know, watch people die. Kill them. I mean, and in some ways it must be like, I'm killing them because I could save them. You know, the other part of the oath is you put your patient as your

primary consideration, you know, and Paul does that. He knows the science. He knows his therapeutics. We know these drugs work. And to suddenly be handcuffed and have them removed, and you can't do anything for your patient, you watch them deteriorate in the bed every day. I mean, I was on the pole.

We were like co-counseling each other that week. I remember Paul was destroyed. He was destroyed by that week. And, you know, he hasn't worked again in the ICU since. And that was really, you know, the prelude to the ending of his career. And, you know, he was attacked because of his contrarian approach. He was not with the program. Where does that come from?

How did it happen? I mean, I know that that goes specifically to, you know, his hospital, and they seem to be just headed out for him because they were in conflict. But we're, you know, every, I have a friend that's a doctor. And, you know, I've had trouble really having the conversation. I mean, he won't really come near me. He knows who I am. We go back.

But I know he's not like, he said to a mutual best friend. He's like, yeah, I was talking to him about you, Del. And he said, look, I'm sure he disagrees, but, you know, hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin don't work. And so my friend was like, so you've tried it. He's like, no, that's what they tell us. He's like, so then how do you know that to be the case? So what is it? I mean, is this how doctors work?

Do they just, it just comes from a mandate from above and you just assume that that that's, the truth, even though you're having terrible results right before your eyes? So of the many things that I've learned, these are things I knew, the extent of which I didn't know. So one of the things is, it's well known that not all doctors read or keep up with the evidence. Overwork, stress, maybe not intellectually interested, or they just stick with what they know and they just work on that. They're not interested in new diseases or any. And so they are particularly reliant on listening to who they think are experts. And the challenge is, and this is the crime of COVID, is that they put an implicit faith in what I have to call, what Paul calls, the gods of science and knowledge, right?

This implicit faith, which I had at the beginning, I had of implicit faith in these agencies that they had public health as their primary consideration and that they did have the record expert, and they would convene the right. panels and particularly populated with clinicians, which I found out they don't. They have doctors who think they're clinicians. They're not. You know, they do a lot of research, they do administration, but they're not talking to guys who are treating the disease all day long, day in and day out. There is no seat for the clinicians at the table. And so that's one thing I learned is that doctors are particularly able to be manipulated.

And when you capture the agencies where they're looking for for guidance and the pharmaceutical companies are telling them the truths that they need to understand, which is these generic drugs don't work, right? Right. And that vaccines are the only way out. I mean, these are all pharmaceutical industry interests that are speaking. Right. And so those are what they hear and the fact that they have the faith that those things are

true. And the thing is, it's also supported by what they see in the high impact journals. They're told this by the experts and then they go to the high impact journals. What appears in high impact journals? no positive trials of Ivermectin can appear in those journals because the journals are captured. I know research. Those journals take funding from the pharmaceutical industry

that is driving what we do and do not know about. And that's been well described. You know, editors of some of those prominent journals either during or after their long tenures say you can't believe half of what you see there. You know, the amount of control. And I always thought of it theoretical. But now, you know, I got to learn it in real life.

One of the beauties of my journey is I have this rich, robust, just interesting collection of colleagues that I've made from around the world that have reached out to us, our group, and I've had so many interesting debates. And when I learn of their papers and the fate of their papers, you know, really well-done trials. And, you know, when we talk about double-blind, randomized control trials, when, you know, of the 32 or 34 randomized controlled trials,

16 are double-blind randomized placebo control. Of ivermectin. Yeah, of ivermectin. Yet they're ignored. Because they're not done in some, you know, or like some major U.S. university that are done in other layers. I mean, honestly, I think that that's the problem. These universities are taking the funding from pharma.

And then we know many doctors and scientists have been on this show over the years. As soon as you touch certain third rail investigations, your university fires you because they're like, we're getting told by the controlling system, pharma. The amount of control that pharma has, has is just been terrifying to learn. Every day that I've learned the extent of it. And so, like, for instance, what you talk about with research, so, you know, either

pharma does their own trials, right? So they fund and do their own trials, which is really scary. Yeah. You're talking about a company who has specific profitable interest in the drug doing their own trial. It's been well described in books for decades, that their results are consistently overinflated. When later studies are done by independent entities, they're fixed. 50% positive.

Farmer trials, 86% positive. So anytime I see a farmer trial now, I'm like, okay, they say it's 80% effective, it's probably around 40 to maybe 50 if you're lucky. And even then, they manipulate things. They bury adverse data. They use very controlled and most favorable populations. They do all sorts of statistical chicanery. I always say the test group is the Justice League.

They bring in the superheroes of our planet, don't drink, don't smoke, the healthiest people, do the studies on them and then give it to everybody. That is a high-risk group all over the plant. Right, exactly. And so you get that game. So there's that part. But the thing is, is the other trials that are done are largely relying on NIH funding. And when the NIH is essentially captured by those working with or for pharmaceutical interests,

when you write a grant for a study, if you were to write a grant for an Ivermectin study and send it to the NIH, what's the chance of that getting approved? Right. Zero. Zero. And so, or now there are trials, so the NIH is doing a trial, but that's what's scary. If you look at the hydroxy, the corgidicine. Right.

How are they going to manipulate that? Right. You know, a study giving ivermectin the best chance? No. What they do is they allow ivermectin to be started up to like, the UK trials up to 14 days after symptoms, absolutely ludicrous. Or seven days is in this case, and then they use a very modest dose. We know in these subsequent variants, the viral loads are 250, 400 times.

the earlier variance where we're using the lower doses. Do they use a requisite higher dose? No. And it's, so the idea, I'm so cynical now. I'm not even cynical. I know it's a corrupt exercise. So, you know, the idea when, you know, everybody, and that's the other thing.

The whole country's waiting for this, you know, NIH trial. Right. And, you know, when it's negative, they're all going to see C, I told you so. Look, when we look at the trials of AZT, I mean, look at how Fauci manipulated those. He's giving blood transfusions on a daily basis to those that are in the AZT group. and leaving the placebo control. So this is a man at the NIH who is known to manipulate the studies to get the favorable outcome that he wants. He's come out against ivermectin.

Let's be honest. If ivermectin proves to be safe and effective, I think he's going away to prison for crimes against humanity because all those studies that were in his face. So he knows that. So the head of this trial right now, do we really think we're going to get a good trial when it comes out? Oh, geez, I was wrong, everybody. My bad.

I killed 250,000,400,000 people by denying this drug. It's hard to imagine that the NIH, and this is the problem now. We can no longer trust his regulatory agency. I want to just get into the story, though, of the moment you have this blow-up moment in Congress, right? So you're up there, you're passionate, you grab the hearts of minds, we're sharing your video, it's going viral. Ivermectin is now on the rise. What happened between that moment where it felt like we had the cure, we have the answer, how are you going to stop this? credible doctors got up, Senate heard them, the world is sharing it, and yet I am shocked today.

You have to take, you know, you got to get a judge involved and take a hospital to court in order to get hybramectin. What was the death blow? So when I first thought, when I first, when we've all first discovered that there was something really wrong, first there was a little honeymoon period, right? So we got a lot of attention. One of a chief of staff, a former Texas Health Commission, worked for a chief of staff for Nebraska Congressman who sits on some of the funding committees of the agencies. They put pressure on the NIH to talk to us.

So they got us a meeting to present to the therapeutics committee at NIH. So I presented with Paul Merrick and a guy named Andrew Hill. He invited Andrew. After my testimony, I met Andrew at a virtual conference where he gave a talk. I saw he was from the WHO. I emailed him. We shared our slides and we started talking. And he was equally enthusiastic.

I mean, he had been studying repurposed drugs for six months. Every single compound he studied, he had failed. And he said the same thing to us. He said he saw a signal that was so consistent and reproduced. This is the old Andy Hill. We'll talk about later Andy Hill. But you got this WHO doctor that's like, I'm with you. I totally agree.

So what can go wrong with that? Now we've got a WHO doctor on board. We have WHO lead researcher heading a huge team, well-resourced team that were scouring every clinical trial registry around the world. They were developing independent communications with every person. principal investigator of every randomized controlled trial of Ivermectin, the results were coming. They were consistently positive. He was building them.

Then we go to the NIH, January 6th. So I testified December 8th. January 6th, we had an audience with the entire committee at the NIH. And we presented each a piece. And we brought in Andrew because his data was the most deep, sophisticated, and robust because he really, he had results of randomized controlled trials, which hadn't been posted. He had more data than us. because they had a huge team,

and they only talked the language of randomized control. They don't want to hear about my observational, you know, all the other stuff. So we did this combination presentation. I thought it was pretty impressive. And then the question and answer session, like, you know, yeah, you're supposed to be skeptical. And so they were asking challenging questions. They were, you could clear they would see that they were underwhelmed. And, you know, they thanked us for coming.

And I'll tell you an interesting anecdote. So at the end, it was interesting. Before they finished, they said, do you have any questions for us? And like, we paused. And then I just like, I think, you know, me, I just blunt. And I said to the committee, I said, you know, I got to ask you a question. You guys currently have a recommendation that Ivermectin not be used outside of a clinical trial. I have not seen that recommendation apply to any other drug.

why do you guys say don't use it out of you know everything else is neutral or you know insufficient evidence to recommend like convalescent plasm why do you have a recommendation based on expert opinion only to not use it out of a trial when it's safe and you know it has all this evidence of equity why do you have that and i'll tell you we have this recorded a 14 second pause of a committee of 23 members do you know how long 14 second pauses in a meeting I had one at the NIH myself, actually. I've talked about it a lot. I had a pause. Bobby Kennedy, I had a shocking pause in the same way. When we said, we can't find a single double-blind placebo study of any of the childhood vaccines.

You know, are they being done and we're just not seeing them? Is it not public? Or are they not being done? Pause. Like, they knew what we were there. We were there for that exact way? Like, no, like, it was just, it was incredible. It was incredible.

So back to your giant pause. So NIH now, we now have confirmation from two different sides. And NIH is the home of the long silent pause. I'm borrowing a phrase from Brett Weinstein, but that's when you know you're over the target. Right, right, exactly. There was like, you know, people are really uncomfortable with that question. And I was shocked at how long the pause went on. And then finally the head of the committee said, okay, guys, we need to answer this.

and they gave me the most demeaning, condescending answer ever. They did not answer my question. They answered simply why it was expert opinion. It was like a non-answer. They're like, you know, expert opinion only is when we don't have, you know, sufficient trials data to really base. And I was like, why are you talking to me like I'm a medical student? Like, that's not the question I answered.

So clearly we were over the target and clearly they were hiding something. And so that was one thing that started to bother me. Yeah. The next important thing is at the time that I gave testimony, I was looking for a journal to submitted to. And obviously, like any other physician with an important paper, you wanted to get it in the highest impact paper, a journal you can. And I discovered through some new connections and colleagues that there was a scientist

who proposed a special issue to a journal called Frontiers and Pharmacology. Frontiers has a whole collection of journals, and one of them is Frontiers in Pharmacology. And this issue was going to be dedicated to repurpose drugs to treat COVID. I was like, what better journal issue, especially a special editor. And so I was introduced to him, and you want to know who that editor was? Who? A guy named Robert Malone. Really?

So that's how far back I go with Rob. Wow. And then the other funny anecdote, Robert's probably going to get tired of hear me tell this actor, But he and I became close. We're on the phone a lot because I would harass him because people were dying. So many people were dying. And peer review can take a long time.

Peer reviewers, they, you know, they're all busy. It's voluntary work. And so he chose four peer reviewers. Three of them were senior governmental scientists that he'd work with for decades. And, you know, I'd be like, Robert. You know, reviewer one submitted their peer review. Can you get reviewer two,

reviewer three, reviewer four. You know, I didn't know who they were. Yeah. So he would be called. And it was Christmas. Like, I think I submitted to him on, like, December 18th. And, like, Christmas holidays and people are dying. And I'm like, come on, Robert.

Like, I don't care about Christmas. I can't imagine, right? Like, people are dying. People are watching them. So Robert was getting sick of me. But, you know, I also was becoming a little bit of a public figure. And Robert, you know Robert now. He's so wise.

He's so smart. He was kind of becoming a mentor to me and he was talking to me. And I remember this one day, you know, I said, Robert, man, you see me out here. you know, I'm trying to, you know, advocate, disseminate, you know, get this knowledge out. I said, why aren't you out there? You know what he told me at that time? He said, he goes to me, if they can't see you, they can't shoot you. That's the Robert Malone who said that last year. Now look at Robert Malone. He's walking around a huge target on the back and everyone's shooting out of him. I think he's waving at Target over his head.

So, so anyway, but just it also speaks to Robert Malone. I mean, he was, he was, he was, He knows pandemics. He's involved in pandemics, and that's part of his career. He knows that in a pandemic, the best solution would be to identify an available drug that you could deploy immediately. And so he was trying to get the science around them in a journal. So here's what happened next, though. And this is when, like, our lives blew up. It passed peer review after three rounds.

Lots of revisions. They didn't like some of the stuff we were concluding. Fine. We softened them. We changed them. We simplified them. We changed the order. And it finally got accepted for publications somewhere around, I think, mid-January, late January.

And it's an online publication. And what they do is they put up the abstract first as a provisional acceptance. And then it has to go into production and whatnot. But it's online. It's a pandemic. And our literal conclusion of our paper was, Ivorymectin should be systematically and globally deployed for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. because we had a dozen prevention trials,

32 controlled trials. I mean, we couldn't find evidence that it didn't work, and it's so safe. And the problem was what happened is, like, one week passed, two weeks passed, three weeks passed. And I would start writing to the editor, you know, representatives at the journal, like, what's going on, guys? This is a very important paper you must publish.

And it was getting really bad, and one day in frustration I wrote to them, I said, you know, I don't think something is wrong here. You're not communicating. There's no explanation for the amount of time you're taking to publish this. And I said, I'm going to go public. I have a deep concern that there may be misconduct going on. And after that email, Robert Malone got a call from the editor.

And the editor said, and this is where it gets sinister, the editor said that there was an anonymous complaint saying that they didn't feel like our conclusions were substantiated. And he asked some anonymous third-party peer review. We never saw the peer review. Don't know who it was. Some person that he called in to independently evaluate the paper. And that person overruled the four peer reviewers of three senior governmental scientists and an ICU expert and said those conclusions unsubstantiated, that paper needs to be retracted.

That's first of many Ivermectin papers retracted around the world from my close colleagues. By mysterious individuals of high power that override multiple world-renowned scientists and reviews. And you know what? You know what? I almost feel like I'm going to cry because, you know, the way it was explained, like they said not only they were rejecting for that. And I argue, why won't you ask for a revision? Give me what the problems are. I would even go so far as to soften the conclusion if they would want me to. And the editor said, we won't work with them based on my email. And so Dell, I literally, like, couldn't sleep for days because I thought, like, my temper and my email, like, basically is going to cause, like, untold death because I misbehaved on an email.

I literally thought it was about me and my behavior. And it devastated me. I literally couldn't sleep. I kept thinking like, man, if I didn't write that email, maybe he would have been able to work with us and accept revisions. Didn't take too long for me to get over that because I understood. Because what happened next is Robert had papers that were being evaluated. And all of the papers of the issue, all of the repurposed drugs were put on halted production.

all of them were then stopped and all of the editors and obviously that was enough to bring him out of height Yeah I think that's when he started coming So we saw You know that's when we saw that like And they complained They went to the editor and then they had meetings

And they saw that this was like They were under the control of something else So Andrew Hill just very quickly You've got the WHO scientist Yeah what happened That's at the same time So if I published January 16th.

So what happened next is Andrew Hill January 6 prevented with us and he at that time I think he had 11 or 12 randomized controlled trials and the results

were just dramatic they were showing something called a dose response relationship which is in therapeutics is another pillar of efficacy when you can show that one dose works this much

and a higher dose bruising about a bigger and potent effect it really is in like almost an unicellive he was showing dose response relationship. He was showing markedly reductions in viral presence based on dose.

One dose, you can clear a virus in X amount of time. You know, multiple doses, you can clear it in a much shorter time. And these were just like eye-popping results. Hospitalizations, deaths, everything, just on the first 11 randomized controlled trials. And we were like, when are you going to publish? And he's like, you know, I'm getting ready for the met analysis. and, you know, we waited for it, and he posted it on, like, January 19th, and Paul and I looked at the paper, and we were shocked.

It was, it was, we'd never, so when you author a paper, authors, they generally almost all make the same, if they're going to make an error, they make the same, which is that they over-conclude based on the data, right, because they're too enthusiastic, you know, which is what I was accused of. And here, for the first time, he presents this ridiculously robust and potent data. And in the conclusion, basically argues against the data, say, you know, this is preliminary and it should not be used by regulatory agents.

I've never seen that kind of language and a conclusion of anything. I've never talked about what regulatory agencies should or shouldn't do. Just present the science and conclude what it says. And there was like, it's almost this editorializing. And then I'm reading the paper. And one of the things that we presented to the NIH was unpublished data from Kali and Wagstaff, the first researchers in Australia who showed that Ivermectin eradicated the virus in a cell culture model. And everyone attacked that trial by saying the concentrations they used were so high it could never be reached in the human.

They did follow-up studies using actual lung cells. And they showed that standard dosing of hyvermectin did reach an effective concentration in lung tissue and adipose tissue. We had that data. We presented the NAHH in Andy Hill's preprint, peppered throughout are constant comments

that the doses required for efficacy could not be reached. So Paul and I were like, he knows he has this data. And like, this is when I'm first, like almost kind of, like we were deeply concerned. In fact, I'm sure.

I peer reviewed his preprint, and I did exhaustive peer review, and I pointed out every inanity, every inaccuracy. He put limitations of the paper in multiple places. There's a standard place where you put limitations. It's usually at the end of the discussion section. He had it at the end of the introduction.

I was like, it was almost like a paper that was attacking itself. And it was bizarre. It was like presented these great results, but then it was also arguing why they couldn't be true. I've never seen it. We were incensed. So I did this huge peer review. Paul edited it a little bit. We sent it to Andrew, and we actually told him at that time.

told him at that time. We said, Andrew, we cannot understand how you could write these things when you know what you know. Nothing makes sense. You know, the negativity, the limitations that you're placing on this paper, your lack of an effective conclusion makes a strongly suspect that scientific misconduct may be occurring. We are deeply concerned. We are asking you to use this peer review and please revise your paper. And that's when he started a string of and he said, I will, I will, I'll do it on the next one. Like, people are dying. You know that you're spouting inaccuracies in this.

You need to revise your paper. And then right around that time is when Tess had that famous recorded conversation, which was transcribed and also published in Bobby's book. And that's just a chilling encounter. And, you know, as sinister as that was, and as much as she had dead to rights, I mean, Tess was on fire. She's a powerful woman, ridiculously smart. and she spoke from science, from empathy, from humanity,

and, you know, how many people are dying every day, Andrew? How many people are dying? Oh, yeah, there's no question. In Bobby's book, we find out later, five days before his pre-printed was posted, his institution that employs him, the University of Liverpool in the UK, got a $40 million grant from who?

His sponsor of the study, the person paying for the research, Unitate, which is a citizen. an organization run and operated by Bill Gates. Wow. Yeah, there's some countries that contribute, but Bill Gates runs that thing. And so they give him a $40 million grant, and suddenly this ridiculous paper comes out of it. And then, since then, you know, he's done nothing but work to question, distort the science around Ivermectin.

His latest paper is like fraud and low quality and how you can't trust, you know, the science around Ivermactin. And so you're talking now, so we talked about captioning. agencies, captured journals, they capture researchers. I mean, 40 million for exactly the disease he studies, which is, in fact, these disease. I remember, you know, when I think about Peter Hotez, at the very beginning, this came out against the vaccine, said he cannot rush this. We're having antibody dependent, I think disease enhancement, how he referenced it, talked to the Congress, and now he's out there championing the vaccine. You see this giant influx of money at the Baylor University where his work is being done. So they buy these people.

Look, we could talk all day. maybe we'll do a part two and bring you in, but I want to get to a couple of things because the climate around this is changing. The media obviously came out is attacking, the horse paste, all of that, but now it's getting serious. Now we have, you know, you sort of brought to my attention to something that we looked at this week. We have, you know, the Department of Justice, is it? I think the, or the Homeland Security is now referencing anyone sort of having conversations that are against public policy. I guess in this case would be vaccines or Ivermectin these things, It seems that they want to label you and people like you as a terrorist.

Is that how you think this writing is? I read the document and I mean, I was shocked. I mean, essentially what I took from it is that anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in this space is a terrorist? Right. I mean, that's one reading of it. I think we have a couple. Do we have a couple of excerpts from it that we can pull up? I forget if that's the Cades.

No one on the fly? No? Okay, maybe we didn't grab that. I guess I'm also not hearing anything here. So, all right. You know, that's sort of one reading. You know, they never really came out and talked about, you know, misinformation around therapy.

I mean, I think there was a mention of vaccine, and then there's these allusions to elections and weird groups. Right. It's very general. It sort of mixes everybody together, but it does like, you know, yeah. Misinformation. I think that's on purpose. Yeah, I agree.

They don't want you to know who you are, but who you might be. Right. We might be talking about you. And so, like, it was very unsettling, but ultimately, no matter what you say, you have a right to say it. That's one of the founding principles of this country. And now they're calling people terrorists. Are you worried about it? Are you worried?

I mean, you're very outspoken. You're out there, you know, as you had said, you know, the moment we're seeing people are starting to use ivermectin, you saw the media come out. That's when, like, this horse pace. And it wasn't just one person. This is how the talking points work. Every comedy show, every night show, everywhere had this slogan. It's, you know, horse-be-warming medication. That thing, let's talk about that, because that whole campaign that had a start and an end,

and it only started a certain time because they could have gone after Ivermectin after my testimony. They could have started that PR campaign. They let it die down. They retracted papers. They did whatever they could. They started publishing negative. They did their usual standard operating procedure to attack a drug. What happened when it hit the media, that PR campaign started,

is that the Ivermectin prescription in the United States during the summer Delta wave hit $90,000 a week. Wow. And so the pharma interest or whatever interest, I can just call them the other side. Those with interest in suppressing the evidence of the efficacy of amiccine, they got spooked. And that's when they unleashed what is clearly a pre-planned PR campaign. And they used every gun. It was like a, you know, a blitz, right? They used media organizations, and particularly they used the agencies.

And that war was started with the CDC, put out a memo with actually erroneous and overstated reports of poisonings from Ivermak. And they basically called it dangerous. And they literally said something that is clearly misleading. They kept saying, FDA has not authorized this drug for COVID. as if we need the FDA, as it should be assumed that we're waiting for the FDA, as if anyone is applied for the FDA, we don't need the FDA to tell FDA is not,

that's not their job. A lot of drugs that are being used every single day. It's off-label prescribed. It's legal and encouraged when there's no alternative effective therapy. So when you see this absurd memo, but when you talk about the doctors, the lack of critical thinking,

like they don't read into that, what I'm reading into that, which is absurdly misleading, it's intended to scare everyone from using, Because if the big guys up top tell you not to use, you might be accused of malpractice. You know, and so they're scared. They're going to lose their license. And some of that is happening, right?

So then what happens is every State Department Health gets that memo. It goes down to every license provider in that state. It goes to the pharmacy board, to every pharmacist. And now the war is on. And then it gets real for us. I had had problems with pharmacists before then. But suddenly, like, the landscape of that battle changed. It became increasingly hard.

And I had patients real sick with Delta. And I'm calling multiple pharmacies. We're figuring out ways, starting to find compounding pharmacies. Many of us bringing lists of, like, safe havens. Like, we're literally fighting a war for our patients out there against the agencies which are manipulating the entire system. And then they change, you know, then there's the second round of attack, which is the media.

Every media broadcaster, every late night talk. show host. There's no, no one mentions it as human drug Nobel Prize winning. It's horse dewormer, horse dewormer. The FDA tweets, you're not a horse, hey y'all, you're not a horse, you're not a cow, stop it. You know, making jokes, you know, with a picture of a horse and it's, I'm watching this and I'm just like this, this can't be happening. They're literally killing people with this PR campaign to try to get the doctors to stop using it. They know that the evidence of everything. Doctors were learning it for them.

They were using it widely. And by the way, let's keep in mind, right? 23 countries have either partially or fully approved and recommended Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19, which encompasses 25% of the globe's inhabitants. Wow. In the United States, it's a horse dewormer. Amazing. And so, and most of the West, right?

And they're the most captured. You know, I call, you know, I use this. analogy that, you know, there are narco-states and there are pharma states. And in fact, I tweeted something which was half humorous, half morbid, but someone sent me a picture of a vending machine in a Mexican airport. And in the vending machine, there was one row, it said, xithromycin, ivyctin, hydroxy quarkland. So you could go to a vending machine and get these effective drugs for COVID just right out of the machine. And so I tweeted something like, I said, you know, you know, it's a strange time when a citizen being terrorized.

than a pharma state is envious of the public health offerings of a narco state. I mean, this is just another absurdity. And so as we, you know, as you look forward, I think that I've said here, I know Robert Kennedy Jr. is with me on this. Like these people, I think people need to go to jail. I need to, we've got to change how our regulatory health agencies are working. They're obviously in bed pharma. We're seeing the power that pharma has.

over the papers, over the journals, over the hospitals, over the medical systems, over the regulatory agencies, I mean, all of that. What is, you know, do you think this plays out? Do you think that ultimately the truth is going to be revealed and we're just going to have to accept and know we were lied to when Ivermectin was the answer? I have to believe that, and I do believe that. And I want to give like almost a two-part answer. Let's talk about the solution, right? because we can detail and dissect this terrible problem. And essentially crimes, like you said, crimes.

And there should be lawyers, prosecutors, and prisons in the future for these acts. But, you know, the solutions, first of all, start, I think, with kind of work that we've done. As the FLCCC, right, at our website, we have highly effective combination therapy protocols, not only using prescription off-label generaos, but a lot of over-the-counter stuff, some nutritional therapies, all based on evidence and trials. And, you know, we've been championed by them around the world. So we've just done sound pragmatic stuff using expertise, looking at data, looking at it fairly,

looking at biological plausibility, and just trying to disseminate those. So one solution is just trying to be a source for good pragmatic, sound medical guidance, right? No conflicts of interest and expertise. That's one. And then what you touched on is, you know, the other solutions are this system, right?

And I think there was a slide, you know, where I show, like, if you look at all of the drugs that have been studied, there's shown efficacy, there's well over two dozen. But when you look at our system, that slide doesn't have it circled there. Yeah, there it is. You know, when you circle what the U.S. recommends for the treatment of COVID-19, on that list of well over two dozen compounds, with efficacy, the only thing circled are huge obscene high dollar ticket items.

Every low-cost drug is not recommended. And just look at that slide. That's the problem with our system. That's what has to change. We have to have, we have to restructure and somehow right into a restructure it so that removes the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. You know, what we want is we want to see the table's clinicians. Like, how about expert clinicians' voices

who've been trialing things, doing empiric things, studying different things, finding benefits with this? Let us come share our knowledge with you. By the way, science doesn't come from the top of the mountain. You know, it comes from the field. You know, we tell them what we learn. And so it's exactly backwards. And so we know things like steroids, blood thinners,

all the things in our program. We knew this before any of them. So for people that want this information, what website, where are we, following you. Where do we help? Where do we promote? Send people. So, FLCCC.net is the easiest way to remember. FLCCC.c.c.com. Okay. And there there's protocols. We have a lot of updates, information guidance. We have infographics. And so I think, you know, people really like the website.

They find it very helpful. You can print out stuff, share it with your doctor. Although that's very hard to turn a doctor at this point. They're pretty set in the sand. But, you know, that would be, you know, what we think of a great resource, especially when, let's say, you don't have access to a doctor who will prescribe. We also have lists of doctors, generally telehealth, that cover most of the country that are willing to use and deploy early treatment protocols. And so, you know, you have a resource to get to a provider.

You have options where you don't even need a doctor. You know, we love the science around, like, the mouthwashes, gargles, and nasal drops, the vericidal ones, the ones that kill the virus. And so, you know, we're trying to give patients agency, when the agencies will give them agency. Amazing. Dr. Pierre, Corey, I know we're going to get through this because we're no longer alone.

As people, you know, as a journalist here, you know, trying to get doctors to speak out, these truths have been there over the years that I've been investigating. But finally, when I look at you, when I see Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, I mean, you know, or so we could go on and on, you guys are standing shoulder to shoulder. I think you're carrying the future of science and medicine. I think you're carrying the future of liberal. and freedom in this country. It's an honor to have gotten

and really sort of get into some of these details of what must be, you know, one of the most frustrating experiences, but you're a hero, you're courageous, and just we're gonna be at this rally coming up. Yeah, man. Just March 5th. Keep it going, man.

You're a brother in the fight, and if you allow me, I've got to tell you, I really deeply respect and admire your work, your voice in this, and, you know, I mean, we're a brand of brothers and sisters, and the only thing, you know, and I want, this isn't negative, but it's just another surprise is that there's so few of us.

You know, I mean, I just thought, like, when I stood up and spoke out that, you know, you look to the right and left, you'd see people coming forward. They're coming forward now, you know, especially the people there. And like you said, the power of the people is the key thing. And I'm really looking forward to this man. We're going to do a great job, and I appreciate your support and help. And so pleasure.

Fabulous. Yeah, man. Thank you, brother. Keep up the good work. See you. Yeah, yeah. Yeah.