The Joe Rogan Experience - #1671 - Bret Weinstein & Dr. Pierre Kory

Episode Date: June 22, 2021

Dr. Pierre Kory is an ICU and lung specialist who is an expert on the use of the drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19. Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist, visiting fellow at Princeton, host of the DarkHorse podcast, and co-author (with his wife, Heather Heying) of the forthcoming "A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century."

the Joe Rogan experience so this is the first of I've never had to do an emergency podcast before but I feel like we do and Brett you and I have been in communication about this, and this seemed like something that we have to do quicker than later. Let's explain what's going on. You guys have had conversations. First of all, Dr. Corey, please explain who you are and introduce yourself. Yeah, sure. So I'm a lung and ICU specialist who's part of a group of other ICU specialists. We came together early in the pandemic to develop treatment protocols for COVID. We first developed a hospital treatment protocol back in March. And then more recently, we have an outpatient treatment protocol centered around the drug

ivermectin. And I'll just say through our work, I would say we are probably the foremost experts on the use of ivermectin and COVID in the world. And how did you, Brett, how did you get involved with Dr. Corey and how did your initial conversation get started? Well, Heather and I have been podcasting on the developing COVID story for quite some time. We started very early and we actually, I just took the Dark Horse podcast, which had been just me talking to people. And Heather and I started live streaming twice a week at first. And at first we were just simply looking at the evidence on COVID, what it is, how it transmits, how it should change your behavior. You know, in those

early days, it was scary. We didn't know if it was transmitted on surfaces or what. So Heather and I just did our analysis live or not live. I guess it was live. But in any case, the two of us just had discussions about what we thought the evidence meant. And we presented papers that we were reading in the literature. And we should explain your credentials. I'm a biologist. I'm an evolutionary biologist. The importance of evolution here is that, A, all of the things that we're talking about with COVID are evolutionary. Obviously, the virus is evolved. Epidemiology is an evolutionary process. The immune system is both a product of evolution and it evolves in real time when you have an infection. So evolution is a kind of good generalist toolkit to apply to something like COVID.

working through the various emerging evidence and figuring out what we believed and what we didn't and why we ran into ivermectin. And there was this indication that it was effective against COVID. And we didn't know what to make of it. We didn't know whether or not there was something. Where was the initial indication from? I can't recall. Actually, Pierre might have some idea where we would have encountered it in, you know, April or 2020. Yeah. So, you know, just also, Joe, just for a little bit more background, I do want to emphasize that, you know, although I'm here today talking, my group, the five of us, we call ourselves the frontline COVID-19 critical care alliance. We're led by Dr. Paul Marik, a very famous guy in our

specialty. In fact, he's the most published intensivist in the world. That's what we are, ICU docs. And people came to him to develop protocols. So he grabbed his four closest colleagues and friends, of which I'm honored to be one. I'm a good friend of his, and he's a mentor to me. And we've studied, we basically started putting together protocols that we took from other critical illnesses that we're expert at. And we applied them to COVID. And we learned everything we could around COVID. We just read papers and papers and papers. And we followed all the therapeutics that were being trialed and tested around the world.

And Ivermectin, the first paper was last about March or April. But it came out of a lab. It was just like what's called a cell culture model. It wasn't tested in humans. But this cell culture model showed that if you applied ivermectin to these, it was actually monkey kidney cells, the virus was essentially eradicated within 48 hours. They could find almost no viral material when they used ivermectin in this cell culture model. no viral material when they used ivermectin in the cell culture model. Some places around the world took that bench study and brought it out into clinical use. And I call that, you know, the bench to the bedside. And if you know anything about medicine development, very few what we call

molecules make it from the bench to the bedside. And so, but it was an emergency, right? It was a pandemic. And so there were areas around the world that they just said, you know, it looks like it might work. It's a safe drug. It's a very well-known drug, right? So people used it. And so that was the first signal was just from a cell culture model. So it's a well-known drug. It's been in use for 40- years and the issue became that discussing this and discussing what you just

said on YouTube led to your channel getting now one strike on one channel and is three strikes on your clips channel no we have and YouTube has behaved very bizarrely with respect to our channels. They've delivered one strike to each channel, one warning to each channel, and they've removed many videos. But they've played a game with their accounting system where they've removed multiple videos, filed them under a single warning. So it's not clear what they are doing or why, but it is clear that they don't want certain things discussed and what has been their explanation we actually got an official explanation from youtube maybe we should read that maybe we should just read what their response has been because the response has essentially been they they have one is it the cdc that they'll tolerate or that they'll agree to listen to them?

Because obviously it can't be everybody now because we have the WHO is now saying that you shouldn't vaccinate children. They're not recommending you vaccinate children or pregnant people, right? We should be clear about this, right? That's correct, right? Well, there's a number of different agencies like you just mentioned. Right. In the U.S. And actually, I don't know which agency those different social media channels are basing what they're considering approved therapies or unapproved.

I think it's the CDC. Isn't that? Well, yes. Is that what it is? What you quoted, Tammy? The CDC, FDA, and other local health authorities. Right. what it is, what you two quoted, Tammy? It says the CDC, FDA, and other local health authorities.

Right. But if you, up until recently, if you said, I don't think children should get vaccinated, they would pull that. Right. Right? But now the WHO is saying, we don't think children should get vaccinated.

I've also seen recent recommendations that say that women, that it's completely safe if you're pregnant to get vaccinated. The WHO does not say that. The WHO says you have to contact your care provider, which is a weird sort of way of saying, just ask your doctor. But your doctor, theoretically at least,

should not know any more than anybody else knows. This is a weird... When people say, what is the science? Well, there's a lot of science going on here, and there's science coming from different directions, and depending upon who you listen to, you're going to get a different set of protocols, right? There's no question. You know, the way I talk about this is that you're seeing just this inconsistent standard, especially around therapeutics.

The drugs that they favor and the ones that they don't, really it's very hard to follow consistent scientific principles being applied there. In fact, there seems to be other principles being applied. But what you just highlighted is this discord between guidance from major agencies are completely different, right? So now they're diverging around vaccines. What is the divergence? Could you explain to us what-

So meaning, so the WHO- No, I mean, but what's the specific divergence? In other examples? Yeah, like what- So number one, remdesivir, $3,000 dose drug, right? WHO does not recommend in the hospitalized patient. In the US, every single hospitalized patient gets remdesivir. That would be- But why is that? That's what I'm just saying. It's an inconsistent application of the science. But why are they giving them remdesivir? Is it based on any studies?

Well, yes, there are studies. So there are studies showing some support, but it doesn't show really what we would call important patient-centered outcomes. So yes, it could get you out of the hospital a little bit sooner. There is some signal that it might actually reduce mortality, so it might save some lives. But its impact is actually minimal, and the studies vary. And so the WHO does not recommend it. They did a big trial of remdesivir. They showed it did not help anyone, and so they don't recommend it. And is Remdesivir something that's patented? Oh, yeah.

The thing about, one of the things about ivermectin is it's been around so long, there's a generic version of it available. Is that correct? That's a key feature of ivermectin. There's no money to be made off ivermectin. And no one can kind of control it. It's not like any pharmaceutical company can manufacture it. It's out of patent and not high profit.

This becomes part of the issue with highlighting it, right? So I think we probably need to put a bunch of things on the table. Otherwise, we're going to end up very... Yeah, I just wanted to be real clear about the YouTube situation with you. Right. Because the reason why we're here is your channel's in jeopardy. Yes. And it doesn't make any sense.

So YouTube has done a couple things. The first strike was for you try to remember the language I think it was spam deceptive practices and scams what was specifically spam obviously there was no spam right but how can they say spam if you're just having conversations well that's the thing they can say what they want because they're YouTube. And basically, although a majority of my family's income comes through our two YouTube channels, my contract with them is effectively an end user license agreement. And so there basically is no recourse other than making a public stir, which has apparently gotten their attention in this case. But the, so the first one was for spam, deceptive practices, and scams. And what specific video was this for? That was actually, that was for my video with you.

Spammers, deceivers. The second one, the second strike on the other channel was for, I hope I'm getting the details right. I'm not sure that they actually matter. There are two issues in question, and the various strikes and warnings apply to one or the other, either my podcast with Corey and the clips from it, or my podcast with Dr. Malone, who is the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, and Steve Kirsch, who has been looking into vaccine hazards. But the second one was more specific. of mRNA vaccine technology and Steve Kirsch, who has been looking into vaccine hazards.

But the second one was more specific. It was clearer. And what they said was deceptive medical information. So part of what we should discuss today is what it means for YouTube to decide that something is deceptive or misinforming on a medical topic that is rapidly developing. And they also, I would point out, have a feature in their community guidelines which allows them to break their own rule against misinformation, what they categorize as misinformation, if one presents countervailing evidence. They don't say that they are required to break their rules. So in essence what all of these things look like is a set of guidelines that if you read them carefully and attempt to adhere to them you don't know where the line is. You find out where the line is when YouTube decides to warn you or strike you. And it's an untenable situation. As I

said, the majority of my family's income is in jeopardy because YouTube has decided that some things that are very strongly supported by evidence are misinformation. And their basis for claiming that is that the WHO or the CDC has said otherwise. But this raises a question. If the WHO or the CDC were to be captured, right, if influence was to be exerted over one or both of these bodies, surely we would need to talk about it on the various podcasts that are on YouTube in order to figure out what to do about the fact that an essential set of organizations that are supposed to be protecting the public health might be doing someone else's bidding instead, podcasts would be a natural place for doctors and scientists to get together and say, what we're seeing doesn't add up. But to take what they're saying as gospel and anything that contradicts them as misinformation rather than saying actually the evidence is what the people you're saying are spreading misinformation

and the evidence is most definitely not with the CDC and the WHO. Right. What do you do in that case? Right. Well, Dr. Corey, where do they vary? Where does the CDC and the World Health Organization not agree? So we talked about vaccines already, remdesivir. Another important one was this idea of whether the virus is airborne transmitted,

right? So there's three ways that you can transmit a virus, right? One is direct contact surfaces, hand to mouth, right? Like spittle or whatever, you touch your mouth and it goes that way. Droplet, so large droplet transmission from like a cough and then lands on your face or you rub it into the mucous membranes, or airborne where it's actually inhaled. And just sharing the air with someone with COVID, you can catch it. That's what tuberculosis is. That's why there's so much infection control practice around TB, because that's an airborne transmitted disease.

It took them a year, all of the agencies, to figure out whether it was airborne transmitted. I already wrote an op-ed that was accepted by the New York Times last May saying this is an airborne transmitted. You could see it. But who disagrees? So right now, the CDC finally came around and admits that it's airborne transmitted. The WHO still does not. What? Yes. Really? Legitimately, to this day, they say it's not transmitted airborne?

Insufficient evidence. That's the cry, insufficient evidence. So how do they feel it's transmitted? Well, they think that it's all three are possible. They don't think it's predominant and they just, at least the way I've read the WHO, they just don't feel that it's an important mode of transmission. It may be possible, but they really minimize it, where the CDC says that it seems to be

a definite mode of transmission. Is this debated in science or is it only debated in these organizations? Is it debated amongst practitioners? Oh, yes. It was debated. And the problem is it took time for it to become clear that this was transmitted in this airborne form. And partly we've got a confusion, right? So what's happening is COVID is highly effective at transmitting in part because it just saturates the air, right? It gets into these very little particles which don't do what the initial model said, right? The initial model had it in

large droplets, which only spend a little bit of time in the air, right? And so the air clears because they hit the ground due to gravity. Hence the six foot social distancing distance. But, you know, and actually this was one of the places where Heather and I were way ahead. We were beginning to detect that there was something about the fact that time spent in a room in which somebody had had COVID was creating these super spreader events, which was suggesting that this wasn't highly proximity dependent, that basically there was a clock ticking,

and the room filled up with the stuff, and if the window was open, it filled up a lot slower, that kind of thing, right? So we were building this in real time from what we were reading in these papers, which frankly, mostly had not been peer reviewed because there was no time.

These were preprints, right? So you could begin to see this story develop and you could begin to see the dawning awareness. And what Pierre is saying is effect, I forget which of the organizations is not yet up to date on airborne transmission. Well of the organizations is not yet up to date on airborne transmission? The WHO is not yet up to date. The CDC did about a month ago, they did make a formal statement that they believe it's airborne. Is it safe to say that they're waiting for a preponderance of evidence? The WHO? That's not a short answer. The WHO is a

very complex organization. I don't know what – I think there's so many influences at the WHO. I think there's other factors that are making them reluctant to call airborne transmission because of the implications that would have around infection control, resources, N95. This is just me theorizing. I can't pretend to understand the WHO. I know that that organization has been well described now over 20 years to be highly susceptible to many outside influence, economic and political. Evidence of that, just look at that one video where there was a journalist was trying to get the person from the WHO to even say Taiwan, to even talk about Taiwan. And they literally disconnected their computer and then came back on and would not say the name Taiwan because China does not recognize Taiwan as a country.

And then they said, I think China's doing a great job. Let's continue. Let's move past this. And they wanted to quickly brush it away. And it's glaringly obvious that there's an influence in that regard. It is. And also, I think the question that you're really asking is, is there a defense of being cautious about this? Exactly. And the answer is no, that that ship sailed. Yeah. The better part of a year ago, this was obvious. And the fact is, it's it's crucial.

People need to understand that their masks are not going to be perfectly effective. If you're in a room with somebody breathing out COVID, then the point is there's a clock ticking, and you have control over this. You get into the Uber and your driver is sick, and they've been breathing the stuff out. They've saturated the air. You need to understand that saturated air is a thing, and you need to start thinking in terms of rolling down windows, limiting your time in that space, those sorts of things. So this is actionable. And so for them to be behind the evidence here is actually potentially very, I mean, I hesitate to say it, but it's deadly. And this problem that we're highlighting here is that all this stuff is developing over the course of this

pandemic and the rules are changing and the agreed upon facts are changing. In the beginning of the pandemic, if you just go back seven, eight months ago, if you said that it leaked from a lab, you get lumped instantaneously into a conspiracy theorist and a Trump supporter, lumped instantaneously into a conspiracy theorist and a Trump supporter. And you get dismissed and you get censored from Facebook and you get censored from YouTube. We all agree upon this. That's not the case anymore. Now, because of a lot of people's work, because there's a lot of people that have stuck their neck out and risk being labeled as a conspiracy theorist or as a Trump supporter, just to point out the science.

And now the consensus is it's very possible that it leaked, if not likely, that it leaked from a lab. In fact, this Jon Stewart clip that's been going around, it's hilarious to watch Stephen Colbert panic and try to dismiss what he's saying or try to pretend that it doesn't make any sense, interrupting a comedy bit on a comedy showing. This is how strong the narrative is at a corporate level because he's on this big-time television show, so you're on a network. There's probably a lot of pressure to stick with the conformed narrative. And Jon Stewart literally is in the middle of a comedy bit,

and Colbert's trying to handicap it. He's trying to hamstring the comedy bit because he doesn't want him to continue saying what he's saying. And the saying in a comedic way is actually even worse because it's actually funny how stupid it is to dismiss instantaneously that it came from a lab when it literally is the same exact disease they work on in the lab that's in that city and three people from that fucking lab got sick in 2019 with the exact same symptoms that you're seeing and one of their spouses died from the exact same symptoms

right is that all safe to say i think i? I don't know about the particular story at the end of what you just said. I think it's pretty – please Google that. Because in 2019, in November of 2019, three workers from the Wuhan Institute, this is all from memory, came up sick, and they were hospitalized with the exact same symptoms that you're seeing from COVID-19 patients. And I believe one of their spouses died. I do not know about the spouse having died. I think I just didn't read it carefully enough, but you're right about the three workers and the belief that this happened. But let me just say- But my point is that this keeps evolving and this

keeps this, so to like to stop conversations, it's very dangerous because you might be censoring something that's absolutely 100% true. So there's people that would have gotten that information and it would have educated them and expanded their understanding of it. U.S. Intel reports identified three Wuhan lab researchers who fell ill November 2019. Look at this. But the evidence is far from conclusive. Like, why did you put that in there? Insufficient evidence. But isn't it funny the way they wrote that?

But see if you find the thing there. I just want to be clear if it's about if the spouse died. I want to make one point also that, you know, when you talk about, so you bring up this point about the Wuhan lab leak and how that was discredited, right? Not enough evidence and basically you had that discussion suppressed. I want to bring that into the larger context, which for body of somewhat large financial interests, what they do to counteract inconvenient science is they employ tactics of disinformation. So I want to be clear that misinformation is what I'm being accused of, which is I'm a medical misinformationist because I'm providing information that is not supported by the establishment. Right. So anything that doesn't agree with them is misinformation. It's because I'm providing information that is not supported by the establishment, right? So anything that doesn't agree with them is misinformation. But what they

do is disinformation. So the science around the lab leak was inconvenient to a lot of people. And so that was distorted, suppressed, and debunked, right? But now we're finding out that if you really do look at the science, the truth is a little different. I'm going to say that's very similar to the ivermectin story. The science around ivermectin is up against one of the largest and most powerful disinformation campaigns, I think, almost ever. And we should be real clear that you were one of the very first people to point out that the characteristics of the virus seemed to indicate upon closer examination that it was engineered. You were one of the very first. You did it on my show. And we both got labeled, again, as conspiracy theorists and leaning or dog whistling to the right or whatever.

And so the molecular work was done by, or the investigation into it was done by Uri Dagan, who I had on my show. I came on your show and talked about it. And yes, we were both dismissed as trafficking and conspiracy theories. It's a tell when they- And this was about somewhere around like April of last year, correct? It was April of 2020 was when I did this on my podcast the first time. I can't remember exactly. I think it was around the same time.

my podcast the first time. I can't remember exactly. I think it was around the same time. But one of the things about the story that's so bizarre is that at the point that it suddenly shifted, nothing changed, right? There was no new piece of information. The only triggering event appeared to be Nicholas Wade's piece that he came out and laid out the same information in large measure that Nicholson Baker had already laid out. Right. So the point was this. There was no there was nothing that caused the story to suddenly make sense where people had missed it before. It was just like they couldn't sustain the lie any longer. And so they decided to back off a bit and come up with some new posture that they felt they could defend. So this was a question of

disinformation. This was a question of actually stigmatizing people who were simply reading the evidence. And you're right. The exact connection people need to draw is why is it that we are going to the very same people who got that story wrong and are now not only embarrassed by the fact that they blew it, but also it is clear that behind the scenes they knew better, right? You can read this in Fauci's emails with Christian Anderson. It is clear that they also saw the signal in the genome that this did not look like a fully natural virus. And so anyway, what I don't understand is why we don't simply apply the lesson of the lab leak, which we have just learned, which is that the authorities do not

know what they're talking about inherently. That's not to say they never do, but in that case, they got it dead wrong. They used the very same censorship tactics in order to shut down discussion. And now we know who was right. So why are we listening to the same people making the same sorts of strange postures in public and shutting down using censorship to shut down discussion when in fact, the evidence is very clearly supportive of that discussion. And that is the anomaly here. And we should say that this Christian Anderson in particular has deleted his Twitter account upon the release of these emails, which is generally not a good sign.

It is an indication that he does not feel like defending himself on Twitter, presumably because he can't defend himself. It's not even just that he's not defending himself. He doesn't exist on it anymore. He pulled his entire account. That's not good. We should also say that here's one of the most important things about what your podcast does. You and your wife are incredibly careful and precise in the language that you use. You cite science. You're not hyperbolic. You do not exaggerate for effect. There's no entertainment value to it in terms of like exaggerating or putting a bunch of emotions to things or screaming out. You're just talking about what is known in terms of what researchers have discovered. Here's the conclusions that can be drawn.

And you're very careful in the way you say it, which is so infuriating that you're being censored because you will always say the majority of evidence points to or it's entirely possible that we're incorrect but here's what the evidence points to this is so important in this day and age where people are trying to figure out what's happening in real time that you have people that actually understand how to read the science actually understand how to read these papers and then take that data and give it to people in a very consumable way which is what you and heather do on your show and to see you get censored by people who i don't know what's going on if they're just if they're just trying to manage at scale and it's overwhelming,

and I assume that's got to be part of it because I think there's no way YouTube or any organization that deals with that many user uploads can really pay attention to everything. It's insanity. The sheer volume of uploads they get on a daily basis is insane. And it may very well be that they've been given a series of guidelines and you have a bunch of people that are working for the company that are using these sort of subjective measurements as to what's okay, what's not okay. Hence the spam title, right? It doesn't make any sense. They're just throwing a bunch of charges against a wall like a bad cop and then pulling your video.

And for someone like myself who needs to know that there's people out there that are objectively analyzing this stuff regardless of what the narrative is. And this is where it's important because we've seen the narrative be wrong multiple times over the last year. narrative be wrong multiple times over the last year and i don't think it necessarily has to be wrong because of a conspiracy or some some weird nefarious intentions i think there's really a possibility that there's a lot of confusion during that confusion you need educated voices you need people that are doing that's why it's insane to me that you're getting censored and drives me fucking nuts your podcast is one of my very favorite. I listen to it or watch it all the time. And it's an amazing source of rational thinking by educated people that talk about things they understand, which is exactly the opposite of what I do.

It's not the opposite of what you do. Wuhan lab research's wife died of COVID like illness, December 2019. Okay. So it's real. So I want to put some context here. Okay. Heather and I are doing two things, which I think work and do mean that it is. I don't want YouTube censoring anybody, frankly. I don't think the censors are ever right. But what we are doing is we are showing our work. And when we get something wrong, we are dedicated to going back and correcting it so that people who are trying to track our model of things get the update. And that is the right way to do this work. Now, what is happening in officialdom is the opposite. And the key thing to track is this word consensus, right?

Scientific consensus is two almost opposite things in this case. Scientific consensus, a normal scientific consensus looks like, you know, plate tectonics, right? Plate tectonics was an absolutely heretical idea when it was introduced. The idea that the continents are moving, wow, that was mind-blowing and almost nobody got it at first, right? Today, everybody gets it. We all understand the continents move and we understand how, right? We know about subduction zones and these things and we've got a model that makes it make sense. And you could present something that would challenge plate tectonics. You could do that. But, you know, you've got an uphill struggle because we have arrived at this through a lot of study, right? And the evidence is really strong. And so there is a consensus about it.

Consensus that shows up like that in the middle of an emerging pandemic, right, where you've got a brand new pathogen, which we know very little about. I remember going out of the house wearing sacrificial gloves, cotton gloves, that I knew I could touch things. And then when I got home, I could throw them away or I could wash them, right? I stopped doing that almost instantly as it became clear that actually, although many viruses do transmit from surfaces, this one doesn't, right? It's not to say it can't happen ever, but almost never, right? That's not its mode of transmission. So the point is, the consensus arises from the work, from people challenging each other and discovering that, yeah, that thing seemed to make sense, but it doesn't add up when you look at the evidence, right? That's how the consensus

happens. These consensus, these consenses that we are being handed about how this virus works, what works to fight it, what doesn't work to fight it, what you should do in order to protect yourself, these things are being handed down from on high. And then they are silencing the people who are saying, hey, wait a minute, that thing you just told me from on high doesn't square with all the stuff I can see, right? So they are shutting down the challenge to a consensus that has no right to be labeled as scientific because it isn't. It didn't arise through the normal process. It isn't what most people think. It is an official position, right? That is not a scientific consensus. And the lab leak is the perfect example of this because behind the scenes,

a lot of people understood that the story they were being told wasn't right, that there was something very conspicuous about the coincidence of this virus emerging in Wuhan on the doorstep of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Lots of people understood that. Very few were willing to say it in public. And so that leads me to the thing that I think you need to track, which is you've got a bunch of heretics who are saying things about ivermectin, about the hazards of vaccines, about all of these topics. Who do you believe? You're going to believe the heretics? Well, the heretics actually are an interesting group. And the thing that unites them seems to be their independence of the structures that are controlling others. Right? So what do you make of it when the people who are free,

who don't have to answer to their department chair, right, are saying one thing, and the people who are signed up for some system that holds their well-being in its hands are saying the other thing, right? And in this case, YouTube is playing this weird role, right? I'm free. I can talk about scientific evidence. But in order to talk about it with my audience, I have to go through YouTube, right? So YouTube is playing like it's my department chair and it wants me to shut up about certain topics and it's going to turn up the heat on me until I do, which I won't.

But nonetheless, that's the point is something would like to limit the discussion so that we are all on the same page on topics where we couldn't possibly all be on the same page. Not only that, they're trying to limit the discussion when if you watch your videos and you listen to either Heather yourself or Dr. Corey or any of these other guests that you've had, all you are going to see is rational discussion of the facts and the facts presented with real data. And when you censor that, we have a real problem and it's never good. And there's this weird sort of dismissive air that people have about these things. The propaganda in this regard has been so effective. I was having a conversation with someone the other day, and they were discussing different treatments and how videos are being pulled, and they brought up ivermectin. And this other person that was with them said, good, because there's too much bad information out there.

They should pull that stuff. And he had to explain, no, this is actually ivermectin. There actually is some evidence to support its use, and it could be extremely beneficial to people, particularly in early stages of the disease. And the only way we're going to know about this is if it gets discussed, if more doctors hear about this, more people hear about this, more studies emerge, and then that may become the new consensus if we're allowed to look at the facts, not we, but you guys, are allowed to look at the facts and discuss them openly.

If you're not, we have a real problem because now we're relying only on the organizations that have already shown that sometimes they're wrong. So if that's the only way we get our information, we may be wrong. And lives are in danger if we're wrong. Oh, absolutely. We will lose lives if we cannot sort out where, I mean, even if those agencies were perfectly immune to capture, we have to be able to figure out where they've got it wrong so that they can get smarter, right? And the more intelligent people that understand the data, looking at it and discussing it openly, the better for everybody. Absolutely.

Again, when we're talking about you guys, we're not talking about crazy conspiracy theorists that are discussing hollow earth. We're talking about some real stuff. I want to emphasize one thing that Brett said, which is the- Sorry. Do you have COVID? Don't lie. No, I don't. I just have a little-

Just kidding. We already tested you. A little catch in the throat. No, the- This is a terrible thing to have, though, a cough in a lie. No, I don't. I just have a little- Just kidding. We already tested you. A little catch in the throat. No, the- This is a terrible thing to have, though, a cough in a room. Yeah, it's bad. I've actually done a couple other interviews, and everyone's like, you know, Dr. Corey's coughing.

You sure he doesn't have COVID? So thanks, Joe. You want a shot of whiskey? Actually, that might be exactly what the doctor ordered. What Brett's saying about the independence, that's what I've noticed. You know, the ones that seem to get it right, they don't have masters to answer to. And what Brett's saying about the independence, that's what I've noticed. The ones that seem to get it right, they don't have masters to answer to. I've learned, unfortunately, throughout the pandemic, I've developed a lot of cynicism and suspicion around some of the agencies because it doesn't comport with good science.

And sometimes it's blatant the ones who are making sense or like you said transparent with the data analyzing openly expert at the data amassing all the data and having frank discussions when you said like Brett said you know these consensus has come down and when they're so blatantly don't match reality so again I don't want to retread old water but like this airborne transmission you know when you have a super spreader event, like someone goes to choir practice and 59 people come home with COVID. When they were socially distancing and one person was singing, like you don't need to be like a high level scientist to know that probably that was airborne transmission. There was numerous examples of that. And yet the officialdom was that it wasn't airborne.

So it was basic stuff that didn't make sense. The lab leak also, just on the face of it, I mean, even if you didn't go down to the genome level, when I heard that the lab was across the street from the wet market, as a physician, I mean, I oftentimes have to figure out how to do things on very little information. And that to me was so powerful. I mean, but so the sum of sum is really, really clear. And yet it doesn't comport with what's coming down. And so when you

look at the independent objective experts, I think you need, because here's the other thing. I feel so bad in what we're talking about, because the average person, who the heck knows what they should believe? They're hearing newspapers and television and right and left and everyone's saying different things. And you know what? Some of the political spectrum, they're getting some things right, other things wrong. How do you believe anymore? And this idea of capture is a real one. And so like, I'm very suspicious. I'm very skeptical of everything I'm being told. I'd like, you know, for some like ground rules for the lay person to follow, like, how do you know who's talking truth? And I think openness, transparency, lack of external influences, like for instance,

our organization, we're a nonprofit. We took an oath as physicians to help patients. When this thing came to our shores, all we wanted to do is learn as much as we could about disease to figure out how to kick its ass, how to treat this thing. And that's all we've done. We don't make any money off of it. We're just trying to doctor.

And I think that makes us a credible source of information, at least I hope so. We should also be really clear as to what information has come out over the last few weeks that might be at least some indication of why there's been a misinformation campaign. Absolutely. You want to handle that? Yeah, I do. But I want to clear up one thing. I think we have actually made an error that we should clear up right now, which is we've been talking about aerosolized transmission,

and I think we've been calling it airborne transmission. The point is it transmits both ways, and it took a long time to realize that it saturated the air rather than hanging in the air briefly, and you're right that that does explain the six-foot foot. In the hospital, when we say something's airborne. In the hospital. You can move it towards your face if you want to sit in that. In the hospital, airborne means aerosol. It implies the same thing. That's what we call it in the hospital. The other thing I would just point out is the way you know what to believe,

and nobody knows what to believe, right? What you do is you build a model that gets more and more predictive over time. But the thing that you can tell is good about the heretics is that we agree on a lot, but we don't agree on everything, right? There are places where you and I disagree, Dr. Corey. There are places where I disagree with Dr. Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology. The important point, though, is that those disagreements are about discovering what's true, right? You want, as a member of the group of people trying to figure this out in real time, you want to find all the places that you're wrong, right? Your model gets better as you accept those

things. And so that's sort of the hallmark of how consensus is properly built is the openness to push back, right? We push back on each other. We don't pretend to all agree to the same stuff. Okay. To the question you asked me though, things that have emerged of late. So first of all, we should talk about the evidence on ivermectin and we need to be careful, right? The evidence on ivermectin is a vast landscape. There's lots of evidence on its effectiveness with respect to SARS-CoV-2. And the evidence is noisy, right? There is clear signal within it. One of the things that is absolutely maddening about trying to talk about that evidence is that the response is, A,

incoherent. The response pretends that there is no evidence that it works rather than a noisy data set in which it generally does appear to work, but the degree to which it works and in what way it should be administered, there's variation around that. So there's this monolith that says we don't have the evidence and what we need is large-scale randomized controlled trials. And in a sense, this is an obvious tell, right? Randomized controlled trials are good if you've got them. There are quite a number of randomized controlled trials with respect to ivermectin. They may not be as large as you want.

But in general, very large trials are necessary when you're looking for very small effects, right? What we do have is several meta-analyses. A meta-analysis is an analysis that takes a bunch of different studies that were done and figures out how to pool the data from them to look for a signal. It makes a big study out of little ones, and it has a huge advantage to it, right? You can do a large study, and let's say that you got the dosage 50% what you needed to in order for it to be effective, right? That large study would say molecule X does not show any evidence of being effective against disease Y because you got the dosage wrong, right? It's not evidence that the molecule doesn't work. It's evidence that something about that protocol with that molecule didn't work.

Whereas if you do a meta-analysis and you group together a lot of little studies, then you will have some bad studies that will fail to show an effect, and you'll have other studies that will get it closer to right. And so the net effect of all of them tells you what direction to go. And in this case, we have meta-analyses and they're very clear. This molecule, which we've seen work in vitro, that is to say in the lab, in culture, also is effective in patients. And it's effective in two different ways, right? This is Dr. Corey's area of expertise. But let me just say, I want to divide ivermectin into two things so that we're always clear what we're talking about. Let's say ivermectin A is prophylactic

ivermectin. You take it to prevent getting the disease, right? And this is an anti-parasitic drug? It was discovered in Japan by Satoshi Omura, who got a Nobel Prize for it with William Campbell, a Merck scientist. The Nobel Prize was awarded in 2015, but it was discovered in 1970s. Yeah, I mean, the first organism was in the 70s, and the molecule was purified in the late 70s, early 80s. Yeah, this molecule has cured river blindness and elephantitis to very devastating diseases. It's regarded by the WHO as an essential medicine safe for children. It has been administered four billion times. It's a highly effective safe drug for these parasites.

And so the thing that was mentioned earlier, where it was found in cell culture to work, there was this desire at the beginning of COVID to figure out, well, what molecules are effective? Where might we look for a drug that would work? And so basically, they weren't looking for protocol. They were just throwing a bunch of molecules at the disease to see which things showed some sign of usefulness. And from there, we get to all of these studies, which when compiled in a meta-analysis, tell a very clear story. Let me add a couple of things because this is a cool story about... So ivermectin already won the Nobel Prize for the discoverers because it literally transformed the health status of

huge portions of the globe in eradicating parasitic diseases. The one called river blindness is... It's a really moving story because you had populations, villages in Africa where men, by the time you were 40, you were blind. And so you had like these communities where the children would lead the elders around like with a stick because they were all blind from this parasite. And so basically this drug restored the site and transformed the lives of millions of people around the world. And so I find that a really moving story, just its history in terms of parasites. And then Brett brought up viruses. You know, that study that we already talked about in Australia, that study actually comes on 10 years of studies in the lab on other viruses.

So it's been shown to be effective against Zika, dengue, West Nile, HIV, even influenza. Again, all lab studies. We don't really have clinical trials in the other viruses. But when this pandemic came, it wasn't really a crapshoot to try out ivermectin in an RNA virus. And so- I didn't realize that. Yeah, it already has 10 years of antiviral effects in the lab. So in fact, I'm going to foreshadow a little bit. It's my secret belief that as we go into the future, 10, 20 years, my hope and what I guess is that it actually will prove to be a really broad antiviral against other viruses. And so I'm like really optimistic about the future of this molecule and other viruses. We can talk about COVID still because, you know, the data that Brett brought up is, in my mind, it's profound. And I think

Brett's being very cautious, which is correct. But as a guy who's been immersed in this data, who's been living with it, who's a physician who's been using it, I mean, I've been using it for eight months. I am part of a network of physicians around the world that I talk to regularly, many of whom have treated in the hundreds to thousands of patients. We know how effective it is. And so, you know, I have pretty strong opinions on this data. But the points that Brett brings up is very true. It's, you know, this obsession with this large randomized controlled trial is, it's fraught with error when you do that. It's not appropriate for a pandemic. And it's also a tool that's being used as a disinformation tactic. So some of it is scientifically based.

We all like big randomized controlled trials when you can get them, even though they are prone to error. But what I try to remind the world is that when you look at the strength of medical evidence to prove something in medicine, you start at the bottom, which is an anecdote, right? So let's say you got sick, Joe, and I gave you ivermectin. The next day you felt better. And I'd say, I found the cure for COVID. That's not strong evidence, right?

Especially with a virus, people get better without it, right? So you have anecdotes, case series, right? Then you have like observational trials where you just follow a group of patients or you look at a group that you treated versus who you didn't, maybe retrospectively. And it's called this pyramid of medical evidence. The top of that pyramid is not a large randomized controlled trial. It's actually what Brett said. It's a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The reason why, because any individual trial can have an error or a flaw or a dosing or a timing problem, it might lead you to the wrong conclusion. But if you have a whole collection of trials and then you put them all together and you look for the

signal out of that, it's much more robust because it corrects for any individual flaws that you'll see in studies. And so when we talk about that there are meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, 24 randomized controlled trials, thousands of patients, that's fairly unassailable evidence to show massive impact of this drug against COVID. Are there any credible critics of these conclusions? Are there any interesting criticisms of the use of ivermectin? I want to say something. There is room for skepticism on ivermectin, but it does not explain the behavior of the skeptics, right? In other words, if we look at the standard of

evidence that they appear to be applying here, I don't think it's defensible in the end, but reasonable people could potentially disagree. The problem is when you've got a drug that's this safe, that does appear to work in many of the studies that have looked at it, and you're not giving it to patients who show up and test positive for COVID, even when you know that for viral diseases, treating them early is the key to helping them, that doesn't add up. Because if, you know, the Hippocratic Oath in this case would suggest that the safest thing to do is to give the drug. And if it doesn't work, you haven't harmed them. But if you fail to give it to them and it would have worked, you have. So I would just point out the strange obsession with large randomized controlled trials is actually cryptically an attack on several things.

If you're going to insist that that is the only kind of evidence you will accept before prescribing this drug, you're signing up for new expensive drugs over cheap repurposed ones. You're signing up for unknown risks over known ones. We know 40 years of history on this ivermectin, for example. You're signing up for shareholders over patients because these large-scale trials are very expensive and the drug companies have to pay for them. So you're basically saying any drug that's out of patent and therefore nobody is going to lobby for it isn't going to be able to find the money to do the trials. And you're signing up for effectively phase three information over phase four. Now, phase four is an informal designation for the phase after a drug comes to market. Right.

drug comes to market, right? The point is you don't really know how dangerous something is until you've seen it in a large population that has lots of variation in it and has enough time for problems to develop, right? That's phase four. But what we've done is we've effectively suspended a lot of the rules of evidence for things like vaccines that were brought to market under emergency use authorizations. And then we're setting a stupidly high standard for things like vaccines that were brought to market under emergency use authorizations. And then we're setting a stupidly high standard for things that are very safe and appear to work. And I would just say, by analogy, what's the best kind of evidence for a crime, right? I would say video evidence of people committing the crime, right? Video evidence in which you get a clear sense of who the person who's committing the crime is.

Okay? Let's all agree that that's the best evidence. What if we said that's the only evidence we're going to accept because we have really high evidentiary standards, right? There's no crime if it didn't get recorded on video where you can see the person's face. Good enough.

Okay? Well, then the point is, all right, now effectively lots of stuff that we would like to make illegal isn't illegal because all you got to do is make sure there's no camera around and you can do it. That's what they're effectively doing here, right? By insisting on that standard and ignoring all of the very high quality evidence that has come in some other form, they are effectively setting a bar so high that it can't be met. And why they're doing it, we can speculate about. But the fact that it makes no logical sense is transparent. Well, let's speculate.

All right. This is part of some of the things that I was discussing earlier when I said things that are coming to light. New information that we know over the last few weeks. So, Jamie, could you bring up that New York Times article? Can I emphasize the point? I like what Brett's saying about – I'm sorry. It's all right. I keep – I'm a rookie here. It's all right.

No worries. You guys are like veterans, man. But this thing moves. So just pull it – just grab that handle and just drag it towards you. Yeah, but the problem is when you turn your face towards him, that's when you get a drop off of it. So when Brett talks about behavior, I think it's really important because let's say there is skepticism around the data. The behavior is really odd, right? So Brett's talking about you have one of the world's safest drugs. You have nothing but positive trials,

even if the opposition wants to say they're low quality and small, which they're not. The precautionary principle would tell you to recommend it. But here's another more clear example of abnormal behavior. When you look at strong lidiasis, right, which is, or that's actually onchocerciasis is river blindness, but the two other parasitic diseases for which ivermectin was approved as the standard of care worldwide, 10 trials with 852 patients. Right now, ivermectin is sitting on 24 randomized controlled trials with 3,000 patients, and

it's not being recommended. It's a uniform- And what are the results of those trials, the ivermectin trials? So in the most recent meta-analysis, is that what you're bringing up? No, but Jamie has it. He could bring it up. So just published this weekend by, yes, by Andrew Bryan, Tess Laurie, Scott Mitchell, actually, who's a member of the FLCCC. group of researchers who for decades, their main job is to review medicine, medical evidence to formulate guidelines for the big national and international healthcare agencies.

Let's go back to that term I used before. They did this work independently. No one paid them to do this work. They did it because they saw, they looked at my paper and they saw my testimony and they immediately got interested and at my paper and they saw my testimony and they immediately got interested and they started researching and they found consistent positive reproducible signals. And so this meta-analysis, which was just published, basically found that there was a 62, on average, a 62% reduction in death when you used ivermectin from all of these randomized controlled 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 were they treated early. When you look at the early versus late, they do so much better. And so I, you know- What are the results for early? Do we have- So early around 80% reduction, and sometimes even higher in the hospitalization and death. So if you treat patients, and even in those early, it's not my early. So my dream is that every household has ivermectin in the cupboard. And you take it upon development of first symptom of anything approximating a

viral syndrome, especially in the context where, I mean, you should be assuming any sort of viral flu-like illness that you're developing right now is COVID until proven otherwise, and take it. And even if it's not COVID, it's safe to take and it's probably effective against that virus. Are there any side effects? So there are. They're all what's considered minor and transient. And that's another example of weird behavior. When the WHO put out their guideline on ivermectin, they put in a lot of language questioning the safety of ivermectin, which is known as one of the safest drugs in history. It's been mass distributed across continents, billions of doses,

and they want to bring up cautions around safety. While there are other guidelines for the other diseases that ivermectin is, from the WHO, they'll write in there that billions of doses have been administered, the side effects are minor and transient. So they're inconsistent depending upon what disease they're talking about ivermectin being prescribed for. With COVID, they are off the reservation. What are the criticisms in terms of when they're talking about ivermectin being prescribed for. With COVID, they are off the reservation. What are the criticisms in terms of like when they're talking about the possible and potential side effects? What are they saying? So right now, no.

What they try to do is they're trying to suggest that there is more side effects when you use ivermectin versus placebo. But there's really nothing important. So you get a little nausea. Some people get a headache. Some people can get a little nausea. Some people get a headache. Some people can get a little bit of dizziness. But they generally go away with stopping the drug. And they're also reasonably well tolerated. And so you'll tolerate a little bit of a nil effect from a drug if it's going to help you prevent hospital and death. And so it's an extremely

well-tolerated drug. And the last thing I'll say on the safety is a famous French toxicologist And the last thing I'll say on the safety is a famous French toxicologist reviewed 350 studies on ivermectin. And he was contracted to do this. And he put his report out about a month and a half ago. And in the executive summary, he writes that severe side effects from ivermectin are unequivocally and exceedingly rare. Unequivocally and exceedingly rare. It's a very, very safe drug. All right. A couple things. One, Jamie, can you put the abstract of that paper back up? Because there's this thing. So the world is very focused on using ivermectin to treat COVID, which I understand, but we miss this other thing. So scroll down a little bit.

Therapeutic advances. There it is. Sentence in the middle. Okay. This might be one of the most important sentences written this century. Low certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average of 86%, 95% confidence interval between 79% and 91%. So that sentence actually is a hallelujah sentence because what it means is even if Ivermectin were completely ineffective at treating people who have COVID, that number is high enough because it is over the number that we understand herd immunity to be for this disease. Any number that has been proposed, as far as I know, because that number is so high,

what it means is that ivermectin alone, if properly utilized, is capable of driving this pathogen to extinction. And we should discuss what the word prophylaxis means because many people may not know. They think about it as a condom. Right. Joe, I've been told multiple times when I talk about ivermectin to use preventively. Yeah, because you're absolutely right. A lot of people don't understand the context. All it means is to take the drug to anticipate that you may get it. So if you're in a high risk area, you take it and it'll protect you from infection. Prevent you from contracting. So I should say, I was a little,

I was very encouraged by that number. That number is high enough to be independently the end of COVID if we decide to make it so. I was concerned that the beginning of that sentence starts with low certainty evidence. So I contacted Tess Laurie and I asked her what that meant. And it turns out it's part of a categorization scheme within the data science that is used to do these meta-analyses, and low certainty means that there is an expectation that if you had more information, the number would move a little bit. It doesn't mean that it's uncertain whether the effect is there. It means that identifying the exact number is liable to be sensitive to more information. But nonetheless,

again, this is the issue of ivermectin A is prophylaxis. Ivermectin B is treatment. The evidence that it is highly effective as treatment is, I would argue, overwhelming. You can see it in this meta-analysis. The signal is very clear. And my experience has been when you look at the papers in which it's disappointing, you very frequently see a reason, right? In general, they treat late. We know that that is an obstacle to it working. The last paper I went to gave it on an empty stomach. This is one of these things where you tell me if I'm wrong, Pierre, but if you're treating parasites, you may want to keep the drug in your gut, and therefore you don't want it to dissolve and cross into your blood.

If you're treating or preventing COVID, you do want it to cross into your blood. And the fact is the molecule is fat soluble. So if you're taking it as prophylaxis, you should take it with fat. But they don't like to do stuff like that in these trials because empty stomach is the way to get all of the patients to be the same. If they've eaten something, they will have eaten different things and it creates noise. So anyway, there's a bias there in some studies in which they block the effect in part by not letting it cross into the bloodstream. Yeah. Two more points on this abstract. So the two most important words, right? So Brett emphasized this finding of 86% protection against infection if you take it preventatively, right? And that low certainty evidence means it could be higher than 86% protection. It could be lower. I maintain, I want to really emphasize this, is that if you look at the trials that make up those preventative

trials, right, the ones where you take it weekly, because they had some which you took weekly, some where you actually just took it once a month. And they actually had profound benefits. But the ones that you took weekly led to like near perfect protection, like 100 percent protection in a large population of health care workers. Now, in that trial, they also took it with like a seaweed called carrageenan. It's more common in South America. It's considered to be viricidal. It's been shown to be viricidal. And so they sprayed that in there. Viricidal?

Viricidal, meaning can kill, like homicidal, but viricidal means kills viruses, right? So a virus murderer, right? And so they kind of used two. And actually trials of that seaweed spray are actually also positive. So the best trials of prevention really had two molecules that were probably working in concert. But it led to perfect prevention in 1,200 healthcare workers, 800 who took this regimen, 400 who didn't. Not one of – it was 788 healthcare workers got COVID over like a four-month period. Well, wait. Not one of them got COVID. Not one of them.

But that's not the thing that's most impressive here because these were frontline workers who were so thoroughly exposed to COVID that 57% of the people in the 400-person control group who didn't take ivermectin did get COVID, right? That's a huge distinction. So yes, I agree that to the extent that this evidence is low certainty, it suggests strongly that a proper protocol with this, a protocol in which we've dialed in the steps of it is liable to be much closer to 100% effective. But I want to emphasize, it doesn't matter. That number is plenty high to drive COVID to extinction. And I would also say, and this is my wheelhouse, evolution. We are dealing with a limited time. The more time this virus has to experiment with humans, the more likely we get stuck with it forever. So our failure to apply

ivermectin, and frankly, it isn't just ivermectin, we now have a series of repurposed drugs for which there's not a large profit to be made because they're out of patent, but have shown high effectiveness in the treatment of COVID. Our failure to use these things properly in a coordinated way that is actually evidence-based is putting humanity in danger of getting stuck with this pandemic forever. Absolutely. I mean, the key thing that I want to communicate is that this is a treatable disease. We do have an outpatient treatment for it.

It's not just ivermectin. Brett mentioned a number of other molecules that are effective. Ivermectin has the most data behind it, and it also has the longest experience, especially when you're talking about population-wide distribution. So you can't think of a better drug that already has a track record at eradicating a scourge of disease across continents. The best thing it has going for it is that Trump never brought it up. There is that. So there's not a resistance on the left.

There shouldn't be. Right. The only resistance is the resistance because of the authorities. The authorities not backing it or what's happening with YouTube censorship. So I want to bring up the second most important word on that abstract. key of kind of what you just said, Joe, is that the trials, I'm just so blown away by the evidence behind ivermectin. So as a physician, I mean, that's what I do. I read, I look at therapies. I'm always trying to figure out how to treat my patients better. You know, I'm an intensivist, right? So I deal with the sickest of the sick. Depending on the month or the unit, about 20% of my patients will die.

And so I'm taking care of a lot of dying patients and a lot of patients who are near death, and there's nothing more satisfying than bringing them back. A lot of those therapies are time dependent, dose dependent, and they're synergistic. And so you really need to be, you know, you need to be constantly trying to figure out better ways to treat your patients, You know, you need to be constantly trying to figure out better ways to treat your patients, right? When I look at the evidence for ivermectin, I've never seen a collection of trials so consistently and reproducibly positive. They line up in a way, it's almost visually beautiful in that the treatment effects are

always so large. Now, I am so moved by this. I'm so moved by this. I'm so amazed by this. And in this process, and I've been fighting this fight now for eight months, when I first came out in public, as people know, I gave the Senate testimony, which a lot of people watched. I was shocked at the resistance that it met. I put all these trials, I showed all the evidence, and it was just getting dismissed. And they were like, basically, I almost felt like I was being condescended to and lectured like, oh, you don't know how to read evidence. And I was saying, I can't think of in history trials that are lining

up like this. Randomized, observational, prevention, treatment, early, late. Have you had any debates or any conversations publicly with anybody who disagrees? I just had a debate with what I call an ivory tower academic last week. It'll be up on Trial Site News. Trial Site News is a website which played a big role in the pandemic because they have been following and reporting on ivermectin efficacy since last April. In fact, a lot of different developments and things that I've learned about ivermectin I've gotten from Trial Site News. It's a website where they follow everything pharma. So anything that comes out of a drug trial or related to pharmaceutical industry,

really therapeutics and trials, it goes on Trial Site News. But they've been a really very close observer of ivermectin. And so the thing about what happens though when you bring this evidence forth is, and this is why we'll get back to this abstract, is that the opposition to ivermectin, they're faced with right now 60 controlled trials showing benefit. Maybe one or two didn't show a benefit, 58 out of the 60 show benefits. And they say this is low quality evidence, poorly designed trials, small trials. And that's been the same thing they've been saying for six months. Now, when you grade the quality evidence, there's actually standards.

There's definitions. There's a way to do it. So Tess Laurie and her group who did this, that's what they do. They're experts at grading quality of evidence. They grade the quality of evidence for survival with ivermectin. So the 62% reduction is actually graded as moderate level certainty. I got to emphasize, they did the work. They looked under the hood of all these trials.

They looked at things like allocation concealment and randomization and all sorts of these terms of how you conduct a trial. They grade the trial's evidence as moderate. And the reason why that's important is that corticosteroids, which are the standard of care worldwide for the treatment of the hospitalized COVID patient, that was adopted immediately overnight based on one trial, and that's moderate certainty. Very rare that you get high level or strong certainty. It's very hard to get there.

You need like massive trials done by big pharma over years. So moderate is actually quite strong. So the level, the quality of evidence. So no longer should we listen to our agencies or these leaders trying to dismiss ivermectin evidence as very low or low quality. That's what the WHO did in March. They dismissed the evidence as very low quality and they dissected it. They removed many of the trials. They threw this one out for this reason. This is where I'm getting back to, and I hate talking about this stuff, but this disinformation, like there's effectively, it's a dishonesty. There's clearly they're operating on what I call a non-scientific objective. Their objective is to not have

ivermectin adopted worldwide. Ivermectin is seen as an opponent to whatever policies they're trying, whatever policies or product or pharmaceutical products they want to bring forward. Now, does this resistance exist in a vacuum? Is there evidence of this resistance in terms of like emails that have been leaked where people go back and forth and discuss whether or not ivermectin should be promoted? Reports. So all of the agencies, and I can bring you a stack. So from the Canadians, and it's all, by the way, North America

and Western Europe. So it's the EMA, which is European Medicines and Aging, which is all of Europe. And then you could look at France, Netherlands, like all of those Western European countries, Canada, the US.S., the NIH, just look at their reviews of ivermectin. They just constantly, it's almost like they've copied and pasted all around the world. Every agency that's reviewed it has said that it's low quality evidence, small trials, poor control groups, different doses, which actually are strength of the trial's evidence. But it's like they've copied and pasted it. And it's really tiresome and it's incorrect.

And I think they're all acting on a different objective. They're not credibly assessing the data around. But what's promoting them to behave in this way? Like what is there? Can we get the New York Times piece up the Carl Zimmer piece? So I've been wondering about this for the longest time. There is obvious resistance to looking at the evidence, which is clear enough. Why would they be? And I should point out there's another interesting piece of evidence, which is not only was the safety of ivermectin challenged by the CDC, was it?

Well, the WHO kind of suggested that it may not be safe. But Merck itself, Merck, which was the manufacturer of this drug, Merck, which has given away millions of doses in Africa, attacked the safety of its own drug, said that it wasn't safe and shouldn't be used in this case, which was strange. But then here- It's crazy. Has that ever happened before?

Well, here's the thing. I was waiting, you know, what don't we know? And there are a certain number, I mean, I don't know how much this is a Merck-centric phenomenon, but there are a couple of things about Merck. Merck has announced that it has a new drug that it's very excited about for COVID. Molnupiravir, Brett. Molnupiravir. Molnupiravir. It goes off the tongue.

All right. So this is- So this is the article? This is the article. Scroll. Let's see. There's some paragraphs here. Go back up. Back up. There's a paragraph about what happened when they looked for drugs that would be effective against COVID. So this is Carl Zimmer. This is going to get to the $3 billion here in a second, but keep going. Stop. At the start of the pandemic, researchers began testing existing antivirals in hospital, hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, but many of those trials failed to show any benefit from the antivirals. In hindsight, the choice to work in hospitals was a mistake. Okay, go down a little bit.

Down a little bit more. Stop. So far, only one antiviral has demonstrated a clear benefit to people in hospitals. Remdesivir, that's the $3,000 a dose drug that is authorized, originally investigated as a potential cure for Ebola. The drug seems to shorten the course of COVID-19 when given intravenously in patients. In October, it became the first and so far the only antiviral drug to gain FDA approval to treat the disease. Yet Remdesivir's performance has left many researchers underwhelmed. Weak.

Yeah. I'm missing the – there's a paragraph in here where he says that the search for drugs that work didn't turn anything up. In any case, people can find it on their own, I guess. This news report came just before Anthony Fauci. Sorry, my glasses do not interface well. Before Anthony Fauci gave a press conference about a $3 billion initiative to find drugs that work against COVID. Now, of course, these drugs that they find will all be under patent and therefore highly profitable. So what you've got is drug companies. Merck is involved in Molnupiravir, this new drug. It is also involved in an agreement with Johnson & Johnson to distribute their vaccine. And strangely, we are ignoring the evidence that is right in front of us that we have multiple drugs that are highly effective for COVID. And one that I would point out again is highly effective as a prophylactic. So I don't

know anything about the business side of this. I do know what fiduciary responsibility is. I know that the shareholder value must be driving things behind the scenes. I know that these companies have been immunized from liability with respect to harms that might be done by the vaccines that they're distributing. So there's a question about, do all of those things add up to explain the many anomalies about the recommendations of how to treat patients who have COVID? I believe they do. Well, let's put it this way. I can't come up with anything else that makes any sense. Well, it's a perfect storm, right?

You have a generic, like, what is the expense of ivermectin? Oh, it's, actually, I've seen it estimated, like, in large bulk quantities, you could make it for less than a dollar, like a dose. In the United States, there's FDA-regulated product, so it's more expensive. But around the world, I mean, in India, they were distributing it in many regions. And we should talk about India in a second. But it's extremely cheap. It's a very low-cost product.

That's a problem. So extremely effective, extremely cheap, and generic. Big problem. Yeah, but look. But is it? What I can't get myself to is what do these conversations sound like on the other side? Who decides to shut down in the middle of a pandemic where you have a drug that's actually good enough to end the pandemic at any point you want it? Who decides to prioritize business interests ahead of that? I find it hard to imagine. So what I'm actually guessing is going on is this. You've got a pharmaceutical industry which frequently has obstacles. The development of a new drug is extremely expensive. It can go bust. You can develop a new drug and it doesn't

get through the trials. So there's a lot of risk. And so the pharmaceutical industry has engineered mechanisms to get their drugs through this process, right? They've corrupted the system. And my sense is that their ability to force the system to accept certain things and to ignore other things is so well developed at this point that it must have just gotten applied on autopilot. And somehow we're stuck in the situation where the evidence that we have effective tools is overwhelming. Those tools do not excite anybody in the pharmaceutical industry because there's no profit to be made. And somehow that autopilot has us facing the possibility of getting stuck with this pathogen permanently because there's nobody at the helm. That's about what I would guess. Yeah. I mean, this're seeing you're seeing this is a system at work.

Right. So we we we live in a public in a health system which favors for profit medicines over nonprofit. It's the for profit medicines that can create that can hurdle over those bars. Right, to get those big pharma trials, no one's going to fund that around ivermectin. Actually, philanthropy is funding a relatively big trial right now. I think the world is waiting on the results. I actually think that trial is unethical. I could not, as a physician knowing what I know, give someone a placebo right now for ivermectin. The evidence is too overwhelming. But you're in a system where clearly the things that are favored are those with financial interests. And so that's who gets the ear of the agencies.

That's who gets attention by the FDA. And ivermectin is really ignored. There's no one championing ivermectin except for like my little group of nonprofit doctors who became expert at ivermectin. And I will also say, though, we're not alone. There's like, you know, our organization, we call ourselves the FLCCC for short, but there's little FLCCCs in countries all around the world that we're talking to who are also advocating and going to their governments and their agencies and finding very similar resistances. It's like the same play over and over again. The influence of the pharmaceutical companies is a real thing. It's global. It is, but I think what keeps stopping me in my tracks

is the magnitude. If you just simply extrapolate from what is evident in that meta-analysis about the capacity of ivermectin to address this, the amount of needless human suffering is almost incalculable. Incalculable. It's incalculable. And that we would allow it to continue. I mean, Fauci was very excited in his press conference about this new initiative. And it sort of sounded like, He was very excited in his press conference about this new initiative. And it sort of sounded like, well, we're settling in for a very long term situation with this pathogen. Right. We were told that the vaccines were a solution to this. But it looks like they're just really gearing up for this.

And, of course, that will create profits for a long time to come. Brett, can we say just stop for a second and call attention to the absurdity of what that article just described. You're talking about they're committing $3.2 billion to develop a better ivermectin. We already have ivermectin. It is already a profoundly effective antiviral. It is cheap, widely available, could be produced in mass quantities and delivered to the masses and population. Yet our government, in the middle of a pandemic, is giving $3.2 billion to the pharmaceutical

industry in a program to develop a new oral antiviral pill. It's almost, it's so transparent. You wish you'd just say, look, okay, I see what you're doing. Will you do me a favor? Just adjust one of the molecules on ivermectin. We'll pay you for it. Put a patent on it. We'll give you the money.

Okay? Well, that's molnupiravir. So molnupiravir doesn't share a molecular structure with ivermectin, but one of its purported main mechanisms of action is the same, is a similar one. It's identical to one of the main mechanisms of action is the same, is a similar one. It's identical to one of the main mechanisms of action of ivermectin. So it's a different drug, but it's kind of doing the same thing. Now, it's not as good. What's the mechanism? So it interrupts. One of them is there's these enzymes that the virus uses to replicate,

and one of them is called RNA-dependent polymerase. Thank you. And it interferes and binds with that. And so if you don't have that enzyme, you can't replicate. And so it's thought to, that's one of its mechanisms. Now, the thing about molnupiravir is they've already tested it in hospitalized patients, and it's failed. It hasn't worked in the hospital, where we know ivermectin works in the hospital. Even in late phase, we know ivermectin's working. They. Even in late phase, we know ivermectin is working. They're now testing in outpatient, which is the holy grail because right now the NIH, which determines the treatment guidelines for this disease in this country, besides Tylenol and wait till your lips turn blue, they offer nothing to outpatients. So that is a ripe market to try to find the COVID killer.

Ivermectin is the COVID killer and should be the mainstay of any early outpatient treatment regimen, and yet it's not. The one thing I want to bring up, and this is talk, I want to go back to this. I love the example that Brett brings up is just look at the behaviors. Like even just ignoring some of the signs, look at the behavior. So when you look at some of the trials around their favored medicines like remdesivir, they kind of do funny stuff with the trials. They change endpoints. They use weak outcomes like, okay, two days less of a hospitalization for $3,000 doesn't

save lives, doesn't reduce mechanical ventilation when you have other drugs that do. But another absurdity is Mexico. that do. But another absurdity is Mexico. Mexico, out of all of the countries that we just talked about, they did something that I think is unique, historic, and needs to be recognized. So what happened in Mexico is they have an agency called the IMSS. It's basically their social security department, which covers a large part of the healthcare system. And they went rogue in Mexico back in December at a time when hospitals were full. They were getting inundated. They're almost like at that crisis peak, like we were in, in this country around December in January. Remember when like LA was running out of oxygen and like India was last month. So Mexico was in terrible condition back in December. The IMSS,

and I would say I would like that our paper and our advocacy was part of what made them pay attention to ivermectin. They implemented a nationwide test and treat program. Every outpatient testing center, if you tested positive, you were offered ivermectin. And you got two days, you got 12 milligrams, which is not a high dose. In fact, I consider that to be somewhat of an undertreatment. But what happened within two weeks of that, hospitalization rates plummeted, death rates plummeted. And over the next three months, they basically rid COVID, opened bars, opened restaurants at a time when the vaccination rate was like 1% to 5%. So it wasn't the vaccines. It was all related to this. And then three weeks ago, maybe it's three

weeks now, that agency put out their paper, their paper looking at the data of their program. And you know what they reported is that in many thousands of patients, those that accepted the medicine and took it, their rate of hospitalization was up to 75% lower than those who didn't. And that's not the only agency or country reporting that. Now, why isn't that front page news in the major media in the United States? You have a large country like Mexico who just put out results of a nationwide program centered around ivermectin where hospitalizations were reduced up to 75% in those given ivermectin. And in your opinion, an insufficient dose. What I like to say is it's the minimum of what it's capable of.

If had I, you know, with hindsight, had you done more of a weight-based, right, because we're not all the same, bigger you are, you probably need a little bit more. And also a longer duration, I think they could have gotten that number higher. So it's my opinion it's the minimum of what that program was capable of. But even in that form, in that dosing strategy, it was incredible what they did. You know how many lives they saved by reducing that hospitalization? And they emptied the hospitals. They emptied them. That is incredible. And I always wondered, how's Mexico partying so early? Ah, now there's your answer. And the hospitalization data is so cool. We have an

analyst that works with us, a guy named Juan Chimay, who I think, when all is said and done in a couple of years, will be a historic figure. He's a guy who helped teach me what ivermectin was doing in the world. He's been tracking areas and countries and regions and states which have adopted ivermectin, and he's been looking at the numbers. And we have many dozens of what's called temporally associated decline. So temporally associated mean in the context of time. So when you initiated a point A, what happens very close in time after that? Every time ivermectin is deployed or adopted, you see these rapid declines. Now, everybody's curves around the world have been fluctuating, right?

We have these peaks, we have these, the epidemiologic curves of cases and deaths. But when you look at the ivermectin initiations, it's always reproducible. It's literally within one to two weeks you see these drops. And how are these results being received? Crickets. So the Mexico preprint, this is how crazy the world is. So the Mexico preprint, this is how crazy the world is. So the Mexico preprint, I thought, would be front page news across Mexico that they'd found a cure. The federal health ministry in Mexico really was against the IMSS. So it's almost like the CDC and the NIH were fighting. I was trying to come up with an analogy because I don't know Mexico that well.

But I do know those are two large preeminent healthcare agents. But the federal health ministry was against this program. Insufficient evidence, da, da, da, da. And I think they were partly because they were captured. But these rogue sort of clinical experts who are trying to act in a humanitarian basis using a precautionary principle, which Brett brought up, which is like safe med seems like it only got upside. Let's just do it. And they did it and it worked. But in the papers, there's still discussion, insufficient evidence. And then some people now they're planting things in the papers, as I understand it, saying that it's political, that that paper in which they reported their results. Some people are excusing this because that's how they want to get reelected. So it's like, again, it gets devolved into like political controversy.

And so, but the fact that our government isn't talking to the group of doctors that headed up the IMSS and carried out, initiated this program to learn how they did it is, it's unforgivable. Why aren't we talking to these leaders of the IMSS program in Mexico? They're not far from here, right, Joe? Pretty close. Yeah, they're pretty close, right? You kind of can walk.

We could probably drive down there today. Yeah, if you have a few days, you can walk. Have them on your podcast. But that's just Mexico. And I could probably talk all day long, but just 10 days ago, the state of La Pampa in Argentina, southern Argentina, they did a similar program where they gave ivermectin to patients who tested positive.

They also are reporting there they had 40% less hospitalization, 30% less death, and 40% less ICU use. And so in that small program out of Argentina, and then when you look at India, remember how crazy, how India was the headlines for a while, like literally there was smoke over all the cities from the funeral pyres

because so many people were dying. Well, in a number of the states that aggressively adopted ivermectin, you saw those curves and they plummeted to near zero. In states that didn't, you saw the curves go up. So it's almost like there was a natural experiment in India around nivermectin. And so, you know, just to finish, you know, Brett talked about the preventative trials, the treatment trials, early, late. Now you're also getting data from real world. That's a

really credible, in fact, to me, that's probably the most powerful source of evidence is you're seeing it work on a population basis around the world. So I would like to, I think it absolutely, the data suggests that it works for treatment, that it's highly effective. There are several different protocols you could use. But I want to go back to this issue of prophylaxis because, again, to me, we're not just dealing with the costs in the present. We're dealing with how much cost will humanity experience in the future if we don't drive this thing extinct while we have the chance, and we do appear to have the chance. So if you would put up the graph I sent you. I apologize for the complexity of this.

But actually, hold up for just a second, Jamie. So I've been talking to various people about whether or not the data on ivermectin suggests it could drive SARS-CoV-2 to extinction. And I became convinced that it could. When this meta-analysis came out, I talked to Tess Laurie. She said she believed that it could. When this meta-analysis came out, I talked to Tess Laurie. She said she believed that it could. I believe, is it fair to say, Pierre, that you believe that it could? Oh, absolutely. Okay. But not everybody agrees. And actually on my podcast with Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, he actually, he said he hoped I was right, but he doubted it. And anyway, we've

gone back and forth about it a number of times. And I tried to focus him on a couple of things. And last night, he contacted me and he said, Brett, you were right. It'll do it. And then he said, let me show you. And he sent me this graph. I didn't send you the graph? Oh, damn. No worries. We got time. All right. So Robert came around. He did come around.

Those glasses, by the way, are preposterous. They do not work well with headphones. I should have remembered that. You know, I see they're supposed to make it more convenient. They do when you're not wearing headphones. Let's, if we can make a note. So, and this is where the story just keeps getting like more and more amazing, right? So, Brett is rightly focusing on the preventive aspects, right? Because it's great to treat and make sure you stay alive and don't go to the hospital.

Much better to just not get sick and to eradicate the virus. But we save a definitely large number of people if we drive it to extinction. Make a note that the body of evidence, which is the weakest, but it's some of the most compelling, long COVID. So let's talk about that after. I want to talk about our experiences with long COVID. Okay. Okay. So this is incredibly complex. And I must tell you it's complex enough that I have had to stare at it and talk to Robert about what it means. And so I'm going to take you through the highlights here. Explain it to people that are just looking at this or listening only. So what we've got is a graph in which we have some curves that descend through the graph. And the curves, these curves are parallel to each other.

And the basic idea is, do you guys remember what R naught is from the beginning of the pandemic? So R naught is the reproductive rate of the virus. At one, each infected person tends to infect one other person. So the amount of infected people tends to stay the same over time. Above one, you get one of these explosions of new cases. It goes below one, you see a decline in cases. Anytime you have a decline in cases, anytime R0 is less than one, you are headed towards the extinction of the pathogen. And lots of pathogens do go extinct. SARS and MERS are both extinct, as far as we know. Now, they can come back, but extinction is what we're shooting for. Now, the point of this graph is, remember, ivermectin shows itself to be about 86% effective at preventing contraction of COVID. That means that, so R0 for COVID is somewhere between two, it's a little bit above

two. So the green line there is just below the line that we would draw for COVID. This graph was not drawn with COVID in mind. What this means is, and can you scroll up so we can see, oh, the bottom there. It says critical boundary for combined AVE sub S. AVE sub S is the rate at which people exposed do not come down with the disease when treated. That's on the Y axis, I mean the X axis. On the Y axis, we have AVE sub I, which is the rate of reduction of viral shedding. And the basic point here is that for a disease like COVID with an R0 of about a little over two, with 70% of the population compliant with the prophylactic protocol, we would drive R0.

R0 becomes R sub F in the treatment. So the reproductive rate under treatment is R sub F. And it will be less than 1 if you get 70% of the population to take the prophylaxis. So the point is that level of prophylaxis is more than sufficient by a lot to drive this to extinction if you only had 70% compliance. Is there any evidence of the efficacy in variants? Yes, I do. Well, we don't have trials testing, you know, where they really measured the variants and showed, but we do know this epidemiologic data. So if you look at India, lots of Delta variant from looking at the epidemiology of what happened

there, ivermectin was slaying the Delta variant. South Africa and Zimbabwe, especially Zimbabwe, when they were getting hurt earlier in this year, they basically eradicated COVID with widespread adoption of ivermectin. They were dealing with the South African variant. Brazil is a bit of a mess in the sense that there's so much controversy around the different treatments and there's political overtones that there's no systematic use of ivermectin. But there have been pockets and cities that first didn't adopt it and then did. And we know in that P1 variant out of Brazil, totally susceptible to ivermectin. So from what we've seen, and then the UK variant, we saw in Slovakia and Czech Republic, same thing, responsiveness to ivermectin. So just by looking at sort of epidemiologically

seeing these variances pop out, I have gotten no data to suggest it doesn't work against any variants. And that's what we would expect because its mechanisms of action are multiple. And they don't really will change to the outer surface of the spike protein. We think that to evade ivermectin, you'd really have to have a very, very different virus. And so we don't think that – we have no evidence to suggest that it's not going to work. This sounds like a gigantic ivermectin infomercial sponsored by ivermectin. You know what I mean? A lot of money to be made

there joe but not really not really that means sarcastic there's no money to be made it's just lives to save i'm sorry but it is it's it's so funny this is one of the best examples of something that is almost too good to be true but turns out actually to be true right and it's the problem is it's actually putting those of us who can see it in danger, right? Because as people ignore this evidence with this much at stake, this many people needlessly suffering and dying, people losing their loved ones, right? The desire to just simply get people to look at the evidence and then extrapolate. What would a reasonable person do faced with a safe drug with noisy data that has a very strong signal of efficacy that works both as a treatment and as a prophylaxis? What would

you do if you were in charge? And what you hear back is the most maddening, well, you know, I'm evidence-based. And if it isn't a large-scale, randomized, controlled trial, then it isn't evidence to me. And it's like only a crazy person would say that in this case, and yet you hear it all the time. Especially all these different countries that you've outlined that have adopted treatment. South Africa, Mexico. Here's the key, though, is that the reasons for the opposition I think are multiple. I hate talking about the sinister stuff, which is the disinformation aspects where they're literally making concerted efforts to get leaders to inject doubt around the

science. Some of it is just intellectual skepticism like this, what we call evidence-based medicine. It's gotten a little perverted. And I think it's not always practiced correctly. And so you have a lot of resistance to the science around ivermectin. Now I lost my train of thought that I wanted to say about that. Go ahead. Well, you want me to help you? Because we were just talking about profitability. We're talking about the fact that it's in all these different countries. Like it's kind of too good to be true.

Well, the profit part is, I mean, I agree that's one of them. Oh, the other point I wanted to make is that, and this is so maddening, is that the other resistance of what I call ivory tower syndrome or this evidence-based, I call it maniacism, which is this obsession with this big randomized controlled trial. which is this obsession with this big randomized controlled trial. But part and parcel of that obsession where they won't believe anything until you do that trial is that they don't do the work. What I've seen is a lot of intellectual laziness and just flat out laziness. Like when I see people reviewing the evidence and I'm like, they clearly either didn't read the trials, didn't look at all the trials. I just find it's a very cursory view.

Now, whether they're doing it on purpose or not. And I'm going to call out one particular body, which is the IDSA, which is the Infectious Disease Society of America. And they, like all of the other agencies, there are professional societies of infectious disease experts. the other agencies, there are professional societies of infectious disease experts, and in their review of ivermectin, they don't recommend use outside of clinical trials. And they also say that the evidence is low quality, small trials, but they also say something else, which is absurd. They wrote that of concern is that almost all of the published trials are positive, and so they suspect publication bias. Want me to repeat that?

So they literally, in their review, they say, you know, we noticed that all of the studies are positive, so we think there might be a publication bias. I want to wring someone's neck. You think there might be a publication bias. I want to wring someone's neck. You think there might be a publication bias? So if you don't know what a publication bias is, is that in medicine, when people do studies, let's say you study a drug and you find out it didn't really work, right? Your motivation for finishing the manuscript, submitting, like it's a lot of work to submit and publish papers in scientific journals, might flag and you might not publish negative trials.

And so there's something that happens, which is a publication, by the way, you only see positive trials and it gives you only a one-sided view of the efficacy. So you might wrongly say, oh man, this drug works because all the trials say it works, but you're not accounting for all the trialists who aren't publishing. Now, there are ways of investigating and looking for publication bias. And I will tell you that the lead researcher for the UNITED WHO, who he used to collaborate with, he's no longer doing the work now, he did look at that. And he found no publication bias.

And the way you combat publication bias is when you do a clinical trial of a medicine, it's been standard now, is that you're supposed to register your trial in a clinical trials registry before you do the trial. And most journals will not publish your trial unless it was pre-registered. And the reason why is they want to make sure if you register a trial on ivermectin and then never publish, they can find you and say, what happened? What happened to your trial? Did you find out it didn't work and didn't publish? What's going on? Anyway, long story short, there's no publication bias. So let me ask you this. If there is proven to be no publication bias, the people that initially were skeptical because of a publication bias, when proven that that's not the case, why is there not a corresponding enthusiasm on their part?

Because their objection wasn't a real objection. Right. It was stalling. bias, but you don't need it because the experience in Mexico and Uttar Pradesh and Goa and all of these places where it's been tried is perfectly consistent with the result that you see in the studies, right? So the observational studies are consistent. You've got, you know, the Argentina frontline healthcare worker study. That's an unambiguous result that would be essentially impossible to, you know, this is the one where, what was it, 237 out of 400- Who didn't take it got sick. Who didn't take it got sick. 58%, Joe, that trial- 58% who didn't take it got sick.

Yeah, so that trial- And none of 237 of 407 got COVID. 58% that shows you how high risk these people were and how well protected those that took that regimen of ivermectin and the carotene. So let's be real clear here. None of the people who took it prophylactically in that study got COVID. 58% of the people that didn't take it got COVID. Correct. That's crazy. And the point is that, you know, that is within a study. If the study is not outright fraudulent, the chances of getting a result that skewed are effectively zero.

It's just insane that these calls for, or these criticisms of potential publication bias aren't met with once the evidence has been established, once you've looked at it and they say, no, there's no publication bias. Why aren't people going, well, this is amazing news then? Right. Because this is what we've been searching for. So again, I want to just point out the evidence that the molecule works is overwhelming, right? Figuring out how to use it best is a question that reasonable people could disagree over, but it's something that we would find out if we applied it and collected the information. But that graph, which I realize I forgot to say where it came from, that was work done by Ira Longini at the University of Florida and his postdoc, Natalie Dean.

And what that, I think I forgot to say, the Y-axis on there is the one fly in the ointment, which is that those curves are drawn based on an effectiveness at preventing viral shedding and an effectiveness at preventing the contraction of the disease. And although there's every reason to expect that viral shedding would be low with the use of ivermectin, I don't think we have that data yet. But anyway, assuming that that comes out the way one would expect based on what we do know, what that graph says is that given an R-naught of the type that we believe we have, that we have a single tool that even if it didn't work to treat sick people, is effective enough to rid the world of this disease.

And the farther below one the effectiveness is, the more rapidly we can drive it to extinction. But why we are not even considering this, why we are instead of applying this drug good enough today to do the job and instead going to invest $3 billion to see if there are any drugs out there that we can come up with that might work, it really does suggest that what is driving here has to do with- Profits. I hate to say it, but yes. Let me bring up the principal investigator of that trial. So his name is Hector Carvalho. He's this lovely, lovely man. This is the Argentina healthcare worker.

Yeah, he's so great. He's actually retired, but he used to run hospitals. He had very prominent positions. And he was the PI, principal investigator of this trial. And I've gotten to be friendly and collegial with him because we've shared data and insights and we lecture in different places. And I asked him, I said, you know, because his trial was already done last June. And I said, what's the latest

data? And, you know, as you're following these patients, and he says, still today, out of those large groups of healthcare workers, the only times anyone's gotten sick when he's looked at those cases, either they forgot to take their doses or they took inappropriate doses, but generally almost all of them have maintained protection. The other thing I'm going to borrow with you, because it goes to your question, is he has this phrase, which I love. He says, unfortunately, ivermectin has affected the most sensitive organ on humans, the wallet. So I thought that was a pretty clever, witty way of saying what the problem is. It answers your question, like, why aren't we doing this?

And apparently, ivermectin is really damaging to the wallet, Joe. How much of this did you guys discuss on your podcast that has been taken down? Yeah. We discussed a lot of it. Some of this is new. The entire podcast has been taken down? The entire podcast has been taken down. Yeah. We discussed a lot of it that, you know, some of this is new. The entire podcast has been taken down. The entire podcast has been taken down. You know, I should also point out, I don't know, did you mention that Dr. Corey's Senate testimony was taken down by YouTube? I find this one of the most glaring facts. No, your Senate testimony has

been taken down. Oh, a long time ago. Yeah. I mean, it hit almost 9 million views and then it got disappeared. And oh, that's the other thing I wanted to bring up with Hector Carvalho in Argentina. You know, this is the PI, this incredible study. And by the way, his is not alone. We have now 14 prophylaxis studies and some of them quite large. Every time he mentions ivermectin, he says it's scrubbed from the internet. He can't really share his data. There's a lot of censorship down there around ivermectin. The drug is specifically called out in YouTube's community guidelines.

They mention it. Right? This, thou shalt not discuss the effectiveness of ivermectin. But you're allowed to discuss remdesivir? Oh, yeah. It's approved. It's part of the NIH guideline. You know, there was an article written by Matt Taibbi. Right. I mean, the look on your face says it all. This is not adding up. The Matt Taibbi article, which you just-

Yeah. So I got interviewed for it, and I thought it was a fair representation. He balanced both sides. But I liked his phrase. He called me some sort of ghost of the internet because wherever I go, things get removed. Things disappear. And so his got taken down. I did a long interview with a guy named John Campbell from the UK. He has almost a million subscribers on YouTube. He's a medical educator.

Been covering lots of COVID-related topics. And we discussed ivermectin for a half hour. That got taken down. Another medical educator, Dr. Bean, who's really a great, phenomenal educator who I've conversed with, when I went on his, and he's constantly reviewing data on many aspects of COVID. But I think at one point, every video of his where he addressed ivermectin got demonetized. And this is a medical educator. That's his whole- Demonetized I can live with. Yeah. I don't like it. It's the shutting down the discussion. Yeah. I don't like the demonetization because what it is, it's a thinly veiled attempt at self-censorship.

If you demonetize people enough for very specific subjects, they will no longer breach those subjects because they know it's going to hurt their pocket. Right. So I ran across something. I think you're more familiar with it than I am, but I ran across it yesterday. Evidence that, let's see if I get the list right, the AP, Reuters, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, the Washington Post, who else is on this list? Financial Times, the long list of places

where information is distributed have teamed up to prevent the distribution of what they're calling medical misinformation, which, of course, now, you know, your listeners will have heard a discussion about a very promising drug for treating and preventing COVID, which we're now forbidden to talk about on YouTube, at least in positive light. And the implication, you know, if you think, so I've been making the argument that capture, capture was originally named regulatory capture, right? And it gives the impression, oh, the regulatory agency has been captured by the thing that is supposed to regulate the nuclear industry. It may have captured the Department of Energy, for example, and therefore decisions start going its way. the Department of Energy, for example, and therefore decisions start going its way.

In this case, I really think we need to start thinking in terms of capture that extends to other places, right? You expect the regulator to be captured, but you don't necessarily expect the New York Times to be captured. You don't expect all of the places that you might discuss what's going on. You don't expect the places where you would discuss capture to be captured, and yet they are. And so to have YouTube controlling the bounds of discussion, obviously forbidding scientifically viable conversations from happening, which are the only thing that stands a chance of correcting this unbearable momentum in favor of a single solution, which itself has hazards associated with it. Right. And I don't know if we do or don't want to go there. But the point is this, you know, this drug comparatively safe, very safe by any measure is highly effective. And yet the official policy is effectively vaccines at any cost and get everybody on them. And don't talk about other stuff that's not approved. Don't talk about the alternatives. And none of it makes any sense because just consider the anomalies. Right. The anomalies are things that even if you accept what the opponents of this perspective are saying, can't be explained. Right.

Why is it that we are not giving? Let's say that everybody who's vaccine skeptical is a crazy person. Right. I don't think they are. I'm vaccine skeptical. But and I don't mean that generally. I'm very enthusiastic about vaccines in a general sense. I'm highly vaccinated. But in this case, I'm worried about a set of vaccines that were sped through this process where their manufacturers have been immunized from liability and where there is a very strong signal that something is not right. given that you have a population of vaccine-hesitant people, however they got there,

even if they got there from confusion, where we're trying to reach herd immunity in order to ostensibly drive the pathogen to extinction, where this drug appears to give people immunity to a large extent, maybe a complete extent, from the pathogen in question, why would we not be giving ivermectin to those who won't take the vaccine, can't take the vaccine, to whom the vaccine will not reach, right? All of those categories, even if you believe the vaccine was far and away the best solution to this problem, all of those categories would benefit from having ivermectin and the population as a whole would benefit from them having it because it would leave fewer people for this pathogen to jump to. And yet we don't do it. I don't think that can be explained by anything. There is no logical defense.

Great way to fill that hole of people who aren't going to get vaccinated. You're going back to your graph. The graph, I don't know if you mentioned this, but in that graph, when you look at the population, you already have now a large proportion have been vaccinated and then a large part have herd immunity. So the amount of water the ivermectin has to carry to get us to the goal line is not as large. It's not as large. It's not as large at all. And you're going to want to deploy this.

I mean, imagine that you took the vaccine, right? And then you had a breakthrough case, right? This is now happening regularly. Why are we not giving ivermectin to people with breakthrough cases of COVID? They did what they were asked to do, and they now have this condition. And, you know, so anyway, there's a large rabbit hole surrounding what they are pushing instead of ivermectin. But really what we can't answer, we're vaccinating children, right? That's not safe. We have a drug that we could administer that is safe in children, that appears to be highly effective, right?

If you were going to insist that children have some sort of protection in spite of the fact that they tolerate COVID very well, ivermectin would be a far better choice. You know, one difference, I don't know how big of a difference it is, if I understood you correctly, but the way I see that censorship and that TNI, I think it's called Trusted News Initiative. I don't know enough about it, but from what I understand, it was a consortium of major media outlets that came to some sort of agreement to suppress medical misinformation. And I guess it was somehow defined as anything that doesn't come from what I call the gods of science and knowledge, right? So from the leading agencies. And when you talk about – I've been working on this analogy, which is that it's almost like you're in a plane emergency, right? And a plane is crashing like we're in an emergency right now.

And everyone is saying listen to the captain. You have to listen to the captain's instructions. Don't listen to anyone else, but listen to the captain. And no one's considering what if the hijackers already got the captain. And you're not listening to really good advice. And that's what it seems like here. And we're listening to hijackers. Yeah. Or your house is on fire and there's a bucket of water and somebody stops you from using it because you haven't proved it's water.

I love those. I love those analogies. Yes. Yeah. Something is not adding up here. And I think it is worth pointing out that I don't know what explains it, but throughout this story, we've got Dr. Fauci in a very strange position so from again yeah again right and that's that's the problem so at the same point that we have a drug that appears to work in fact we have several of them he's announcing a search for drugs that might work right that's conspicuous this is the same person who was apparently circumventing the ban on gain of function research by sending the research offshore to the Wuhan Institute using EcoHealth Alliance.

Right. Why is the same guy in a position where he may have contributed to causing the pandemic? And now here he is in a position to do something about the pandemic. And he's making exactly the wrong decision. He's not wielding the tools we have. He's announcing a search for new tools as if the tools we have don't exist. Nothing here adds up. And at the very least, okay, so nothing adds up. We can't talk about it in the official channels because the official channels are constrained. And then the free people who discuss this on the internet, who take their expertise on the internet and discuss the fact that something is not adding up, are being silenced by YouTube and Facebook and whoever else. And the point is, it all points to one thing, right? For some reason, there's a desire not to apply this tool, and there is a pursuit of other tools. And there is no cost-benefit analysis that will cause that system to rethink. It's not scientifically based. That's what I want to be

clear because, you know, Joe, what happened to me is, the guy that I was a year ago and the guy that I am now is totally different. Like, I just see the world a lot different. I guess you could say I'm more cynical, but every time I get cynical, I also find out that I'm correct in that cynicism. Like everything that I'm suspecting, I'm actually finding evidence that the forces that I think are acting improperly actually are. And when is it going to stop? Well, it's just so extraordinary that in all the years you've been practicing medicine, that in the last year, it's changed you this much in the face of this evidence. Because of what happened to the science, I always thought that data would win out and science trumps all. I came into it naive. And we came with our experience, our expertise,

our insights into the disease that me and the group, we obsessively studied this disease. And we're also decades of experience, highly published. And when we came out with our protocols, I don't know if you know this, but I gave Senate testimony back in May a year ago. And I gave testimony to the world saying that it was critical that we use corticosteroids. And I did that at a time when every national and international health agency said, do not use corticosteroids in COVID. And I was roundly attacked, harassed, and criticized for that very public recommendation. What was the reason why you recommended it?

Because we knew it was critical in this disease. So about four reasons. Number one, my colleague in our group, his name is Umberto Maduri. He is the world expert at corticosteroids in lung disease. Decades of practice. He's made multiple contributions to our specialty. Him and another group of scholars reviewed all of the trials from SARS, MERS, and H1N1, so the prior pandemics. And when you really carefully control, because they

were all what's called observational trials back then, and so there's a lot of what are called confounders. But when you control for the confounders really carefully, what him and his group in this, what I think is a landmark paper, what they found was that corticosteroids were actually life-saving in the prior coronavirus pandemics. So we knew that when you really look carefully, again, going back to that laziness and the lack of deep expertise and deep dives into the data, which is what Umberto and his group did back in April of last year, they found that it was actually lifesavers. So that was one reason I knew. The other reason I knew is because I was born, raised, trained, lived in New York. I moved to Wisconsin. I was

recruited by the University of Wisconsin five years ago. But I know guys and gals in every ICU in New York City. And when they got hit, it was bad. And I was in Wisconsin, we weren't hit yet. And I was on the phone with them every day. I was trying to learn everything I could about disease. And the stuff that I was hearing, first of all, that was just Armageddon. It was insane, the stuff that I was hearing. I mean, it just still brings back really horrible memories of what happened to New York and Seattle and Detroit and New Orleans. If you remember that time when, I mean, to know what it's like on the inside, the newspapers did a reasonable job of describing it, but it was really, really bad. But I knew from them that people were crashing onto ventilators and they weren't coming off.

They weren't coming off. They were dying on ventilators. The lungs were deteriorating. And they were just doing what's called supportive care only, which is Tylenol, fluids, oxygen, and it wasn't working. And then some of the colleagues who said, you know, we got to try something, they were trying steroids, which what we were saying, we kind of knew, we already knew steroids were indicated. And those that started to use steroids, you started, actually, it was interesting. It started popping up on social media. Doctors, some of them anonymously, were starting to post like, hey, we're using steroids, we're using it early when they're, as soon as they get on oxygen,

and we're finding they're not getting intubated, you know, they're coming off ventilators, and we're actually discharging patients. And so you had like on the ground, like real time feedback that it was working. We knew from prior trials. And then I wrote a paper talking about how the type of lung disease that COVID causes, and I don't want to get too wonky here, but it's a disease called organizing pneumonia, which is not an infectious pneumonia. It's actually, although they call it a pneumonia, it's just a reaction to a lung injury, to exposure to something. And so the lungs are reacting in the form of an organizing pneumonia. The cardinal therapy for organizing pneumonia is steroids. And not only is it steroids, but it's oftentimes high-dose steroids. And you're supposed to wean them off as the disease

gets better, not some predefined time. And I think we talked about it on your podcast, and I just have to say it again. But my belief, leaving ivermectin alone, is that many, many thousands of people are dying around the world from undertreatment with corticosteroids. of people are dying around the world from undertreatment with corticosteroids. We now have significant amounts of data to show that. The trials which use methylprednisolone at higher doses have much better outcomes. And also, you need longer durations. What the whole world is doing is they're following. Remember how we talked about the pitfalls of a large randomized control trial? So when I said to use corticosteroids in the Senate testimony, I was attacked, criticized, because there was no randomized control trial.

Seven weeks later, Oxford put out the recovery trial, which is their big trial in the UK, and they showed that corticosteroids were life-saving. So we were validated. We were validated back then. And they used a small dose of a corticosteroid for a predetermined time, 10 days. And so, by the way, I've been traveling around the country in different ICUs throughout the pandemic because I left the University of Wisconsin. I helped out my old ICU in New York when they were getting inundated. And then I was in Greenville and Milwaukee. And so, I've been in a bunch of ICUs.

And I kept seeing doctors using six milligrams of dexamethasone for 10 days and stopping. They were literally stopping steroids where patients were still sick on high amounts of oxygen on ventilators. And I mean, there's nothing more absurdly bizarre than doing that. Like the disease is still marching on. It's still overwhelming these patients and you're stopping a medicine. Why do they stop? Because the trial said that. That was the trial protocol. So people decided they're not going to doctor anymore. They're just going to follow the trial protocol. And I'm saying, you got a doctor. You follow the patient. You don't follow some protocol. I mean, the human condition is a bit variable, don't you think? We're not all the same.

The human condition is a bit variable, don't you think? Well, right. We're not all the same. But there's the hidden feature of your story here, right, is that back when we were talking about corticosteroids, you had doctors who were pooling their insights. Yes. Right. And it resulted in a discovery that something should be done. To have YouTube and all of its fellows in the, what is it, TNI,

deciding that we can't talk in public about this topic means that that process can't happen. Now, why is that process being frustrated? We can guess. Yes, it probably has to do with profits. And I must say, every time I try to sort through the logic of why this would be suppressed, right, the consequence of it being suppressed is obvious, which sort through the logic of why this would be suppressed, right? The consequence of it being suppressed is obvious, which is that the standard of care doesn't improve. But why? I keep coming back to these emergency use authorizations, which have a provision in them. They cannot grant an emergency use authorization if there is an existing treatment that is safe and effective, right? The vaccines would not have been authorized if ivermectin was

understood to be what it is. And that, I have the sense, is the key thing that explains everything else. Somehow, those EUAs and the liability waivers that these companies have been granted mean that this is all the more profitable if they can silence a discussion about a cheap, effective competitor that is safe that already exists. And so in some sense, they started with the conclusion. Ivermectin doesn't exist. It does not effectively treat this disease. And anybody who says otherwise is spreading so-called medical misinformation, when in fact what they're spreading is information, right? So bunk is debunk. Information is misinformation. It's all on its head. We're through the Lincoln Glass. I want to bring up something that you glossed over earlier,

but you stopped. You didn't go back to it. It's long COVID and the effectiveness on long COVID. Yeah. So I don't want to use that term infomercial because it's a bad term. Well, because it cheapens the subject in a bit. But the way I want to want to use that term infomercial because it's a bad term. Well, because it cheapens the subject in a bit. But the way I want to say it is that the efficacy of ivermectin in all of these phases is just truly remarkable. And it's, you know, Paul Marik, he uses this phrase that hopefully this is going to be taken seriously. But, you know, he said it's like this is a gift. This was a gift to humanity, this drug. And it's showing itself not only in the data that we've already reviewed,

but long COVID, right? We still don't understand exactly what's causing long COVID, right? But if you know anything about it, right, it's a whole constellation of symptoms, generally marked by fatigue. People just don't feel well, right? They feel run down, sometimes dizzy, sometimes with fevers, headache, sore joints. Brain fog. And then the brain fog, right? So a lot of it is cognitive. They just don't feel like they're themselves. They're forgetful. And when you interact with some of these patients as a physician it's really sad like i know 29 year olds who are disabled like literally healthy 29 year olds who can't go back to work and and

they can't participate in their relationships they can't do the fun stuff that they do anything they do it they they feel terrible okay what interesting, so we don't really know what drives it. We're starting to get more and more insights. In fact, we are working now on a collaboration. It's a network of folks, and two in particular are doing a lot of research on long COVID. They're doing a lot of immunological studies and a lot of investigations into different inflammatory markers and what are called cytokines. So we're starting to understand that it is persistent inflammation. We don't think it's persistent virus. We think it's persistent viral proteins that are in some of the immune cells that are

triggering the immune cells. And so what's interesting is ivermectin is showing really strong efficacy. And when my first case of a patient where I treated for long COVID, I mean, they literally were almost crying in joy because they had been sick for so long. And I have dozens of testimonials of people who were sick for months. They took Ivermectin and they said like within 12 to 24 hours, suddenly they started to feel better. Well, let me ask you this. It's not long COVID. Are we thinking that the virus is still infecting people? No, we don't think it's persistent virus. If that's the case, then how is ivermectin curing these people that have this long-term? Yeah. So ivermectin,

it has, we think, a number of antiviral properties. So it interrupts the replication and entry of the virus, but it also has a number of anti-inflammatory properties. So it actually modulates and it decreases the inflammation in the body. So if something's triggering ongoing inflammation, ivermectin can tamp that down. So we think it's acting as an anti-inflammatory, but it also binds to the spike protein. And we think that there are persistent proteins in some of these cells. And so ivermectin, we believe, is somehow binding to and kind of suppressing the triggering of inflammation by these proteins. Again, I wouldn't say don't quote me on that, but I will be the first to admit we need to learn a lot more about long COVID.

What's interesting about long COVID is if you talk to a patient, yeah, you keep doing the studies, just help me to feel better, right? Like the average patient, they don't really care what it is or what we're treating. They want to know that what we're doing is working. And those are our theories as to why it works. But it's really, really satisfying. Now, the trick with ivermectin and long COVID is there's kind of two groups. There are some patients which literally get better after like a couple of doses and then they're good to go. They like feel better and they're back to normal.

Whereas quite a few others, I'd say the majority, kind of need. And here's where you got to doctor and titrate. You kind of got to go longer, sometimes higher doses. Sometimes we pair it with corticosteroids. So for, so it's 0.2 milligrams per kilogram. So for like a 70 kilogram male will be about, you know, 12, 15 milligrams. But we sometimes use a little bit higher doses if we don't get the effect and or longer durations or more frequently so I have one guy I've been treating for many months and him we've messed around with a few things and now we're down to like once or twice a week is what we're using it and but he feels he starts to feel unwell after he doesn't have a dose for a few days. And so some of them you have to treat long.

But the thing is, I just want to, if I can, just talk about our organization because it is a nonprofit, Joe. And our protocols are all on our website. And I think they're really helpful for patients and physicians. This is good sound medicine that I want to share. But our website is flccc.net. And we're a nonprofit. And we've put out our protocols, the rationale, the studies for them. And we put out what's called the iRecover protocol. That's our protocol for long COVID. It also applies to post-vaccine syndromes.

We have encountered numerous patients who've gotten quite sick after the vaccines and that's persisted. And there, the reason why ivermectin is so potent is much more clear to explain, right? The vaccines, right, tell your body to make spike proteins. And the whole big thing, the discussions around vaccines, which Brett really addressed with Steve and Robert on his podcast, but we're learning that the spike protein is actually not benign. It's a pathogen. It can make some people sick and some people quite sick. And ivermectin seems to neutralize the spike protein and make patients a lot better.

That's been another really satisfying aspect. People who've come to me really sick, like feeling terrible after the vaccines, sometimes one to two to three weeks, and they take ivermectin, they're feeling better within a couple of days. So there are a number of things to say here, and I think we should be cautious because some things like the evidence that ivermectin binds the spike protein, it's hard to find evidence of that directly. True. But in any case- And the evidence, actually, I want to thank you for caution, because I do want to be more cautious. A couple of things.

The evidence for binding the spike protein is more what's called in silico. It's basically computational modeling where they're looking as to see what it would bind to. And we think that the binding of ivermectin to COVID is how it works. And it makes sense, not only from the in silico studies, but also the fact that it prevents entry. Because if it binds to COVID, that also would suggest why you're preventing people from getting ill, because they can't enter. But the other thing that I really want to emphasize as far as caution is that when we say that we're having efficacy and success in treating long COVID, I want to be clear, we do not have clinical trials to support that protocol. All we have

is clinical experience. But it's becoming larger and wider. Again, my network of physicians that have been using ivermectin for acute as well as long is growing. And the numbers of patients they're treating is also increasing. But remember that pyramid I talked about before? When you talk about treatment of long COVID, you're at the lower levels of the pyramid, right? I don't have big trials or lots of even small clinical trials. So I think one thing that is conspicuous is many things lead back to spike protein, right? So COVID is a bizarre disease, right? It does a lot of damage to a lot of different systems, as Pierre can tell you.

The fact that the vaccines utilize spike protein at the level of the drawing board makes sense. But this was done at the drawing board before it was understood that the spike protein itself was cytotoxic. Now, one of the things that we got tremendous pushback for on my podcast with Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch was the claim made by Robert that spike protein is cytotoxic. Cytotoxic means kills cells. This is actually unambiguous. And the pushback was actually very carefully phrased because what they're really saying is that the spike protein in the vaccines is not cytotoxic as far as we know. There is no evidence of that, right? But as Robert points

out, this is nonsense because what we know, what we learned too late to prevent the vaccine manufacturers from using spike protein was that spike protein is cytotoxic. And the subunit that they have used is based on that spike protein. Now they have locked it. So this is a protein that changes form, right? It basically closes like a clamp. And they have modified the sequence to lock it open in order that the part of the spike protein that is, this is too deep in the weeds probably, but that is not covered by sugars, right, is available for the immune system to discover it. They've locked it open. And there is a possibility that that would prevent it from being toxic. But they didn't design it to be non-toxic. They locked it so that the immune system could see it. And the problem is that this vaccine,

or these vaccines, have already failed at several different levels. The way the vaccine is supposed to work, it is supposed to be injected into you. At the injection site, it is supposed to have the mRNAs or the DNA enter the cells, trigger the production of spike protein. The spike protein is supposed to move to the surface of the cell, and it is supposed to stay there. It has a domain that is supposed to stick it into the cell surface where the immune system is supposed to see it and learn it, right? Now, the fact is, the components of the vaccine do not stay in the injection site, and the spike proteins do not stay locked to the cell surface. Maybe some of them do, but many of them seem to float around the body. So we have this molecule, which is based on a COVID molecule or a SARS-CoV-2 molecule that is cytotoxic that circulates around the body. The evidence is that it actually shreds

the blood-brain barrier, so it opens up holes into the brain. So, you know, when you're talking about long COVID, post-vaccine syndrome, and these people have brain fog and other cognitive disabilities, it makes sense that there's been an error here, right? You've got a spike protein capable of damaging this tissue necessary to protect the brain. The spike protein seems to be circulating around the body in a way that the designers of the vaccine did not intend it to do. And so it all sort of adds up that COVID itself, long COVID after the virus is gone, but there are still viral proteins, probably spike protein, and post-vaccine syndrome where the spike protein has been produced in isolation of the virus is gone, but there are still viral proteins, probably spike protein, and post-vaccine syndrome, where the spike protein has been produced in isolation of the virus, all of them have a similar collection of symptoms. And this would also explain why ivermectin,

whatever its mechanism of action, and there seem to be several, seems to be effective in treating all of them. But it's all telling us a kind of remarkable story. And you have to ask, if you put the question to a business school class, what would you expect the behavior of a corporation that manufactures a product to be at the point you've immunized them from liability? I think the answer would be obvious. You would expect them to become a lot less sensitive to the harm that their product does and to pursue profit in spite of potential harm. Is that what's going on? Because it sure seems logical that the behavior would come from that calculation.

Now, let me ask you this about the spike protein, this effect. First of all, how do we know that it's not staying in the area of the injection, going throughout the body and crossing the blood-brain barrier? How has this been measured? And why do some people get the vaccine and have no side effects whatsoever? Okay. So I talked to Robert a little bit about this. The evidence that the spike protein is cytotoxic, I'm working from memory here, but I believe it comes from human cell cultures. And this is from the Salk Institute's paper?

Yeah. From mice and from, I've now forgotten the term. There's a term for bits of brain that have been grown separately on a chip for work in the laboratory. I'll see if I can find the term. But in any case, it's been demonstrated in these... You're answering the question, Brett, of how do we know that spike proteins circulate? Well, so A, I believe we know that the manufacturers ran a test that was basically, whether intentional or not, built to fail. Right. Apparently they used whole body. There's a reporter protein that fluoresces that you can basically put in place of the mRNAs for the spike protein,

and then you can see where it ends up in a mouse model. You can basically see which parts of the animal are lit up. But if you do that by sectioning the tissues, so you're looking at the tissues, it's a very sensitive assay. If you do it by looking at the whole animal, then the photons have to go through a lot of tissue to get out, and so you don't see it. And so it's not surprising that you would see it concentrated at the injection site. So in any case, in the demonstration phase,

we had a test that wasn't capable of seeing smaller amounts that circulate around the body. What we now have is evidence, for example, from this recent autopsy case in which the spike proteins have been found throughout many tissues of a person who died following, it was following COVID, right? Yeah. Right. Oh, no, it was following vaccination. There's one following vaccine. There's also an autopsy study with COVID.

But what you said was correct on both. I don't want to detract from it. But what we're seeing now is I think people are misunderstanding whether it's virus or protein. And we think even in the non-vaccinated, what they're seeing is actually just viral proteins, not actual virus in a lot of those tissues. Well, we see a couple different things. We see spike proteins, but we also see this lipid nanoparticle coat material. So the lipid nanoparticles are designed to protect the mRNA and get it into the cells that are supposed to transcribe, they're supposed to make the spike protein.

And this coating is now floating around the body. It has conspicuously shown up in some places where you really wouldn't want to see a signal like ovaries. And so we have that. And then we have the question of the spike protein, which is not the initial vaccination floating around. It's the consequence of cells transcribing the subunit of spike protein and then it breaking free from the cell surface and circulating around. the cell surface and circulating around. And frankly, long COVID could be the virus is gone, but those proteins have circulated possibly as the result of some adaptive strategy that the virus utilizes in order to open up tissues like the blood brain barrier, who knows? Yeah. And is there a theory as to why some people get vaccinated and have zero side effects?

So all I can say is I agree with the question because it does seem to be that it's very well tolerated by many people. The argument is what is the proportion that don't and what is an acceptable proportion of those that don't? And I try to leave, I try not to address vaccines. I try to focus on ivermectin because, you know, I think the ivermectin is such an important part of all of this. And I think it would answer and solve a lot of the concerns around the vaccines. And we consider it as a bridge to vaccination as well as a safety net for. Right. for, right? It's just so incredible that you've got this treatment, rather, that seems to be, well, first of all, is an anti-parasitic that also works as an antiviral, that also works as an anti-inflammatory drug, that also binds to the spike protein. I mean, it does so many things.

It's like, I smell bullshit, but not really. Yeah, exactly. It's like you would be super skeptical. I'd like to say I wouldn't be here. I wouldn't be here. I wouldn't be anywhere talking about ivermectin if the data didn't support that, nor would my group. Which is one of the reasons why it's so infuriating that this is being censored, which is one of the reasons why I wanted to have you guys in here early. We should say we were scheduled to do this a few weeks from now. But we realized, like, okay, this is something that's, it's, it's heating up and there's a narrative and this narrative is going to get squashed if they wind up pulling your channel. And, uh, like, as far as we know,

they don't have any influence right now over Spotify, whereas there's some, whatever it is. And again, we don't know what this is. And I don't want to, I don't want to pretend that I'm, I have evidence of some nefarious intentions. don't have a problem with youtube and i think part of what the dilemma that youtube faces is that they're managing at scale and i think it's insane and impossible and i think once you once you make a choice to say this is disinformation or that anything that doesn't go against the accepted narrative by the WHO or the CDC is disinformation and we need to get rid of that. It's bad information. It's deceptive or it's dangerous, whatever the label they put on it. Once you make that

distinction, you put motion, you put some events into motion, some actions, and it's very difficult to get people to admit that they made a mistake. Agreed. This is part of the problem with censorship. Because we've seen already it was incorrect, at least in terms of being completely disputed, the lab leak theater. leak theater. It's not been disproven. And in fact, people were getting censored and removed from social media platforms and banned for suggesting this in the past. Now you can just openly do it and you can openly discuss it. So I think the thing to point to is this. Anytime somebody decides they are going to upgrade conversation by forbidding certain things from being mentioned, you know, there are contexts in which that makes sense, right? If you're teaching evolution, the requirement that you stop every time somebody wants to say, how do you know God didn't do it, right?

You have to curate that discussion and eliminate that. But that's not the position that YouTube is in. YouTube is dealing with a platform that covers us all. And yeah, there's going to be a lot of garbage circulated on that platform to be sure. That is the nature of human dialogue, right? If you do it on paper, it'll be on paper. If you do it on video, it'll be on YouTube. It's just a human issue. Right. But at the point that you say, well, wouldn't it be great if we got rid of the nonsense? Let's purge the platform of nonsense.

Okay, now you've created a tool. That tool is inevitably going to be captured by people who are going to use it to shut down their competitors in order to profit from it. It is going to be captured. So the answer is, look, you're not really going to beat an open discussion in which nothing is forbidden short of actually breaking the law. Right. You're not going to upgrade the conversation. And although you will shut down some cranks, you're also going to shut down some people who are trying to help you see that the tool you need is right in front of you. Now, I could be wrong about that. Right. I freely admit this is new to me. I am new to covid. I have some specialties that are relevant. Being an evolutionist allows me to see certain things. It's a very good

generalist toolkit, but I'm not a doctor. I'm not a virologist, right? I could be wrong about things here, but the only way we're going to figure out whether I'm wrong, whether you're wrong, whether all of the people who see the same thing here or something similar are wrong, whether you're wrong, whether all of the people who see the same thing here or something similar are wrong is to have it out. And if we are going to shield that discussion from the public so that doctors do not know that other doctors are seeing a signal and that they might have a tool at their disposal that they're not using, then people are going to die needlessly. And YouTube needs to understand that it is taking responsibility for that. I got to speak up about that because I think you said it earlier, Joe, when there's never been a time where censorship has led to a societal good. Yeah, I think that was before the podcast, but yeah.

And we talked briefly about that. Never. Never. Never. Never. I mean, and if you look at any great thinker in history, any of their comments on censorship, it's considered to be like an indisputable harm to a healthy society. And then when you talk about extending it to science. And so in the beginning, I tried to be a little bit magnanimous and say, okay, you know, hate speech, calls for violence, insurrection,

if you want to censor that, you know, that's clear because if you don't, people will get hurt, right? And so I agree that, and I don't want to debate, you know, what is appropriate to censor, what isn't, but I just can't figure out why a healthy debate of science and of medicine by credible physicians using data. And you're basically saying to the average person in this country that you can't think for yourself. Right. We need to protect you from people talking about medicines that you can't credibly assess whether they're true, whether they're using the data correctly. And so you're removing anyone's ability. You're basically saying we need to think for you because they're using the data correctly. And so you're removing anyone's ability. You're basically saying, we need to think for you because you're going to

hurt yourself. From medicines, from medical misinformation, you want to put that on the same shelf as calls for violence and insurrection. Like, by the way, even before this happened, there's plenty of nonsense on the internet around medicines and health. Right. But this is a different thing, right? Because of the fact that it's a pandemic, everybody is very urgent in their actions. So the excuse is they have to act quickly to stop this stuff. The spread of disinformation can happen very rapidly. They've decided it's different. Yes, exactly.

I agree with what you just said. They've decided that, you know what? Normally we wouldn't do that, but in this state of emergency, we're going to take on these powers and we're going to censor. And what Brett said was really important. And I think you've pointed that out. But like that one little experience of learning from other doctors on the front lines back in last spring about steroids to further support and validate that that's really what you need to do. That saved lives. That saved a lot of lives. And even when I gave the Senate testimony in May, even though I was attacked and criticized, being able to talk about the science and the support

for steroids, many doctors started using it. Actually, that wasn't censored. Actually, I don't think they were censoring as hard in the beginning as they are now, at least around the steroids, because that didn't get taken down. It also didn't get 9 million views. The first censorship that I saw was almost valid. They were censoring people from talking about 5G. There was a lot of nonsense where people were saying the 5G, but it was clearly goofy. Right, right. And they were pulling some of that stuff down.

Now, normally, right, you would say, well, that's wise. Now, normally, right, you would say, well, that's wise. The problem we're seeing is once you do start censoring, once you clear that lane, you have a tool now. You have this thing and you have a history of use. Right. So then you start going, well, what else can we censor? Well, this is not in compliance with whatever organization we're currently following. Right.

So let's censor that, too. Whether it's Hunter Biden's laptop or LabLeak. But, Brad, I just want to finish what you said. I just have to emphasize again because there's nothing more important than what you last said is that there are lives. The suppression of ivermectin. We could talk about the theoretical objections to the censorship, which there are many, especially history. I think we threw out our history books as we went into the pandemic. But just looking at ivermectin, when you use the incalculable loss of life and prolongation and worsening of this, not only in the U.S. across the world, incalculable doesn't even come close. Because I got to tell you, a lot of the world

still follows the U.S. We're still considered, especially in medicine, some of the top trained and, you know, the tops of like science and research around medicine. So if the U.S. had adopted ivermectin, that would have had an immense global impact. And so this particular instance, this issue of ivermectin and their censorship, I just got to say they got it wrong. And it's almost hard for me to talk about what the implications of that was. I mean, they literally- Yeah, you don't want to say it. They're horrifying. You don't even want to put that responsibility on some other humans

or set of humans account, right? Well, you've seen it firsthand. I see the people dying, man. I see them crashing on the ventilators. Especially it's this thing about the early treatment, which you picked up on, Joe. Like if you treat them early, they don't go to the hospital. They don't need me in the ICU. I'm really good at what I do.

But these patients are really hard to get better once they're in ICU. They're very hard to turn around when you start late. Even with ivermectin, I have seen it work. But most of the time I'm seeing them in advanced forms of disease. But you see these patients, they're trapped in the hospital on high flow oxygen support devices for weeks. And there's all sorts of other insanity with the visiting policies. They can't see their loved ones. For weeks at a time, they're in these

rooms, either on ventilators or not, they can't see. There's no visitors. And they're all alone. They die alone a lot. Are there other things that are used in conjunction with ivermectin that are common, like IV vitamins or anything along those lines? So our protocols, so myself and Paul Marrick and myself and a number of other in our group, we're also expert around the research on high-dose intravenous vitamin C, of which there's very good data for severe lung injury as well as emerging data in COVID. So we use high-dose IV vitamin C. So our protocols- So when we use high-dose IV vitamin C. So our protocols- So when you say high-dose, how many milligrams are you talking about?

So we're doing actually for, it's about three grams IV every six hours. So that'd be about 12 grams a day, but that's IV. That is many, many, many, many fold higher concentrations than oral. Oral vitamin C is not a very effective acute treatment, mostly because it's limited by absorption kinetics. You can't get a lot of IV vitamin C into the bloodstream. IV is a completely different- You mean oral vitamin C into the bloodstream.

Yeah, did I say that wrong? I meant oral. You said IV. Yeah, so oral is limited. You can't get very high concentrations. But IV, you can achieve high super physiologic concentrations. And we know that has really beneficial effects. We have studies that show we have our own practice. So if you look at our protocols, the sicker you are, when you get to

the hospital, we have, and this disease is really complex. It has a number of different inflammatory and what we call pathophysiologic pathways. And so we use a whole host of medicines. Our protocol is called MATH+. It's methylprednisolone ascorbic acid, which is vitamin C, thiamine, which is another vitamin, heparin, which is an anticoagulant. And then we have a number of other medicines. So ivermectin. We use an antidepressant called fluvoxamine, which actually has very profound anti-inflammatory

properties, which is kind of a cool story, too. That drug, so Steve Kirsch, who was on your program, he's been a big champion of early treatment. And one of the drugs that he's helped fund research and try to bring to prominence, again, safe, low-cost, off-pat medicine. He's struggled to get that into the wider awareness. I would point out that this video was also removed by YouTube in spite of the fact that we sat with him and talked about fluvoxamine, among other things, with Robert

Malone, the literal inventor of mRNA vaccine technology. So YouTube somehow feels qualified to shut these people down. But again, this is – Joe, when you talk about all the other stuff, so we use a whole bunch of stuff. And the only thing – bring up fluvoxamine because you'll kind of like it because it's just kind of like – it's so cool how science plays out. Is that what happened around fluvoxamine is that there was a psychiatric hospital in France and the area was getting hit hard with COVID. And they noticed that the people getting sick and going to the hospital were the nurses and the area was getting hit hard with COVID. And they noticed that the people getting sick and going to the hospital were the nurses and the doctors. And the patients were going at very low rates were getting sick. And now patients with chronic mental illness, especially

institutionalized, generally not known for their physical health or good nutritional habits. I mean, they oftentimes have an epidemic of smoking, tobacco addiction, obesity. I mean, there's a lot of things that can travel with mental illness, yet they were doing better than the nurses and doctors. And so people said, what's going on? They started to look into that. And they started to look at all the variables that might differ. And they noticed that depressed people, it was highly protective, that if you had a diagnosis of depression, your chances of going to the hospital and dying was much, much less. And really what that was,

it was a proxy for the antidepressant that they were on. And so that's sort of what kind of engendered the investigations. And now we have a number of trials showing that that antidepressant, mostly for its anti-inflammatory properties, a lot of drugs have what we call pleiotropic effects. They work on a few different mechanisms. And so anyway, long answer to say that we use combination therapy protocol. It's critical that you use a combination of therapies. And the sicker you are, the more that we're going to use. And so I invite your listeners to look at our protocols. So I wanted to just fill in one more piece of the puzzle, which is, and this is me guessing, but there is a distinction between public health and the science of human health. Public health, unfortunately, has to deal with the game theory

of people, right? So if you had, let's say, a vaccine that was highly effective at addressing a dangerous pathogen like measles or polio or something like that, but there was some risk involved in taking the vaccine, people who decided not to take the vaccine would get the benefit of everybody else's having taken it without suffering the risk themselves. So that makes sense, logically speaking. In order to get people to take the vaccine enough to gain the immunity, the herd immunity that would prevent the virus or the pathogen from continuing, public health officials will oversimplify. And at some points, they may even lie in order to get people to behave in a

certain way. Now, I don't support this, but I do recognize that it's an actual problem. How do you get the collective to do what it needs to do if the individuals are calculating their benefit, and they may benefit from staying out of a protocol that they should participate in from the point of view of the whole society. But because what we have now is YouTube and the other platforms and the AP and Reuters and all of these groups listening to the public health authorities as if they were scientific authorities, what they are ending up doing is taking this license to lie to the public, and they are using it to shut down the scientific discussion of what we ought to do. And I swear it looks like capture is what has gotten a hold of this process. So if there's some part of governmental structure that is allowed to lie, and then it is captured by something that is looking to make a profit, and it starts shutting down those who are discussing the problem and the immense human suffering that arises out of it.

That's a... I don't know. What's the polite word for clusterfuck? I mean it's- It's the only word. Yeah. It's the only word. Yeah. There is no synonym for that.

Right. Have you had a debate with anybody who opposes these ideas? So, that's an interesting question. So I did have a video debate around the science of ivermectin a week ago. That'll be up on trial site news, I think, any day now. Who opposed it? So it was someone who wrote an editorial

in a very prominent journal, basically saying that the evidence for ivermectin is weak and shouldn't be trusted and basically just criticized all the trials. And so when you ask, like, have I debated anyone openly? What's interesting is I'm ready any time. Put them anywhere. I'll debate the science of ivermectin. No one's coming forward. No one's inviting me to debate. No one's out there. And the reason why is they have an impossible task. They don't want to debate because they can't win debate. Because what they have to do is here I have 60 controlled trials, 30 of them randomized, all showing benefit. Their only argument is that the evidence is low quality. They're forced to say why we shouldn't trust the evidence. They have no evidence to show it doesn't work.

All of the evidence shows it works. Their only tool, their only fight is to say don't trust the evidence. And as the evidence builds and as it's looked into more, as you could see from that publication this weekend, their argument that this is low quality or very low quality starts to break apart. They don't really have an argument. Nobody wants to fight me. The guy who I debated last week, you can watch it be the judge. I mean, he just kept nattering on the same old talking points about these little trials.

But at the same time, when you look at what I call the totality of the evidence, what we talked about, prevention, epidemiologic, early, late, randomized, observational. And he had no response to that? Not that part. He just kept saying, you know, those are – oh, I'll tell you what his response is. He just kept saying, you know, those are, oh, I'll tell you what his response is, is when you look at observational trials and epidemiology, you have to be careful because those are associations, not causations. And again, not to get too cute, but as a patient, if you're in the bed sick before me and I say, we have this drug that's highly associated with recovery and survival.

We can't prove it works, but it's highly associated in that the people who get it, they all seem to do much, much better than those. As a patient, I don't think you really care. We want to know that it works. And we have causation trials. In fact, we have now double-blind randomized control trials showing that the time to viral clearance is greatly shortened with ivermectin. Just a week ago, an Israeli group, very prominent university, showed a trial that viral cultures cleared quicker. And so when you were wondering earlier, Brett, about whether the cases or whether the viral transmission would be lower around people you treat with ivermectin, the evidence right

now in double-blind randomized controlled trials very carefully done is really showing that it eradicates the virus. The other thing, and this is where I'm going to get to the sinister, because the WHO guideline document, and again, I think you already know about the history, the more recent history of the WHO. And I want to be clear, the successes of the WHO for their first four decades, five decades were unbelievable. What they did for global public health was, you know, I mean, historic, right, with smallpox and polio and even in the HIV epidemic. But the last 20 years, the WHO has really done very poorly in a number of global emergencies. And this one's no different. But the reason why I want to bring something up is that I want the world to know that if you look at their guideline document from March 31st, there's a section where they talk about something called a dose-response relationship. And that's really important in science when you're looking at an effective therapeutic. If you find evidence of a dose response, which is to say, higher the dose, higher the response, right? Dose response relationship, that's like an unassailable

pillar of efficacy. The existing evidence at the time of that guideline, we know because their researcher was out there in public lecturing on it. He was showing that single day versus multi-day, you had much faster eradication of the virus. So viral clearance had a dose response. In that document, they say, we looked at dose response amongst these five outcomes and we found none, guess which outcome they didn't mention? Viral clearance. That to me is a crime. That is evidence of a crime.

They deliberately left out scientific evidence to show efficacy of a drug because they didn't want that recommended. And they need to prove to me why they didn't put it in there when their own researcher was giving public lectures showing a dose response in terms of viral clearance. So as somebody who is wading into a discussion that is only partly in my area of expertise, I pay very close attention to the arguments that come back because I want, if I'm saying something that's actually not robust, I want to know about it right away because it's dangerous for me to keep down that path. So I watch. And I think the problem is the arguments that come back here amount to scientific sophistry, right? These arguments aren't really real arguments. You know, the idea that, well, you've got to be careful with those trials because correlation does not imply causation. Well, that's not actually true.

Correlation does imply causation when there's a preexisting hypothesis. That's what we use to establish causation is we say, I believe X causes Y, and here's how I'm going to find out. I'm going to look at whether where X goes up, Y also goes up, right? So this argument is one that sounds sophisticated, but it's actually wrong. Likewise, the insistence on large randomized controlled trials being like insisting on video documentation of a crime. All of these arguments are effectively obstructionist, right? They're not real arguments. And it's not to say that real arguments don't occur, right? We can talk about whether or not the spike protein that is created by the mRNAs in the vaccine is toxic the way wild spike protein

is, but the presumption would have to be that it is, and the circumstantial evidence suggests so. So in any case, there are arguments to be made. Occasionally, you get one back, but most of what you get back appears to be obstructionist. And one of the hallmarks of obstructionist arguments is that they don't update. When you properly challenge them, they just move on to the next argument, right? You don't get an acknowledgement that actually you were right about that. Right. So, I mean, I'm seeing that across the board.

And again, I'd love to know, you know, it'd be wonderful to know exactly what the truth of what's in front of us is. But the evidence that we have is so strong already that really anybody who's not encouraged by it and interested in following that path to find out how good it is is doing something wrong. And the behavior, I like how you say the evidence is very strong and the behaviors around it are inexplicable because it's really those two things that you're observing. You're seeing this really almost unassailable data and the behaviors are bizarre. Like you're asking, Joe, where are they coming back saying, no, you're wrong, Dr. Corey, and they take the 60 trials and they show how every single one of those 60 trials somehow led to the wrong conclusion and that I am incorrect in my

conclusions. Where are they doing that? Where are those papers being published? You should have to show your work if you're going to pull down a video in that regard. Absolutely. And, you know, you feel like in the appeal you should be able to just say, here, here's the paper. What's wrong with it? How is what I said misinformation given how well it matches this paper? And, of course, their point is – And how did you get to spam?

Right. Yeah, how did you get to that? Yeah. Yeah, how'd you get to that? Yeah, I think there was just a category. It's an amazing question. What was it, spam? Spam, deceptive practices, and scams. Yeah, so you fell in under- Scams.

You weren't spamming anyone about ivermectin. You were trying to sell ivermectins. So it has to be deceptive practices. Oh, yeah. But either way, it's horseshit. It's a nonsense critique. Yeah. Right. practices oh yeah but either way it's horseshit it's it it's a nonsense critique yeah right um i think it's really important for people to understand that this is this is a censorship issue

as much as this is a medical issue there's a bunch of things going on here this is a public health issue there's a lot there's a lot going on with the subject, but there's no one, no human other than humans making money. No one's benefiting from this censorship. This is not good. It's not good for any of us. It's bad for humanity. It's bad for humanity, but it's also, there's not a, and this is, I know you're right here, but I don't mean to do this and make you uncomfortable. There's not a better platform for discussing ideas than yours.

What you do is beyond, in my opinion, it's beyond reproach because you guys do correct mistakes. You are entirely honest. You are doing this in all in good faith. You are talking about this. You and your wife are both scientists. You're both biologists. You're talking about this from You and your wife are both scientists. You're both biologists. You're talking about this from an educated perspective. All the ducks are in a row and yet you're in danger of

losing your channel. And this is the argument that everyone who is anti-censorship has said from the beginning of time. You can't allow it to start because it's like a fire that keeps looking for fuel. It burns down the house. It's like, okay, how about the yard? Fuck this yard. We need to burn this yard down. This yard is noncompliance. And it's just going to keep going.

And what we're seeing, it's not wackos that are saying the cell towers are killing people with radiation and 5G is the devil and they're putting chips in you and it's magnetizing all the sites where you're getting vaccinated. No, it's fucking real scientists now. Now it's real scientists getting censored and there's no evidence whatsoever that they're incorrect. That's dangerous for all of us, especially for people like me that aren't scientists, that rely on people like you to go over this data with a keen sober eye and analyze it and disseminate

it in a way that it's going to give people at least the ability to make an educated decision. That ability is being, it seems like, purposely removed from us. I really, really appreciate that. And I will say this is a complex topic. We have been showing our work from the start. We've made errors. We've gone back and corrected are going to be harmed by the fact that we're not following the evidence and figuring where it leads. It's just there really isn't a choice but to talk about it and to have some monolithic platform decide that somehow it knows. And then when it turns out, you ask them, how do you know? And its answer is, well, the who told me. And the answer is, well, that isn't any sort of evidence at all. That's pure authority. It's anti-scientific. You're on exactly the opposite side of history that you claim to be on. So thank you, Joe. And, you know, I want to sort of say something positive, which is this censorship,

we all agree, it's really harmful and it's actually hurting people and it's hurting people on a global scale. But, you know, I have faith. I've seen now we're starting to see that there are groups, there is an organized opposition who are now understanding that some of these agencies are captured and that if they keep listening to them, they're going to keep getting what's happening, which is uncontrollable spread, crisis situations. And so when you look around the world, if you look at India, finally, they broke free from the WHO. Numerous states in India adopted ivermectin in their treatment guidelines. Uttar Pradesh already did it months ago. That's a state of 240 million people. It would be like the 10th largest country in the world if it was a country. That's just one state in India.

They've been using it aggressively and they have some of the best numbers, not only in India and in the world. Number of other states also broke free. And then now our organization, we're being approached by a number of, I'm just going to say, very well-resourced philanthropists from a number of countries around the world who are now trying to organize distribution campaigns, just as you would for the parasites. Now they're trying to organize them based on the evidence in a number of countries of the world. And so, and the other thing is we've seen these incredible successes. So Zimbabwe is a huge success story. In fact, one of our colleagues down there is a lovely doctor. She's just awesome,

really great doctor. Her name's Jackie Stone. She at one point said a couple of months ago, she's like, we're bored around here. We're looking for the next pandemic. Obviously, she's making a joke, but literally there was no more cases and the hospitals were empty. South Africa, where Dr. Merrick and myself gave a lot of lectures early on in January, there was a whole movement that started and fought the government. They moved ivermectin from illegal. It was illegal to import or possess ivermectin. They moved it to now you can actually prescribe it, compound it, and it's available in society. And so, you know, there are like really, there are successes against what we clearly know is just incorrect and harmful advice from

unfortunately those leaders that we look to for good guidance. We just haven't gotten it. I think that's a good way to wrap this up. I'm going to bring this home. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming in here and doing this. And thank you for your tireless work on exposing this and letting people know. And brave, because there's a lot at stake, particularly your channel and your main source of income for your family and your reputation and the fact that you're willing to go against what is the current orthodoxy. I'm happy you guys exist. It's stunning that we find ourselves in this position where there really is a clear thing

that's being ignored. Whether or not it's right or wrong, let mean, let it have its day in court. Yeah. And they're not. Yeah. Thank you, Joe. Thank you. My pleasure.

Appreciate it. All right. Sort that out for yourselves, ladies and gentlemen. Goodbye..