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

00:00:00.000 Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Thursday. I am super excited for you to listen to today's

00:00:15.180 interview with Dr. Pierre Corey. He is Dr. Pierre Corey of America's Frontline Doctors. As you

00:00:22.920 probably know him, he has been on several podcasts talking about the benefits of ivermectin.

00:00:28.460 This is a controversial topic. It's probably going to get us taken off YouTube because you're not

00:00:34.020 allowed to talk about this. So I have to say this disclaimer. The content of this clip does not

00:00:38.820 provide medical advice. Please seek the advice of local health officials for any COVID-19 and or

00:00:43.120 COVID vaccine related questions and concerns. I know that you're going to appreciate this

00:00:50.760 conversation though because he is very knowledgeable. He has been treating patients for the entire

00:00:58.320 pandemic. He has a lot of experience and he's not just going to tell us about ivermectin,

00:01:03.640 what it is. Is it just horse to warmer? He is going to bust some myths about it that have been

00:01:09.160 perpetuated by the media. And then we're going to uncover some of the corruption that we are seeing

00:01:16.380 in our public health bureaucracies. And I'm super excited for you to learn from him. So without

00:01:23.860 further ado, here is Dr. Pierre Corey. Dr. Corey, thank you so much for joining us. I know a lot of

00:01:34.340 people, myself included, have been following you for a very long time. People in my audience know

00:01:39.000 who you are, but in case there are a few people who don't, can you tell us who you are and what you do?

00:01:43.920 Yeah. So I'm Dr. Pierre Corey and I am a lung and ICU specialist. And I'm also the president and

00:01:51.260 chief medical officer of an organization. We're a nonprofit organization of five sort of experts in

00:01:57.840 our field in critical care medicine, ICU medicine, who got together. And our only mission was really

00:02:03.960 to create the most effective treatment protocols for COVID-19. And we've done that and we've just

00:02:10.280 tried to disseminate the efficacy and knowledge around them. And you are most famous or depending

00:02:16.760 on who you talk to, infamous for your promotion of ivermectin. Now, some people only know of

00:02:23.800 ivermectin as a horse to wormer that people have been overdosing on left and right, that is very

00:02:29.760 dangerous and is irresponsible to promote. Can you correct the record on that? Yeah. So yeah,

00:02:36.920 the word promote sort of gives me the sort of it, you know, cause it's, it's not really promotion.

00:02:43.460 It's, we're really trying to disseminate knowledge around a treatment. But this, this conflation with

00:02:50.760 horse paste, you know, I'm, I've been at this fight for so long that I've stopped mincing words

00:02:56.740 and I just call it like I see it and I'll let history be the judge, but I've had a front row seat

00:03:03.620 to the science and how it's been distorted. But, but this conflation with horse paste is an absolutely

00:03:09.280 egregious concerted and actually pre-planned action. You're, you're actually watching a PR

00:03:15.700 campaign unfold. Um, it's what's called disinformation tactics and, uh, they've been

00:03:22.000 long employed by corporate interests when science is inconvenient to their financial interests. Okay.

00:03:28.260 And so the disinformation tactics, uh, were first, uh, developed and absolutely used to incredible

00:03:36.140 effect by the tobacco industry for 50 years. And you're actually seeing those tactics play out

00:03:41.880 again with ivermectin. Um, and they are absolutely expert. There's billions of dollars behind that

00:03:48.600 effort. Um, they have one goal, they have to suppress ivermectin. And so they called it a horse

00:03:54.700 dewormer. They put out misinformation about poisonings and people going to the hospital,

00:04:00.200 which were quickly debunked, but it's very hard to roll back in a lie. Um, and then you had the

00:04:06.440 entire media calling, uh, ivermectin a horse drug when it's actually, you know, the discoverers won the

00:04:14.220 Nobel prize for eradicating two like globally endemic diseases, which, which absolutely elevated the

00:04:22.160 health status of massive amounts of low and middle income countries. It was so profound, the impacts on

00:04:28.480 public health that they won the Nobel prize. It's a human drug. Um, it, it, it treats a number of

00:04:34.560 diseases, uh, mostly known for its anti-parasitic infection, but it's now a profound known as a

00:04:41.280 profoundly potent antiviral. And so, uh, I'm just going to call out the distortion. Uh, it's willful,

00:04:48.560 it's deliberate, and it is being conducted by those with financial interests. I'm sorry, as a scientist,

00:04:54.660 as a researcher, as a doctor, I have to call that out because I, I literally have had to get a crash

00:05:00.140 course in why the science is being distorted. I couldn't understand it at first and every day it's

00:05:05.740 clearer and clearer. And I want to ask you more about that, but first for people who, who don't

00:05:10.720 know, who maybe have only heard kind of the mainstream narrative about it, that, okay, it's a

00:05:15.640 horse dewormer at worst, at best, it might be an anti-parasitic drug that was used to treat,

00:05:21.960 you know, river blindness and in Africa, but it has no antiviral components. That's actually what

00:05:27.260 I've heard some people in my audience say, when I've talked about it in the past, citing you,

00:05:31.880 um, that people have said, well, yeah, it was used for that, but it's not used for,

00:05:35.800 it's not used for COVID. Um, it's not effective towards viruses. Can you explain to us how you

00:05:41.480 have found that it is actually effective in treating COVID? So I appreciate that question because

00:05:47.460 I just want to talk about that question because it's, it's, that's a good example of, you know,

00:05:53.500 I get accused of misinformation a lot and I feel, I see people, you know, uh, expressing opinions

00:06:01.300 with not a, no knowledge of the topic, no deep reading the topic, but yet they're able to dismiss

00:06:06.800 it as not an antiviral. When, you know, when you talk to scientists who've been studying this and I

00:06:11.860 consider myself one of the foremost experts on the drug in COVID, it is a potent antiviral. And,

00:06:18.200 and here's the thing, little known fact that nobody knows is that it's been known as an antiviral

00:06:23.760 since 2012. You know, there's, there's a decade of basic science studies in a number of viral models.

00:06:31.660 So Zika, dengue, West Nile, HIV, influenza, and then SARS-CoV-2 when, because scientists knew

00:06:39.340 that in the lab, it was, uh, it was absolutely stopping the replication of viruses for 10 years.

00:06:46.180 They did a lab study in April of 2020 and, and they published it then and it rocked the world.

00:06:52.020 Everybody saw that study. And the, the, the challenge you had is we had a pandemic and all

00:06:57.320 you had was a basic science like cell culture model and it showed profound efficacy in the lab,

00:07:02.920 but very few drugs actually make it from the bench to the bedside. But after 10 years of bench

00:07:08.340 positive results, people brought it to the bedside. And that's what I'm sitting here. I'm

00:07:13.180 the clinical expert. I'm not a basic science expert, but, but it stands on a mountain of

00:07:18.640 evidence showing antiviral properties and, and it's been proven now in COVID.

00:07:23.320 And how exactly does it work? If you are able to explain it to someone who doesn't have a medical

00:07:28.360 background, how, how does ivermectin work to either, uh, treat COVID or even, I think I've heard

00:07:35.360 you've spoken of being, uh, being able to prevent COVID, right?

00:07:39.580 It's yeah, it's perfect. So, so the first thing I want to say about it is it literally has,

00:07:46.360 we don't even know how many mechanisms it has. We have at least seven that are reasonably

00:07:51.920 elucidated. And so it has multiple mechanisms. The one that I put at the top is that in numerous

00:07:59.500 studies that are called in silico, which is interesting words. So in silico means computer

00:08:04.480 modeling. So in computer modeling studies, ivermectin is like the tightest, the drug that

00:08:11.560 one is most tightly binds to the spike protein. It also binds to the ACE2 receptor domain. And if

00:08:18.960 you know anything about COVID, the virus enters the cell through the ACE2 receptor via the spike

00:08:25.260 protein attaching to it. So now you have a drug which attaches to both of those components.

00:08:31.000 It prevents entry. And so when you ask about what could it be, the, how it works again,

00:08:37.760 prevention, well, if the ivermectin attacks the virus, when it comes into the body and binds to

00:08:44.060 it and prevents entry, that's why you don't get sick. So that, I think that's the prevailing

00:08:49.480 mechanism for prevention, but it has numerous other ones. So, um, it, it has, it interrupts a

00:08:57.400 number of viral replicative process. So it interrupts the enzymes that it needs to make

00:09:02.520 copies of itself. It interrupts the formation of what are called non-structural and structural

00:09:07.140 proteins. Um, and the list goes on, on the antiviral bucket. The reason why I say bucket

00:09:13.000 is because there's another bucket of mechanisms which are anti-inflammatory. And those are just

00:09:18.440 fascinating. Um, it decreases cytokine production. It, it decreases the levels of one of the most potent

00:09:25.580 initiate, uh, instigators of inflammation. So, so, uh, as my colleague, Professor Merrick,

00:09:31.560 who started our group, I mean, he's sort of the big brain of the operation. Um, you know,

00:09:36.040 one, he's actually the most highly published practicing intensivist in the world. Uh, and he,

00:09:40.960 he's, he's the leader of our group. And, you know, as he says, this drug was a gift to us. The way I

00:09:47.400 say it is that if you were to design a drug for the disease that is called COVID, you would want a

00:09:53.800 drug that has potent antiviral properties as well as potent anti-inflammatory properties so that it

00:10:00.700 could work in each phase. Um, the evidence beside ivermectin is the strongest prevention,

00:10:07.400 very strong early, and then its efficacy wanes with everyday delay in the disease, which is as to

00:10:13.220 be expected. Um, and that's why our protocols, uh, employ combinations of therapies. It's not just

00:10:18.860 ivermectin, um, but it is centered around ivermectin. And even though America, or at least

00:10:25.080 the pharmaceutical industry in America and the mainstream media in America is, um, you know,

00:10:31.140 trying to, as, as you put it, you know, disseminate misinformation about it, there's a PR campaign

00:10:37.000 against it. There are other countries that have been using ivermectin as part of their official

00:10:41.180 protocol. Correct. Can you talk about that? Yeah. And, and so that, that blitzkrieg

00:10:47.020 of misinformation in the U S you know, it actually is really strong in numerous other Western countries.

00:10:53.560 So like we have a map. And when I lecture, I have a map of the countries around the world and I shade

00:10:59.260 in the ones where it's in the national guidelines and or regional. Um, and you'll see just dark areas

00:11:05.940 over Western Europe, North America, uh, Australia. I mean, there, that's where the, that, that

00:11:12.160 misinformation suppressing its uses is, is, is the highest. But if you look at central America and

00:11:17.880 South America, um, it's in numbers of natural national guidelines. Um, you look at two States

00:11:26.160 in Argentina and I'm going to point out the ones with the most clear data, because the problem that

00:11:30.740 you read about, if you read about this, the media is they say, Oh, it's used in these countries,

00:11:35.380 but it doesn't help. Look at their case counts. And it is true in some countries, like for instance,

00:11:39.700 Brazil, it's sporadic, it's fragmented, it's over the counter. You don't really know if they're using

00:11:44.620 it, the right doses, the rations, who's using it. But if you look at, for instance, Argentina,

00:11:50.420 there's two States in Argentina. One is called La Pampas. And the other one is called is Misiones

00:11:55.580 and their health ministries started an early test and treat program with Ivermectin. And anyone

00:12:02.500 who tested positive, they gave them actually a good dose, a pretty high dose, which is three times

00:12:07.600 like the standard dose from, from historically for five days. And they're reporting between,

00:12:14.140 you know, 55 and 88% reductions in mortality and, and the reductions in hospitalization is

00:12:23.080 the same. And these are just, you know, they compare it to those in their state who got the

00:12:27.860 treatment versus those who don't. And the, and the patients are well matched. And so it's

00:12:31.660 dramatic impulse, uh, impacts. And, and Mexico city is the same. Uh, they also did a test and

00:12:38.520 treat program, you know, 25 million people live in Mexico city. They increased their mobile testing

00:12:44.780 units. They went to the hardest hit areas and in rapid test and treat, anyone who tested positive,

00:12:50.200 boom, you got three days of Ivermectin. And, and in that program, they actually gave 12 milligrams,

00:12:56.540 which I considered a quite a low dose for COVID. And so I call their results, the minimum of what

00:13:05.000 Ivermectin can achieve. It's the minimum. And with three days of 12 milligrams, they found basically

00:13:11.520 around a 70 to 75% reduction in hospitalization. They emptied their hospitals last winter with this

00:13:18.360 massive treatment program in Mexico city. And, and, and, you know, Ali, the, the, the, again,

00:13:23.720 part of this misinformation, not only it's distorting the science, attacking the trials,

00:13:28.140 but you hear crickets about this in the United States. No newspaper will cover it. No academic

00:13:35.980 medical center addresses it. And, and it's beyond absurd. And I'm going to put a placeholder

00:13:41.420 because I know my answer is long, but at some point I'm going to revisit the test and treat program

00:13:48.840 of all the test and treat programs, which is what happened in Uttar Pradesh. But we'll get

00:13:53.640 to that. And, and I just wanted to put out there that numbers of countries, numbers of regions have

00:13:59.220 used it effectively in a really aggressive public health policy with just tremendous results,

00:14:06.700 tremendous results.

00:14:13.920 Let's talk about the why a little bit. You've talked about this before. I've even seen it on your Twitter

00:14:18.580 page. You're talking about the corruption of, um, these pharmaceutical industries colluding with,

00:14:25.840 well, this is me saying this, this is not you. It seems like they're colluding with the federal

00:14:30.180 government. They're colluding with people like Fauci. They're colluding with the media to try to

00:14:34.540 suppress information about ivermectin. But why? I mean, we've been told that these three entities

00:14:39.760 so care about our health. They're the ones that take the virus most seriously. Um, and you know,

00:14:46.000 they might call people like me, COVID deniers, which is not true for simply asking these questions.

00:14:52.340 So, so what's behind it? If they really say that they care about our health, why are they suppressing

00:14:56.580 the science on this?

00:14:58.900 So Allie, that's the question is the answer. So let's just talk about the question. Cause I want

00:15:03.680 to say that I have been, I have gone through this. I mean, I will, I I've said this before. I will

00:15:11.600 never be the same man or physician in society again. And it's because what you've heard Rita

00:15:19.840 talked about in books, what you've heard intimated in articles about this concept of regulatory capture

00:15:27.620 and regulatory capture is when agencies, which are purportedly have the primary mission of the

00:15:34.960 public health of its citizens are captured by those with other interests like financial.

00:15:41.880 And that's been well described. I mean, you can go to any university in this country

00:15:45.300 and you can take classes on the topic of regulatory capture. I mean, I'm not the one inventing it.

00:15:51.800 Right.

00:15:53.460 And you would think, you know, I always, I kind of make this joke, although nothing's funny,

00:15:57.880 but I always feel like, you know, okay, the normal state of regulatory capture, you know,

00:16:02.660 now that we're in a pandemic and societies are being created, cratered around the world,

00:16:07.140 you know, okay, boys, can you take a break on the regulatory capture for a bit till we get

00:16:10.900 the ship righted and then you can go back to business as usual. What I found out was that

00:16:15.720 the opposite is true. The regulatory capture has reached, um, absurd and humanitarian crisis levels.

00:16:25.540 Um, they are rapacious and they won't stop. And so when you say that these agencies have public

00:16:31.160 health as their primary purpose, I went into this pandemic fully believing that, I mean, I would

00:16:38.580 have, I, everyone assumes that the guidance that comes out of the agencies is best on the best

00:16:44.160 available science by the best experts, you know, who the top of their fields who are in that,

00:16:50.240 that is simply not true. Those are Byzantine bureaucratic organizations.

00:16:54.640 I would say the majority of people in them are, are, are very committed to what they do. I would

00:17:01.740 say they are principled, they are expert, they try to do the best job where I feel that it's rotten

00:17:08.020 is it's rotten at the top. You don't get to lead agencies where they, at the head of a massive

00:17:15.560 biomedical industry, industrial complex, literally a biomedical industrial complex where billions of

00:17:23.400 dollars are at stake. You don't get to lead those agencies. If your primary purpose is the public

00:17:31.680 health of the citizens. And that's what I've had to learn. You get there because you know how to

00:17:37.000 cooperate, work with, and essentially become influenced by pharma. And, and, and so I just have

00:17:45.660 to say that the question is the answer you're asking, like, why would the agencies do this? If their

00:17:51.760 primary purpose and primary mission is to elevate and maintain the public health of the citizens,

00:17:57.400 as a physician, I used to believe that. And I cannot accept that question because it's just false.

00:18:03.620 And the way that you know how I know it's false is because I became an expert at a drug that is

00:18:08.100 lifesaving, that literally is what I've called the penicillin of COVID. That's that effective.

00:18:13.860 And all I've seen is that science, which is unassailable because it derives from observational

00:18:21.860 control trials, randomized control trials, case series, thousands of doctors' experiences around

00:18:27.520 the world. And then these epidemiologic studies, like I just cited. And despite all that, the agencies

00:18:35.420 recommend against use. And, and it's inexplicable, indefensible, and it's unconscionable.

00:18:43.140 And it violates all the principles of science. Like people don't understand

00:18:47.100 how perverse this, this topic of ivermectin is. So let me just give you an example of how perverse it

00:18:53.640 is. If you look at the approval of ivermectin for the disease stronglidiasis by the FDA in the nineties,

00:19:01.780 they approved it based on five randomized control trials and 594 patients, five randomized control trials,

00:19:12.140 594 patients. Ivermectin now sits on 34 randomized control trials involving thousands of patients.

00:19:21.560 And yet they can't seem to recommend the observational control trials. If you total the

00:19:27.080 both of them, it's 64 controlled trials with only three that don't show benefit. And when you summarize

00:19:35.580 them and you perform meta-analyses, they're profoundly effective. And, and in the history

00:19:41.420 of recommendation, guideline recommendations from the WHO, especially on repurposed drugs,

00:19:47.000 because you'd never get big pharma trials around repurposed drugs. There's no money,

00:19:51.280 there's no incentives. And that's, that's actually what's wrong with our system is that

00:19:54.860 it's really kind of designed for pharma drugs to sail through the regulatory process

00:20:00.140 and repurposed drugs just can't, the bar is too high. But in the WHO, in the history of their

00:20:05.980 recommendations, most of their recommendations are based on a paucity of trials, very few randomized

00:20:11.860 control trials and all with like low to moderate quality. But in a pandemic with 64 trials,

00:20:18.460 observation randomized, no major agency around the world can even give a cautious recommendation.

00:20:25.920 And so if someone asked, so, so I'm putting that out as evidence. I don't want to sound unhinged and

00:20:31.800 crazy, but, you know, calling these assertions, my assertions are based on anomalies and aberrancies

00:20:38.780 between the science and the behavior of the agencies, which are inexplicable and indefensible.

00:20:45.480 Wow. So what you're saying is these agencies, the CDC, I'm guessing, and you can correct me if I'm

00:20:52.680 wrong, CDC, WHO, the NIH, and the heads of these organizations are what they're in bed with pharma

00:21:01.780 because they, they are also trying to achieve the goal of pharma to just make profit. And that's why

00:21:10.820 they're focusing almost exclusively on the vaccine. And they're not interested in something like

00:21:15.220 ivermectin because ivermectin doesn't make them money. Like, is it mostly a profit motive?

00:21:19.220 It's clearly a profit motive. It's a career motive. It's how you keep your job.

00:21:24.820 How is that? Can you explain that? Like, how does Dr. Fauci benefit from, you know, being in bed with

00:21:31.880 pharma?

00:21:33.280 Ooh. Ooh. So if you want me to do a psychological analysis of Dr. Fauci, you know, I also have to,

00:21:42.120 I have to, I have to reach the limits of what I can say to an accurate fashion. So my last answer

00:21:49.960 is really based on the fact that I find it as someone who analyzes problems, who's a problem

00:21:55.400 solver, who looks at data, makes conclusions based on the data and the behaviors. Um, the only

00:22:02.360 conclusion I can reach is that they are non-scientific objectives that are being pursued,

00:22:08.620 non-scientific objectives, which are financial or policy. Okay. But they're not based on science

00:22:15.940 period. Now, when you ask me, how does that work? Why would they behave that way? What are their

00:22:21.380 interests? Well, the two main interests that I've seen in, in the behavior of masses of physicians

00:22:28.600 and public health officials, the main incentive is to remain employed. Um, if you speak up, if you

00:22:37.900 challenge what is clearly forces that are saying, you know, we need to do this, which is for instance,

00:22:44.920 um, if you've ever heard of the term, the noble lie. So the noble lie was actually first, uh,

00:22:50.840 described by Plato. And by the way, if I'm going too much into rabbit holes here, you just let me

00:22:55.140 know. We'll get back to it. It's great. But, but no, what I think is happening with this pandemic

00:23:00.140 is the agencies are employing what are called noble lies. Um, I have a lot of trouble calling them

00:23:06.980 noble anymore. Um, but the noble lie is a lie in which it's used to further a higher purpose. Okay.

00:23:16.060 Yeah. So if you view, if you choose to view ivermectin as an enemy of this mass vaccination

00:23:23.100 policy, as an impediment, as something that will disturb it, then you can convince yourself and you

00:23:30.180 can go to bed at night that you participating in attacks and suppressing ivermectin is for a higher

00:23:37.360 goal. That by the way, that is the most kind interpretation I will ever come up with. Yeah.

00:23:44.440 And, and I think that maybe in the beginning, some thought they were participating in a noble lie or not

00:23:51.600 even a noble lie. They're all being influenced to say, you know, they're actually listening to

00:23:57.320 pharma. If you ever see, if you know the history of what's happened, like Merck actually put out a

00:24:01.980 statement, Merck, a pharmaceutical company put out a statement in February, damning the idea that

00:24:10.100 ivermectin is infected. There's no clinical evidence. There's no reason to think it would work. And we

00:24:14.780 don't think it's safe. By the way, it's one of the safest drugs in history. When that came out,

00:24:19.080 anybody who knew anything about ivermectin was appalled. And guess what? Agencies,

00:24:23.980 even the WHO has cited the PR release by Merck as evidence that ivermectin doesn't work. They never,

00:24:32.420 they never gave any data to support that. No authors, no papers, no manuscript, nothing. And yet

00:24:39.620 the agencies are citing the public relations office of a pharmacy. So, so when I talk about the

00:24:47.540 absurdities, I can't get there, but going back to like how they do it, some of it is noble. I think

00:24:53.320 they're trying to further policies. So they suppress ivermectin. But what I really think is you don't

00:24:59.840 get to the top unless you know how to play well with pharma. And if you promote and advance and

00:25:05.180 approve a repurposed drug in lieu of these massive profit makers. So, so what I believe is this

00:25:14.720 farmageddon and ivermectin, which occurred since August, where you saw through the media, the

00:25:21.220 newspapers, the CDC putting out their cautious bulletins, the FDA attacking it as a horse drug

00:25:26.860 and unsafe. The state departments of health following suit, all the academic medical societies

00:25:32.640 jumping in. What you're seeing is actually the structure of a system. And you, you see the awesome

00:25:38.960 power of those agencies. Cause when they come out with a recommendation, literally you see everyone

00:25:44.720 like the societies, they're dependent on federal research dollars. They're all researchers.

00:25:50.180 Yeah. If they speak up or fight that central narrative, what happens to their research career?

00:25:56.120 What happens to their institutional funding? Nobody can speak. They want to remain employed

00:26:01.740 and they want to preserve their careers. And so when you ask me about incentives, that's so much

00:26:05.740 what I've seen. The paucity of whistleblowers on this is absolutely historic.

00:26:11.000 Yep. And I've also noticed that when a lot of people, if they're arguing against the use of

00:26:16.240 ivermectin or some other things that we've talked about on our podcast, like the masking of two-year

00:26:21.520 olds that's still happening in some States, absent of any data that's proving that that is actually

00:26:26.560 helpful, people will cite not data, but they will cite a statement by Merck, not in relation to masks,

00:26:35.080 but they'll cite a statement by a pharmaceutical company, or they'll cite a statement by the CDC or the

00:26:40.900 AAP or something like that. But then that statement isn't actually backed with data. And yet that is what

00:26:46.720 people mean when they say, look, I'm just listening to the science. I'm following the science. What they mean

00:26:51.560 is press releases. That's pretty incredible.

00:26:54.080 Well, it's worse than that. I'm actually hearing physicians who are practicing media medicine.

00:27:00.920 They're literally giving me their opinions formulated on, on press reports, newspaper articles. And what

00:27:10.000 you just mentioned is you need to look at the underlying data, but let's go back. It's almost in

00:27:14.760 reference to your prior question. It actually might be reasonable to make arguments citing agency

00:27:22.760 recommendations if they were actually behaving with the public health interested part. If they had

00:27:29.440 clearly expert committees and panels deeply studying this and formulating clear objective scientific

00:27:36.100 recommendations where they could be trusted for the veracity and accuracy and really pragmatism of

00:27:45.040 theirs, you know, because that's the other crime that, that, that you see, you know, when I talk about

00:27:49.880 these anomalies, um, you know, on a risk benefit analysis, let's say, let's say you were left with,

00:27:57.620 okay, all of these studies show benefit, but we think it's low quality. It's inconclusive

00:28:03.360 on a risk benefit analysis. A pandemic is one of the safest drugs known to man. You cannot arrive at a

00:28:09.980 non-recommendation on a risk benefit analysis. So, so I'm just bringing back, it might be okay to cite

00:28:15.600 these agencies if there was evidence they were behaving in a scientific objective and public

00:28:21.880 health manner. And I, unfortunately, I think most of society, um, is conditioned to continue to

00:28:29.220 believe that. And I feel like that, like, is that going to be my mission now to call foul on these

00:28:34.740 agencies? Uh, I mean, it's not my mission, but it's, it's part of my expertise. Now I used to be an

00:28:40.980 expert at ivermectin. Now I'm an expert at how that science is being distorted by the system.

00:28:46.700 Yeah. And, and the last thing I want to say about that is ivermectin is not unique. Ivermectin has to

00:28:55.440 be understood as a repurposed drug. Repurposed drug are those that are off patent, approved for one use

00:29:03.600 found to be effective in another. Pharmaceutical industry, one of their main tactics and the foundations

00:29:10.660 of that industry is to seek and destroy all repurposed drugs. You have no idea what repurposed

00:29:18.500 drugs mean to that industry that they can decimate markets. And there are decades of examples of

00:29:25.480 attacks on repurposed drugs. So I don't want to make this about ivermectin. This is about repurposed

00:29:31.840 drugs of which ivermectin happens to be one of the most potent in history with one of the biggest

00:29:40.220 markets in history. And that's why you're seeing this craziness. So the, the, I object to you're

00:29:46.640 correct to cite science, say, Oh, you're not following the science. Cause it's not what the

00:29:51.240 agencies say. I have to say that is 100% incorrect. You need to cite the scientists who are objective

00:29:57.260 and independent. I get to tell you the ones that are speaking out like myself, like my group,

00:30:02.220 we are independent. Some of us are tenured. And so they have freedom of speech in the society.

00:30:08.060 Well, they used to, I don't even, they actually, some of them are getting horrific attacks in their

00:30:13.540 academic institutions of higher learning, which is unconscionable. I mean, as faculty members in

00:30:20.200 society, you actually have a duty to society to share your knowledge and expertise and tenure protects

00:30:26.280 you even further for doing that. And we have tenured professors in our group who are being attacked.

00:30:31.620 Yeah. And, and so you have to have that independence. I would listen to independent

00:30:37.180 researchers and scientists without, without conflicts of interest. And that's the key.

00:30:44.040 Listen to the independence. I don't listen to people in agencies or institutions because they,

00:30:49.420 they, none of them are able to speak freely. They will lose their jobs.

00:30:53.060 Right. And now Merck is coming out with an antiviral drug. So is that an example of what you're

00:30:58.340 talking about of why they are not, you know, they don't allow the, I don't want to use the word

00:31:05.840 promotion or they don't allow the correct information about something like ivermectin

00:31:11.580 to be disseminated because it competes against, you know, the, the kinds of medications that they

00:31:19.480 would be making money off of. Is this an example of that?

00:31:23.160 So, so Ali, I mean, we're putting the puzzle together, aren't we? Right. So when I talked

00:31:29.400 about how there's no real thread that I can explain that discord that, you know, how disparate

00:31:35.320 their behavior to ivermectin is and the science, there's such a huge gulf. It's inexplicable without

00:31:41.800 something really terrible. And so, so one of the pieces to that bridge would be war on repurposed

00:31:50.920 drug, which I call also called nonprofit drug so that you can keep the market open for a profit

00:31:57.560 drug like molnupiravir. And I would argue that the market that ivermectin threatens, and I want to

00:32:06.880 talk specifically about molnupiravir. It's beyond molnupiravir. So the market that ivermectin threatens,

00:32:12.500 I think is the largest in history for repurposed drug. It not only is molnupiravir, but it's the

00:32:22.440 monoclonal antibodies. It's remdesivir, which is a essentially ineffective drug, which is used in

00:32:29.540 almost every patient in the United States at $3,000 a dose.

00:32:34.640 You said remdesivir is effective?

00:32:37.400 Ineffective.

00:32:38.080 Ineffective. Okay.

00:32:39.240 Almost completely ineffective.

00:32:41.580 Is it harmful?

00:32:43.420 It is harmful. It causes kidney toxicity. It has caused multi-organ failure. It is,

00:32:49.640 you know, again, going back to the science and the agencies, if you want to explain their behavior.

00:32:54.020 So you realize that remdesivir was approved with a very modest benefit. It wasn't even life-saving,

00:33:02.580 didn't reduce hospitalization. It basically led to supposedly a few days less hospital duration.

00:33:11.500 Multiple trials from around the world have shown no effect. The WHO doesn't even, even the WHO,

00:33:16.680 who is as actually captured as any of our US agencies, they don't even recommend remdesivir.

00:33:23.380 And, and so to see remdesivir as literally the mainstay and foundation of our therapeutic approach

00:33:31.700 to COVID in the United States is again, another example of absurdity and deviation from the science.

00:33:39.120 And that was approved on like one trial with a thousand patients done by a pharmaceutical company.

00:33:46.560 And, and just, just because I'm doing a lot of education on the pharmaceutical industry,

00:33:50.720 let me just continue on that issue of pharmaceutical trials.

00:33:56.220 It's been well described in numerous analyses over decades and best sort of summarized in a book called

00:34:02.580 Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre, where in numerous disease models, when they compare trials done by

00:34:09.940 pharmaceutical companies and those done by government funded grants and academic medical centers

00:34:15.720 in one disease model, 86% of trials by pharma were positive. 50% by governmental agencies were

00:34:25.180 positive. And that has been played out in numbers of disease models. So the things that they do is

00:34:31.200 they change endpoints. They actually literally bury adverse data. They will remove papers for people

00:34:36.640 from trial to make the, to inflate their, they literally will do this. They will do this. It's been

00:34:42.120 well described by people in the pharmaceutical industry. So when you have a pharmaceutical industry

00:34:47.140 sponsored trial that, that, that comes out as a press release and moves markets, do you understand

00:34:55.000 that Moldaviravir press release, the market cap from Merck has gone up $20 billion since their press

00:35:01.260 release. They have every, every incentive to bury a few adverse patient level data. Okay. So when I hear

00:35:09.720 that it reduces hospitalization by 50%, I call BS on that. And I've almost, I don't want to sound

00:35:16.140 grandiose, but I, you know, in medicine, you have all these doctors that have their names attached to

00:35:21.400 discovery. So I want to call it the Corey correction factor. So when they say 50% reduction, it's probably

00:35:27.520 20 if that, because you can't believe the data that it's, you're talking about decades and there's,

00:35:33.620 there's no bigger financial incentive than bringing Moldaviravir market as the standard of care.

00:35:38.280 Because by the way, the FDA has left that Merck antiviral drug. Yes, that's the Merck antiviral

00:35:43.720 drug. And so, you know, going back to, to, to that, so it's, it's not only the markets for this

00:35:49.060 antiviral drug, the antibodies remdesivir, there's also a long acting, um, injectable antibody that I

00:35:56.200 think it's AstraZeneca that wants to bring to market. Pfizer also has an oral antiviral, and then

00:36:01.340 let us not speak of the enormity of the vaccine industry, which clearly views ivermectin as a threat.

00:36:07.860 Um, and, and that's, that is, was clear because we, the forces that brought to bear on the WHO's

00:36:17.000 non-recommendation, we believe those were vaccine forces who view ivermectin as a threat. Uh, and if

00:36:22.720 again, maybe I thought that was a noble lie at first, their actions, but it's not a noble lie anymore.

00:36:28.880 Now, do people have any real legitimate reason, in your opinion, to be concerned about the vaccine?

00:36:46.360 There are people who aren't anti-vaccine, but when it comes to this one, I don't know, they just feel

00:36:51.520 like they don't know enough about it, or maybe they'd be more comfortable trying something like

00:36:55.580 ivermectin as a preventative or as, um, you know, to treat their COVID if they do get infected.

00:37:00.780 Do you think that's a legitimate way to think, or do you think people who are worried about this

00:37:05.040 vaccine, you know, are just paranoid? This is what I will say about the vaccines is that

00:37:13.360 the behavior around the data is so alarming that I can't tell you what to believe.

00:37:23.040 I can't tell you what to believe. It is so clear that the data is non-transparent. It's purposely not

00:37:30.000 being shared. And when you, when you can recognize that you have to conclude that there's a reason

00:37:36.840 they're not sharing source data. They're doing every, everything that they can. You know where the

00:37:41.360 data is coming from? It's coming from statements by health officials that are then published in

00:37:48.080 media. Where is the source data? So you're talking about data as far as breakthrough cases, as far as

00:37:53.940 side effects. Exactly. Exactly. And then there's so much anomalous behaviors around how that data is

00:37:59.200 collected. They're making up rules on the fly, which I've now seen legal actions against the CDC. One

00:38:05.060 came out of Oregon the other day. Again, this is not an opinion on vaccines. This is an opinion

00:38:09.640 on the behavior of the agencies around the vaccine data, which gives me a lot of caution and a lot of

00:38:16.360 pause, which is, I don't know what to tell people with vaccines because we don't know enough about

00:38:21.460 the vaccines. First of all, the data is rapidly evolving and non-transparent. And so I would express

00:38:27.560 deep caution and I would say, get more data, put more pressure on the agencies to be open and honest.

00:38:35.500 And given the litany of behaviors I've seen around, like I said, remdesivir around ivermectin

00:38:42.480 and the behaviors around the sharing and collection and how they collect vaccine data,

00:38:49.780 I mean, I can only be left with deep concerns and desire for more clear data so you can make informed

00:38:57.820 judgments. Yeah. I think that's how a lot of people feel too. And if anyone out there is like me,

00:39:03.940 which I'm sure there are people, I'm someone who I never really thought about the pharmaceutical

00:39:07.960 companies. Yeah. I know that any big bureaucratic system has its corruption, has its profit motives.

00:39:13.800 Of course, I'm a conservative. And so I'm always skeptical. Right. Yes. I'm skeptical of big

00:39:19.460 bureaucratic institutions anyway, but I never thought about it. I never thought about vaccines or anything

00:39:23.900 like that. But I'm sure there are a lot of people who were willing to accept anything that the CDC had

00:39:28.780 to say, because why not? I'm not a scientist who now find ourselves skeptical of everything they say

00:39:35.440 and everything they do, because to me, they have shot. They have just shot their trustworthiness so

00:39:41.080 much that even if they came out and said something that is true, like that's, I think, a huge risk that

00:39:46.560 even if they did come out and say something that the public does need to believe that is scientifically

00:39:50.820 true, you have millions of people who won't believe them because it seems like everything has been

00:39:55.440 so politicized and ascientific, especially when it comes to things like masking two year olds.

00:40:00.500 And we've yet to see the data on that. Is that a fear of yours that people are just going to not

00:40:04.600 trust actual science? Allie, that's not only a fear. I believe it's a reality. It's also what we've

00:40:11.060 long predicted because we've seen we've seen the behaviors not being scientific and clearly ruled

00:40:19.260 by other. And the other. Yeah. So so what you just said is really alarming to contemplate because

00:40:25.400 what you said is totally accurate. We're now at a place where, you know, you said a lot of your

00:40:30.720 listeners, a lot of people you talk to are skeptical. And I like I got to tell you, everything that you've

00:40:36.000 said is like you're describing me in this journey. Like I used to think, yeah, you know, I've read lots

00:40:41.620 of books in college. Yeah, the system's corrupt. There's influence. Like I always knew it was there.

00:40:46.540 And like but it was, I don't know, subtle, theoretical. I didn't I didn't realize like just

00:40:52.860 how powerful and rapacious it is. And and and that's why I told you I will never be the same

00:41:00.660 again. What I've seen and what I've learned is is absolutely it's again, I can never look at the

00:41:07.540 world again. But when you ask, like, first of all, based on that litany of behaviors and inaccuracies

00:41:13.840 and doubling down on on on on on policies which are clearly failing, ineffective and likely

00:41:20.220 harmful, you have to be skeptical. In fact, if there's one lesson, I would say be as skeptical

00:41:25.880 as you can. Ask for source data, look for source data, go to the people who actually are looking

00:41:31.000 at source data. And I got to tell you, you know where I find the most accurate information?

00:41:35.160 It's really on independent podcasters who don't work for large corporate media organizations.

00:41:41.340 That they're only allowed to to really publish narratives. And, you know, if you look at like

00:41:47.120 people like Chris Martinson on Peak Prosperity or like Crystal and Sagar and Jimmy Dore, like

00:41:53.480 there's really people give very credible, objective looks at all the data. And I just find like

00:41:59.520 that's where the accuracy. I would be very skeptical what's coming out of large institutions. You can't

00:42:05.260 no longer believe that that really has your best interest at heart.

00:42:09.700 Yeah. My other question is, like, how deep do you think this goes? Because just some anecdotes that

00:42:15.080 I've heard that I've actually experienced, for example, my mom was prescribed ivermectin by a doctor.

00:42:21.080 She went to Walgreens to pick it up. They wouldn't fill it. They wouldn't tell her why. So we started

00:42:25.300 digging in. Are more people experiencing this with CVS, Walgreens? I found out a lot of people were.

00:42:31.680 Then, someone that I know well, just on social media, we follow each other. She has a large

00:42:37.080 following. And she told a story about how her dad died in the hospital of COVID. His doctor had

00:42:43.020 prescribed ivermectin to him. Then when he got into the hospital, the doctor there refused to finish

00:42:50.420 the prescription. Now, I don't know if that prescription would have saved his life. Maybe

00:42:53.820 he would have died anyway. But can you imagine just the trauma of the family wondering what if,

00:42:58.780 what if, what if? And these doctors basically just treated them like they're idiots for even 1.00

00:43:03.500 suggesting that this person finish his prescription of ivermectin. I mean, this is happening in a lot 0.99

00:43:10.340 of places. A lot of well-meaning, I think, doctors are refusing to treat patients with this.

00:43:16.280 Pharmacies refusing to fill it. I mean, it's just crazy. It's like it's everywhere.

00:43:19.440 So you're describing my everyday life for many, many months now. And, you know, in many months ago,

00:43:28.840 I did not get the blockade from the pharmacist as I do now. And that's really, that was one of the

00:43:35.520 great successes of what I call Pharmageddon, which is that mass media blitzkrieg attack on ivermectin

00:43:44.300 in the media, newspapers and agencies, is that, like I said, the societies fell in line. And then

00:43:51.620 the state boards fell in line. And then the pharmacy board started putting out caution. And it's just

00:43:57.640 it's I just find it absolutely there's nobody's willing to stand up, critically say, you know, the

00:44:03.920 evidence shows everything but this. But you're literally now pharmacists, and everybody's scared.

00:44:10.100 Like, you know, I call them sheep. I don't want to call people sheep. But I got to tell you, they just

00:44:15.940 they're too trusting of the directives. And so listen, when you go to the counter and try to get

00:44:20.880 an ivermectin filled, you're this ignorant horse piece, horse paste eating anti-vax person. That's how 0.99

00:44:27.980 you've been labeled and caricatured. While the pharmacist in their white coat behind the counter

00:44:34.080 has it on good authority from the agencies, that this drug doesn't work, and it's likely harmful. So

00:44:40.560 in all of their expertise, and their authority, they're doing the right thing by provide by depriving

00:44:49.200 you of ivermectin. So many of them are simply ignorant and too trusting, not critically thinking, 0.98

00:44:54.880 and no one's done the deep dive. Now, let me switch that to more positive thing, because I've been so 0.98

00:45:00.920 negative in this whole interview, calling out all the, you know, the malfeasance. But

00:45:06.720 there's actually a lot of pharmacists who aren't buying that, who know the data, because they're

00:45:12.580 trained to look at data. And they know that ivermectin is incredibly safe and very effective. So

00:45:18.100 there's pharmacies in every town that are prescribing and filling, number one. Number two,

00:45:23.300 during Pharmageddon, prescriptions continued to increase. Pharmageddon was triggered. I call it

00:45:31.140 the Pharmageddon on ivermectin, right? Which was this mass media campaign triggered by the FDA and the

00:45:37.100 CDC. And all of media fell suit. But during that time, ivermectin prescriptions continued to increase,

00:45:44.600 which, you know, again, I don't want to sound again, like too philosophical grandiose, but

00:45:49.580 we've sustained ourselves as a group and all the attacks and all of the misery that we see

00:45:55.640 with the mantra that the truth comes out, the truth will win out over the end. And I really do think

00:46:03.080 the truth is starting to win, because despite these attacks, prescriptions are increasing,

00:46:07.760 doctors aren't listening, patients know who to seek out, how to find out how to get treated for this,

00:46:13.120 because they know it's safe and effective. And the other thing that I think is also helping that

00:46:17.520 movement is because the efficacy of the vaccines have plummeted so, so deeply, you know, both the

00:46:25.580 vaccinated and unvaccinated need treatment. And so you're having a groundswell of people who are

00:46:31.600 looking for early treatment options. And so, you know, like a friend says, there's only three things

00:46:37.980 that are guaranteed to come out, the sun, the moon and the truth. And I think some of that is starting

00:46:43.440 to happen. Yeah, we like to say on this podcast that the truth is like a beach ball, you can try

00:46:47.860 to push it under the water for a long time, you might be successful, it'll end up coming back up.

00:46:53.520 Now, one thing on that, that what you said, it reminded me of something you had tweeted about,

00:46:58.460 apparently, there are what 100 members of Congress who have used your protocols, including

00:47:05.680 ivermectin. I don't think that you can reveal their identities, I would love for you to.

00:47:10.020 But can you say, are they Democrats and Republicans?

00:47:15.180 So, so, so first of all, no, I cannot review that because not only wouldn't if I knew, but I don't

00:47:21.260 know their individual identities. I just know I have, it's just, it's unassailable. It's unassailable

00:47:30.220 data. But the one thing I tweeted is, they're probably well, I don't want to say which part of

00:47:37.600 they are, you can guess which part of they are. But that was a mistake, as I don't want it to make

00:47:43.320 it sound like it's Republican or Democrat. Yeah. And, and the reason why...

00:47:48.360 Well, I was just wondering, because it would be interesting, because it does seem to fall along

00:47:51.720 party lines, who is criticizing ivermectin. Absolutely.

00:47:54.800 And it would just, any politician on any side, I find a lot of hypocrisy. So it'd be interesting if

00:47:59.260 the people who are speaking out against it are also taking it.

00:48:01.720 Here's the thing. I don't, I, my mistake in that tweet is by leaving people with the

00:48:07.380 interpretation that those people who are treated are Hippocratic. They're actually not, you know,

00:48:13.840 large factions. So I'll say it's largely, probably almost certainly almost all Republicans. But

00:48:20.880 those are the same people who have been fighting for the recognition of early treatment,

00:48:27.260 for a more sensible recommendation scheme to be followed by the NIH. And, and they haven't done

00:48:34.680 that. And, and so they, they've done what all of America has done. So I don't want it to be

00:48:40.100 interpreted like they get some sort of healthcare that the others don't. They actually have had the

00:48:45.060 same struggles, the same difficulties. And then the other thing is that I know from one of the

00:48:51.640 congressmen, not that he was treated, but he was trying to get ivermectin for his family in case

00:48:56.640 they got sick. He had the same problem as what you described, which is that he couldn't get

00:49:03.180 ivermectin. He had to go to two pharmacies. And then he finally got it from a compounding pharmacy.

00:49:08.040 This is a congressman in US Congress. So, so it's not that they had a different access to it.

00:49:15.800 You know, since Pharmageddon, they're running into the same problem. So they're not different.

00:49:20.580 They're just, they're fighting and seeking good, sound medical care. And I champion them for it.

00:49:26.640 Yeah. Wow. So I know that you have this on your website, but how can get, how can people get

00:49:33.380 ivermectin if they're looking for it? I imagine a lot of people are going to listen to this and

00:49:37.180 at least say, I want some on deck just in case.

00:49:40.520 So, so we have a document on how to navigate getting far. So we have like a loose, not validated,

00:49:47.740 not curated list, but of many telehealth providers that have reached out to us that use our protocols or,

00:49:53.200 you know, have early treatment. So there's a long list on our website, which is flccc.net.

00:50:00.080 Okay. We'll include that in the description of this episode.

00:50:02.860 Yeah. The, the other thing is that we have a way to navigate pharmacies. And one of the main ways,

00:50:09.420 because it's so laborious to keep trying pharmacies is that, um, if you email, uh, one of the main

00:50:17.040 producers of ivermectin in the country is Eden bridge pharma. If you email sales at Eden bridge

00:50:23.440 pharma and you just give them your zip code and ask what pharmacy in my area, uh, fills ivermectin

00:50:30.600 prescriptions and they know who's, you know, who's buying. Um, and they can tell you this pharmacy

00:50:36.240 is clearly supplying ivermectin. And so it's a really efficient way to find a place that will fill.

00:50:41.620 Um, we also have on our website, um, other places where you can order, uh, uh, overnight as well as,

00:50:50.220 uh, internationally. Okay. One more question that I wrote down and I forgot to ask, and I'm guessing,

00:50:56.100 I think I know your answer, but you talked about some of the leakiness so-called of these, uh,

00:51:01.420 vaccines, and we've talked about the corruption that is profit driven. Do you think that's also

00:51:06.660 what's behind what seems to be an anti anti-scientific denial of the effectiveness

00:51:13.100 of natural immunity? Is that part of this whole thing too? Well,

00:51:18.300 the first answer is absolutely. So what I've done, right, what we've talked about, Ali, is all I've

00:51:26.760 spelled out is this anomalous, aberrant, non-scientific behaviors repeatedly, repeatedly,

00:51:32.500 repeatedly in multiple areas, right? And so when you ask about the vaccine policy,

00:51:38.460 the one and most absurd, the only one that I have a very strong opinion on is this policy,

00:51:45.260 which does not allow an exemption for a naturally immune person, someone who's recovered from the

00:51:50.900 disease that they still want to vaccinate. It's based on no science. There is 29 studies showing

00:51:57.980 the profound protection of natural immunity. And yet they want to subject someone to the risks of a

00:52:03.540 vaccine with very little added benefit, if any, they'd like to pretend that there's some sort of

00:52:09.660 added benefit. There's really, it's negligible and it nowhere would match, uh, the, the, the risks to it.

00:52:16.140 So we literally have a national policy, which is propagated through institutions, companies,

00:52:23.520 corporations, um, to immunize naturally immune. It violates every principle of science that we've

00:52:31.240 always learned. And so again, aberrant behavior that you have to question who's driving that is,

00:52:37.760 are they scientists or people with financial interests? Hmm. Yeah. There, gosh, there are so

00:52:44.900 many questions that we haven't even gotten to. And I know that you're not necessarily political,

00:52:49.380 but my wheels are turning about how China is involved in how we don't depend enough on our

00:52:55.000 own industries to supply ourselves with the, you know, medical supplies that we need. There's a lot,

00:53:00.940 there's a lot that is involved with this. And I just encourage people as you've encouraged us to

00:53:07.340 remain skeptical and ask questions and to listen to the independent people that are not being driven

00:53:13.640 by profit to perpetuate a particular narrative that may or may not be attached to science.

00:53:17.980 So if they want to support you and your organization, how can they do that?

00:53:22.400 Just go to our website. You know, we have a donate button and we appreciate the support because,

00:53:26.960 uh, I almost joke when I say this, but we're not a big organization. We're running at full tilt

00:53:33.900 and we're literally up against, you can't even calculate what those financial interests are that

00:53:40.280 are, I really want to suppress early treatment, uh, early treatment signs.

00:53:44.240 Yep. Well, thank you so much. I know that you're super busy. Like you said,

00:53:48.660 thanks for taking the time to come on our show and we'll make sure to include those links so people

00:53:52.880 can support you guys. Thank you. Thank you so much, Ali.

00:54:01.660 Okay, guys, hope you enjoyed this episode. Again, we are not giving medical advice. I personally,

00:54:10.140 I'm not a doctor, so I'm not suggesting to you what you should use or don't use. You should ask,

00:54:15.820 you know, your doctor or whoever you want to ask. That's what I have to say. Um, and so,

00:54:22.840 but you should continue to follow Dr. Pierre Corey because he's a super interesting guy and he's been

00:54:28.160 talking about this a lot. Definitely check out his website and all of the information and the science

00:54:33.340 that they have compiled and put together. It's good to ask questions. It's good to be skeptical.

00:54:37.920 Um, also, I would just ask if you love this podcast, uh, please leave us a review on Apple

00:54:43.440 podcast. Leave us a five-star review. Tell us why you love the show. It would mean a lot to us.

00:54:47.360 Subscribe on YouTube if you haven't done that already. All right. I'll see you guys back here on Monday.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - October 14, 2021

Ep 506 ｜ Doctor Exposes Shocking Plot to Demonize Ivermectin ｜ Guest： Dr. Pierre Kory

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript