Ep 506 ｜ Doctor Exposes Shocking Plot to Demonize Ivermectin ｜ Guest： Dr. Pierre Kory
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
163.42789
Summary
Dr. Pierre Corey of America's Frontline Doctors joins me to talk about the controversial topic of Ivermectin and whether it's a horse to wormer or a horse dewormer. Dr. Corey has been a doctor for over 30 years and has been on several podcasts talking about the benefits of the anti-parasitic drug.
Transcript
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,
00:14:13.920
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
00:14:58.900
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.
00:15:53.460
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
00:21:33.280
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
00:26:54.080
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.
00:32:43.420
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
00:43:03.500
suggesting that this person finish his prescription of ivermectin. I mean, this is happening in a lot
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
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,
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
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.