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

00:00:03.000 The Joe Rogan Experience.

00:00:05.000 Train by day.

00:00:07.000 Joe Rogan Podcast by night.

00:00:08.000 All day.

00:00:14.000 So, this is the first of...

00:00:16.000 I've never had to do an emergency podcast before, but I feel like we do.

00:00:21.000 And Brett, you and I have been in communication about this, and this seemed like something that we have to do quicker than later.

00:00:29.000 Let's explain what's going on.

00:00:31.000 You guys have had conversations.

00:00:34.000 First of all, Dr. Corey, please explain who you are and introduce yourself.

00:00:39.000 Yeah, sure.

00:00:40.000 So I'm a lung and ICU specialist who's part of a group of other ICU specialists.

00:00:48.000 We came together early in the pandemic to develop treatment protocols for COVID. We first developed a hospital treatment protocol back in March.

00:00:57.000 And then more recently, we have an outpatient treatment protocol centered around the drug ivermectin and I'll just say through our work, I would say we are probably the foremost experts on the use of ivermectin and COVID in the world.

00:01:12.000 And how did you, Brett, how did you get involved with Dr. Corey and how did your initial conversation get started?

00:01:22.000 Well, Heather and I have been podcasting on the developing COVID story for quite some time.

00:01:31.000 We started very early and we actually, I just took the Dark Horse podcast, which had been just me talking to people and Heather and I started live streaming twice a week at first.

00:01:42.000 And at first, we were just simply looking at the evidence on COVID, what it is, how it transmits, how it should change your behavior.

00:01:50.000 You know, in those early days, it was scary.

00:01:52.000 We didn't know if it was transmitted on surfaces or what.

00:01:54.000 So Heather and I just did our analysis live, or not live.

00:01:59.000 I guess it was live.

00:02:00.000 But in any case, the two of us just had discussions about what we thought the evidence meant, and we presented papers that we were reading in the literature.

00:02:08.000 And we should explain your credentials, like what...

00:02:11.000 I'm a biologist.

00:02:12.000 I'm an evolutionary biologist.

00:02:14.000 The importance of evolution here is that, A, all of the things that we're talking about with COVID are evolutionary.

00:02:20.000 Obviously, the virus is evolved.

00:02:22.000 Epidemiology is an evolutionary process.

00:02:25.000 The immune system is both a product of evolution and it evolves in real time when you have an infection.

00:02:31.000 So evolution is a kind of good generalist toolkit to apply to something like COVID. But in any case, as we were working through the various emerging evidence and figuring out what we believed and what we didn't and why, we ran into ivermectin and there was this indication that it was effective against COVID and we didn't know what to make of it.

00:02:53.000 We didn't know whether or not there was something...

00:02:55.000 Where was the initial indication from?

00:02:57.000 I can't recall.

00:02:59.000 Actually, Pierre might have some idea where we would have encountered it in April or 2020. Also, Joe, just for a little bit more background, I do want to emphasize that although I'm here today talking, my group,

00:03:14.000 the five of us, we call ourselves the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, We're led by Dr. Paul Marik, a very famous guy in our specialty.

00:03:24.000 In fact, he's the most published intensivist in the world.

00:03:28.000 That's what we are, ICU docs.

00:03:30.000 And people came to him to develop protocols.

00:03:34.000 So he grabbed his four closest colleagues and friends, of which I'm honored to be one.

00:03:38.000 I'm a good friend of his, and he's a mentor to me.

00:03:41.000 And we've studied, we basically started putting together protocols that we took from other critical illnesses that we're expert at, and we applied them to COVID. And we learned everything we could around COVID. We just read papers and papers and papers.

00:03:54.000 And we followed all the therapeutics that were being trialed and tested around the world.

00:03:59.000 Ivermectin, the first paper was last, about March or April, but it came out of a lab.

00:04:05.000 It was just like what's called a cell culture model.

00:04:07.000 It wasn't tested in humans, but this cell culture model showed that if you applied Ivermectin to these, it was actually monkey kidney cells, the virus was essentially eradicated within 48 hours.

00:04:19.000 They could find almost no viral material when they used Ivermectin in the cell culture model.

00:04:25.000 Some places around the world took that bench study and brought it out into clinical use.

00:04:31.000 And I call that, you know, the bench to the bedside.

00:04:33.000 And if you know anything about medicine development, very few what we call molecules make it from the bench to the bedside.

00:04:40.000 But it was an emergency, right?

00:04:43.000 It was a pandemic.

00:04:44.000 And so there were areas around the world that they just said, you know, it looks like it might work.

00:04:48.000 It's a safe drug.

00:04:49.000 It's a very well-known drug, right?

00:04:51.000 So...

00:04:52.000 People used it and so that was the first signal was just from a cell culture model.

00:04:56.000 So it's a well-known drug.

00:04:59.000 It's been in use for 40 plus years and the issue became that discussing this and discussing what you just said on YouTube led to your channel getting now one strike on one channel and is three strikes on your clips channel?

00:05:20.000 No, we have, and YouTube has behaved very bizarrely with respect to our channels.

00:05:25.000 They've delivered one strike to each channel, one warning to each channel, and they've removed many videos, but they've played a game with their accounting system where they've removed multiple videos, filed them under a single warning.

00:05:39.000 So it's not clear what they are doing or why, but it is clear that they don't want certain things discussed.

00:05:47.000 What has been their explanation?

00:05:49.000 We actually got an official explanation from YouTube.

00:05:52.000 Maybe we should read that.

00:05:53.000 Maybe we should just read what their response has been.

00:05:57.000 The response has essentially been they have one, is it the CDC that they'll tolerate or that they'll agree to listen to them?

00:06:06.000 Because obviously it can't be everybody now because we have the WHO is now saying that you shouldn't vaccinate children.

00:06:14.000 They're not recommending you vaccinate children or pregnant people, right? 0.99

00:06:19.000 We should be clear about this, right?

00:06:21.000 That's correct, right?

00:06:22.000 Well, there's a number of different agencies like you just mentioned, right?

00:06:25.000 In the U.S., And actually, I don't know which agency those different social media channels are basing what they're considering approved therapies or unapproved therapies.

00:06:36.000 I think it's the CDC, isn't that?

00:06:38.000 Well, yes.

00:06:39.000 Is that what it is, what you two quoted, Jamie?

00:06:41.000 It says the CDC, FDA, and other local health authorities.

00:06:44.000 Right.

00:06:44.000 But if you, up until recently, if you said, I don't think children should get vaccinated, they would pull that.

00:06:51.000 Right.

00:06:52.000 But now the WHO is saying, we don't think children should get vaccinated.

00:06:56.000 I've also seen recent recommendations that say that women... 1.00

00:07:00.000 That it's completely safe if you're pregnant to get vaccinated.

00:07:04.000 The WHO does not say that.

00:07:06.000 The WHO says you have to contact your care provider, which is a weird sort of way of saying, just ask your doctor.

00:07:12.000 But your doctor, theoretically at least, should not know any more than anybody else knows.

00:07:19.000 When people say, what is the science?

00:07:24.000 Well, there's a lot of science going on here, and there's science coming from different directions, and depending upon who you listen to, you're going to get a different set of protocols, right?

00:07:32.000 There's no question.

00:07:33.000 You know, the way I talk about this is that you're seeing just this inconsistent standard, especially around therapeutics.

00:07:40.000 The drugs that they favor and the ones that they don't, really, it's very hard to follow consistent scientific principles being applied there.

00:07:49.000 In fact, there seems to be other principles being applied.

00:07:51.000 But what you just highlighted Is this discord between guidance from major agencies are completely different, right?

00:08:01.000 So now they're diverging around vaccines.

00:08:05.000 What is the divergence?

00:08:06.000 Could you explain this?

00:08:09.000 What's the specific divergence?

00:08:12.000 In other examples?

00:08:13.000 So number one, remdesivir.

00:08:15.000 $3,000 dose drug, right?

00:08:18.000 WHO does not recommend in the hospitalized patient.

00:08:21.000 In the US, every single hospitalized patient gets remdesivir.

00:08:25.000 But why is that?

00:08:28.000 That's what I'm just saying.

00:08:29.000 It's an inconsistent application of the science.

00:08:31.000 Why are they giving them remdesivir?

00:08:33.000 Is it based on any studies?

00:08:34.000 Well, yes, there are studies.

00:08:35.000 So there are studies showing some support, but it doesn't show really what we would call important patient-centered outcomes.

00:08:44.000 So yes, it could get you out of the hospital a little bit sooner.

00:08:46.000 There is some signal that it might actually reduce mortality, so it might save some lives.

00:08:51.000 But its impact is actually minimal, and the studies vary.

00:08:55.000 And so The WHO does not recommend it.

00:08:58.000 They did a big trial of remdesivir.

00:08:59.000 They showed it did not help anyone, and so they don't recommend it.

00:09:02.000 And is remdesivir something that's patented?

00:09:06.000 Oh, yeah.

00:09:06.000 One of the things about ivermectin is it's been around so long, there's a generic version of it available.

00:09:11.000 Is that correct?

00:09:12.000 That's a key feature of ivermectin.

00:09:14.000 There's no money to be made off ivermectin.

00:09:16.000 And no one can kind of control it.

00:09:19.000 It's not like any pharmaceutical company can manufacture it.

00:09:22.000 Out of patent and not high profit.

00:09:24.000 This becomes part of the issue with highlighting it, right?

00:09:27.000 So I think we probably need to put a bunch of things on the table, otherwise we're going to end up very...

00:09:33.000 Yeah, I just wanted to be real clear about the YouTube situation with you, because the reason why we're here is your channel's in jeopardy, and it doesn't make any sense.

00:09:40.000 So YouTube has done a couple things.

00:09:43.000 The first strike was for, let me try to remember the language, I think it was spam, deceptive practices, and scams.

00:09:52.000 What was specifically spam?

00:09:55.000 Obviously there was no spam.

00:09:57.000 Right, but how can they say spam if you're just having conversations about it?

00:10:00.000 Well, that's the thing.

00:10:01.000 They can say what they want because they're YouTube.

00:10:02.000 And basically, although a majority of my family's income comes through our two YouTube channels, my contract with them is effectively an end-user license agreement.

00:10:14.000 And so there basically is no recourse other than making a public stir, which has apparently gotten their attention in this case.

00:10:24.000 So the first one was for spam, deceptive practices, and scams.

00:10:29.000 And what specific video was this for?

00:10:31.000 Actually, that was for my video with you.

00:10:35.000 Spammers?

00:10:37.000 Deceivers?

00:10:38.000 The second one, the second strike on the other channel was for...

00:10:43.000 I hope I'm getting the details right.

00:10:46.000 I'm not sure that they actually matter.

00:10:48.000 There are two issues in question, and the various strikes and warnings apply to one or the other, either my podcast with Corey and the clips from it, or my podcast with Dr. Malone, who is the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, and Steve Kirsch, who has been looking into vaccine hazards.

00:11:05.000 But the second one was more specific.

00:11:08.000 It was clearer.

00:11:09.000 And what they said was deceptive medical information.

00:11:14.000 So part of what we should discuss today is what it means for YouTube to decide that something is deceptive or misinforming on a medical topic that is rapidly developing,

00:11:29.000 right?

00:11:30.000 I think we're good to go.

00:11:51.000 Is a set of guidelines that if you read them carefully and attempt to adhere to them, you don't know where the line is.

00:11:57.000 You find out where the line is when YouTube decides to warn you or strike you.

00:12:02.000 And it's an untenable situation.

00:12:04.000 As I said, the majority of my family's income is in jeopardy because YouTube has decided that some things that are very strongly supported by evidence are misinformation.

00:12:13.000 And their basis for claiming that is that the WHO or the CDC has said otherwise.

00:12:19.000 But this raises a question.

00:12:21.000 If the WHO or the CDC were to be captured, right, if influence was to be exerted over one or both of these bodies, surely we would need to talk about it on the various podcasts that are on YouTube in order to figure out what to do about the fact that an essential set of organizations that are supposed to be protecting the public health might be doing someone else's bidding instead Podcasts would be a natural place for doctors and scientists to get together and say,

00:12:51.000 what we're seeing doesn't add up.

00:12:53.000 Right.

00:12:53.000 But to take what they're saying as gospel and anything that contradicts them as misinformation rather than saying, actually, the evidence is what the people you're saying are spreading misinformation and the evidence is most definitely not with the CDC and the WHO, right?

00:13:07.000 What do you do in that case?

00:13:08.000 Right.

00:13:09.000 Well, Dr. Corey, where do they vary?

00:13:13.000 Where does the CDC and the World Health Organization not agree?

00:13:17.000 So we talked about vaccines already, remdesivir.

00:13:21.000 Another important one was this idea of whether the virus is airborne transmitted, right?

00:13:27.000 So there's three ways that you can transmit a virus, right?

00:13:30.000 One is direct contact surfaces, like Hand to mouth, right, like spittle or whatever, you touch your mouth and it goes that way.

00:13:37.000 Droplet, so large droplet transmission from like a cough and then you, you know, lands on your face or you rub it into, you know, the mucous membranes.

00:13:45.000 Or airborne, where it's actually inhaled.

00:13:48.000 And just sharing the air with someone with COVID, you can catch it.

00:13:53.000 That's what tuberculosis is.

00:13:55.000 That's why there's so much infection control practice around TB, because that's an airborne transmitted disease.

00:14:03.000 It took them a year, all of the agencies, to figure out whether it was airborne transmitted.

00:14:09.000 I already wrote an op-ed that was accepted by the New York Times last May saying this is an airborne transmission.

00:14:15.000 You could see it.

00:14:15.000 Who disagrees?

00:14:16.000 So right now, the CDC finally came around and admits that it's airborne transmission.

00:14:22.000 The WHO still does not.

00:14:24.000 What?

00:14:24.000 Yes.

00:14:25.000 So really, legitimately to this day, they say it's not transmitted anymore?

00:14:30.000 Insufficient evidence.

00:14:31.000 The cry, insufficient evidence.

00:14:33.000 So how do they feel it's transmitted?

00:14:36.000 Well, they think that it's all three are possible.

00:14:38.000 They don't think it's predominant.

00:14:40.000 And they just, at least the way I've read the WHO, they just don't feel that it's an important mode of transmission.

00:14:49.000 It may be possible, but they really minimize it, where the CDC says that it seems to be a definite mode of transmission.

00:14:56.000 Is this debated in science or is it only debated in these organizations?

00:14:59.000 Is it debated amongst practitioners?

00:15:02.000 It was debated.

00:15:03.000 And the problem is it took time for it to become clear that this was transmitted in this airborne form.

00:15:12.000 And partly we've got a confusion, right?

00:15:16.000 So what's happening is COVID is highly effective at transmitting in part because it just saturates the air.

00:15:23.000 Right?

00:15:23.000 It gets into these very little particles which don't do what the initial model said, right?

00:15:28.000 The initial model had it in large droplets which only spend a little bit of time in the air, right?

00:15:32.000 And so the air clears because they hit the ground due to gravity.

00:15:34.000 Hence the six-foot social distancing.

00:15:36.000 Right.

00:15:37.000 But, you know, and actually this is one of the places where Heather and I were way ahead.

00:15:42.000 We were beginning to detect that there was something about the fact that Time spent in a room in which somebody had had COVID was creating these super spreader events, which was suggesting that this wasn't a highly proximity dependent, that basically,

00:15:58.000 you know, there was a clock ticking, and the room filled up with the stuff.

00:16:02.000 And if the window was open, it filled up a lot slower, that kind of thing, right?

00:16:06.000 So we were building this in real time from what we were reading in these papers, which frankly, Mostly had not been peer-reviewed because there was no time.

00:16:14.000 These were preprints, right?

00:16:15.000 So you could begin to see this story develop, and you could begin to see the dawning awareness.

00:16:19.000 And what Pierre is saying is, in fact, I forget which of the organizations is not yet up to date on airborne transmission.

00:16:26.000 The WHO is not yet up to date.

00:16:28.000 The CDC did, about a month ago, they did make a formal statement that they believe it's airborne transmission.

00:16:33.000 Is it safe to say that they're waiting for a preponderance of evidence?

00:16:37.000 The WHO? That's not a short answer.

00:16:42.000 The WHO is a very complex organization.

00:16:45.000 I don't know what...

00:16:46.000 I think there's so many influences at the WHO. I think there's other factors that are making them reluctant to call airborne trips.

00:16:53.000 Because of the implications they would have around infection control, resources, N95. This is just me theorizing.

00:17:01.000 I can't pretend to understand the WHO. I know that that organization...

00:17:06.000 Has been well described now over 20 years to be highly susceptible to many outside influence.

00:17:13.000 And if you want evidence of that, just look at that one video where there was a journalist was trying to get the person from the WHO to even say Taiwan.

00:17:22.000 To even talk about Taiwan.

00:17:24.000 And they literally disconnected their computer and then came back on and would not say the name Taiwan because China does not recognize Taiwan as a country.

00:17:33.000 And then they said, I think China's doing a great job.

00:17:36.000 Let's continue.

00:17:37.000 Let's move past this.

00:17:38.000 And they wanted to quickly brush it away.

00:17:40.000 And it's glaringly obvious that there's an influence in that regard.

00:17:45.000 It is.

00:17:46.000 And also, I think the question that you're really asking is, is there a defense of being cautious about this conclusion?

00:17:53.000 And the answer is no, that ship sailed the better part of a year ago.

00:17:58.000 This was obvious.

00:17:59.000 And the fact is, it's crucial.

00:18:01.000 People need to understand that their masks are not going to be perfectly effective.

00:18:07.000 If you're in a room with somebody breathing out COVID, Then the point is there's a clock ticking, you know, and you have control over this.

00:18:15.000 You get into the Uber and your driver is sick and they've been breathing this stuff out.

00:18:18.000 They've saturated the air, right?

00:18:20.000 You need to understand that saturated air is a thing and you need to start thinking in terms of rolling down windows, limiting your time in that space, those sorts of things.

00:18:29.000 So this is actionable.

00:18:31.000 And so for them to be behind the evidence here is actually potentially very, I mean, I hesitate to say it, but it's deadly.

00:18:38.000 And this problem that we're highlighting here is that all this stuff is developing over the course of this pandemic and the rules are changing and the agreed-upon facts are changing.

00:18:51.000 In the beginning of the pandemic, if you just go back seven, eight months ago, if you said that it leaked from a lab, you get lumped instantaneously into a conspiracy theorist and a Trump supporter.

00:19:05.000 And you get dismissed and you get censored from Facebook and you get censored from YouTube, right?

00:19:12.000 We all agree upon this.

00:19:14.000 That's not the case anymore.

00:19:15.000 Now, because of a lot of people's work, because there's a lot of people that have stuck their neck out and risk being labeled as a conspiracy theorist or as a Trump supporter, just to point out the science, And now the consensus is it's very possible,

00:19:33.000 if not likely, that it leaked from a lab.

00:19:36.000 In fact, this Jon Stewart clip that's been going around, it's hilarious to watch Stephen Colbert panic and try to dismiss what he's saying or try to pretend that it doesn't make any sense.

00:19:50.000 Interrupting a comedy bit on a comedy showing, this is how strong the narrative is at a corporate level.

00:19:56.000 Because he's on this big-time television show, so you're on a network, there's probably a lot of pressure to stick with the conformed narrative.

00:20:08.000 Jon Stewart literally is in the middle of a comedy bit and Colbert's trying to handicap it. 0.92

00:20:13.000 He's trying to hamstring the comedy bit because he doesn't want him to continue saying what he's saying and to say it in a comedic way is actually even worse because it's actually funny how stupid it is To dismiss instantaneously that it came from a lab when it literally is the same exact disease they work on in the lab that's in that city and three people from that fucking lab got sick in 2019 with the exact same symptoms that you're seeing and one of their spouses died from the exact same symptoms. 0.97

00:20:42.000 Right?

00:20:43.000 Is that all safe to say?

00:20:44.000 I don't know about the particular story at the end of what you just said.

00:20:49.000 I think it's pretty...

00:20:50.000 Please Google that.

00:20:52.000 Because in 2019, in November of 2019, three workers from the Wuhan Institute, this is all from memory, came up sick and they were hospitalized with the exact same symptoms that you're seeing from COVID-19 patients.

00:21:07.000 And I believe one of their spouses died.

00:21:09.000 I do not know about the spouse having died.

00:21:11.000 I think I just didn't read it carefully enough.

00:21:12.000 But you're right about the three workers and the belief that this happened.

00:21:16.000 But let me just say...

00:21:17.000 But my point is that this keeps evolving.

00:21:20.000 So to stop conversations, it's very dangerous because you might be censoring something that's absolutely 100% true.

00:21:29.000 So there's people that would have gotten that information and it would have educated them and expanded their understanding of it.

00:21:36.000 U.S. Intel reports identified three Wuhan lab researchers who fell ill November 2019. Look at this, but the evidence is far from conclusive.

00:21:48.000 Like, why did you put that in there?

00:21:50.000 Insufficient evidence.

00:21:50.000 But isn't it funny the way they wrote that?

00:21:52.000 But see if you find the thing there.

00:21:53.000 I just want to be clear if the spouse died.

00:21:58.000 I want to make one point also that, you know, when you talk about Yeah, so you bring up this point about the Wuhan lab leak and how that was discredited, right?

00:22:08.000 Not enough evidence and basically you had that discussion suppressed.

00:22:13.000 I want to bring that into the larger context, which for me, that's an example of what's called disinformation.

00:22:19.000 So when the science runs counter to the interests Of whoever it is, a political body, someone with large financial interests, what they do to counteract inconvenient science is they employ tactics of disinformation.

00:22:34.000 So I want to be clear that misinformation is what I'm being accused of.

00:22:38.000 Which is I'm a medical misinformationist because I'm providing information that is not supported by the establishment, right?

00:22:46.000 So anything that doesn't agree with them is misinformation.

00:22:48.000 But what they do is disinformation.

00:22:50.000 So the science around the lab leak was inconvenient to a lot of people.

00:22:55.000 And so that was distorted, suppressed, and debunked, right?

00:22:59.000 But now we're finding out that if we really do look at the science, the truth is a little different.

00:23:03.000 I'm going to say that it's very similar to the ivermectin story.

00:23:06.000 The science around ivermectin is up against one of the largest and most powerful disinformation campaigns, I think, almost ever.

00:23:15.000 And we should be real clear that you were one of the very first people to point out that the characteristics of the virus seemed to indicate upon closer examination that it was engineered.

00:23:26.000 You were one of the very first.

00:23:27.000 You did it on my show and we both got labeled again as conspiracy theorists and leaning or dog whistling to the right or whatever.

00:23:35.000 And so the molecular work was done The investigation into it was done by Uri Dagan, who I had on my show.

00:23:44.000 I came on your show and talked about it.

00:23:46.000 And yes, we were both dismissed as trafficking and conspiracy theories.

00:23:51.000 It's a tell.

00:23:52.000 And this was about somewhere around like April of last year, correct?

00:23:56.000 It was April of 2020 was when I did this on my podcast the first time.

00:24:01.000 I can't remember exactly.

00:24:02.000 I think it was around the same time.

00:24:04.000 But one of the things about this story that's so bizarre is that at the point that it suddenly shifted, nothing changed, right?

00:24:13.000 There was no new piece of information.

00:24:14.000 The only triggering event appeared to be Nicholas Wade's piece that he came out and laid out the same information in large measure that Nicholson Baker had already laid out, right?

00:24:26.000 So the point was there was no I think?

00:24:44.000 So this was a question of disinformation.

00:24:47.000 This was a question of actually stigmatizing people who were simply reading the evidence.

00:24:52.000 And you're right.

00:24:53.000 The exact connection people need to draw is why is it that we are going to the very same people who got that story wrong and are now...

00:25:03.000 Not only embarrassed by the fact that they blew it, but also it is clear that behind the scenes they knew better, right?

00:25:11.000 You can read this in Fauci's emails with Christian Anderson.

00:25:14.000 It is clear that they also saw the signal in the genome that this did not look like a fully natural virus.

00:25:21.000 And so anyway, what I don't understand is why we don't simply apply the lesson of the lab leak, which we have just learned, which is that the authorities do not know what they're talking about inherently.

00:25:34.000 That's not to say they never do.

00:25:36.000 But in that case, they got it dead wrong.

00:25:38.000 They used the very same censorship tactics in order to shut down discussion.

00:25:42.000 And now we know who was right.

00:25:44.000 So why are we listening to the same people Making the same sorts of strange postures in public and shutting down using censorship to shut down discussion when in fact the evidence is very clearly supportive of that discussion and that is the anomaly here.

00:26:00.000 And we should say that this Christian Anderson in particular has deleted his Twitter account upon the release of these emails, which is generally not a good sign.

00:26:10.000 It is an indication that he does not feel like defending himself on Twitter, presumably because he can't defend himself.

00:26:16.000 It's not even just that he's not defending himself.

00:26:18.000 He doesn't exist on it anymore.

00:26:20.000 He pulled his entire account.

00:26:22.000 Correct.

00:26:22.000 That's not good.

00:26:23.000 We should also say that here's one of the most important things about what your podcast does.

00:26:29.000 You and your wife are incredibly careful and precise in the language that you use.

00:26:37.000 You cite science.

00:26:39.000 You're not hyperbolic.

00:26:42.000 You do not exaggerate for a fact.

00:26:44.000 There's no entertainment value to it in terms of like...

00:26:47.000 Exaggerating or putting a bunch of emotions to things or screaming out.

00:26:51.000 You're just talking about what is known in terms of what researchers have discovered, here's the conclusions that can be drawn, and you're very careful in the way you say it, which is so infuriating that you're being censored,

00:27:07.000 because you will always say the majority of evidence points to, or it's entirely possible that we're incorrect, but here's what the evidence This is so important in this day and age where people are trying to figure out what's happening in real time that you have people that actually understand how to read the science,

00:27:29.000 actually understand how to read these papers, and then take that data and give it to people in a very consumable way, which is what you and Heather do on your show.

00:27:40.000 And to see you get censored by people who I don't know what's going on, if they're just If they're just trying to manage at scale and it's overwhelming, and I assume that's got to be part of it because I think there's no way YouTube or any organization that deals with that many user uploads can really pay attention to everything.

00:27:59.000 It's insanity.

00:28:01.000 The sheer volume of uploads they get on a daily basis is insane.

00:28:05.000 And it may very well be that they've been given a series of guidelines and you have a bunch of people that are working for the company That are using these sort of subjective measurements as to what's okay and what's not okay.

00:28:17.000 Hence the spam title, right?

00:28:20.000 It doesn't make any sense.

00:28:20.000 Like they're just throwing a bunch of charges against a wall like a bad cop and then pulling your video.

00:28:26.000 And for someone like myself who needs to know that there's people out there that are objectively analyzing this stuff, Regardless of what the narrative is.

00:28:38.000 And this is where it's important because we've seen the narrative be wrong multiple times over the last year.

00:28:43.000 And I don't think it necessarily has to be wrong because of a conspiracy or some weird nefarious intentions.

00:28:50.000 I think there's really a possibility that there's a lot of confusion.

00:28:54.000 During that confusion you need educated voices.

00:28:57.000 You need people that are doing...

00:28:59.000 And that's why it's insane to me.

00:29:01.000 That you're getting censored. 0.99

00:29:02.000 And it drives me fucking nuts. 0.99

00:29:04.000 Your podcast is one of my very favorite. 0.99

00:29:06.000 I listen to it or watch it all the time.

00:29:08.000 And it's an amazing source of rational thinking by educated people that talk about things they understand.

00:29:15.000 Which is exactly the opposite of what I do.

00:29:18.000 It's not the opposite of what you do, but...

00:29:21.000 Wuhan lab researcher's wife died of COVID-like illness December 2019. Okay.

00:29:27.000 So it's real.

00:29:28.000 So I want to put some context here.

00:29:31.000 Okay.

00:29:32.000 Heather and I are doing two things which I think work and do mean that it is...

00:29:37.000 I don't want YouTube censoring anybody, frankly.

00:29:39.000 I don't think the censors are ever right.

00:29:41.000 But...

00:29:42.000 What we are doing is we are showing our work, and when we get something wrong, we are dedicated to going back and correcting it so that people who are trying to track our model of things get the update, right?

00:29:55.000 And that is the right way to do this work.

00:29:58.000 Now, what is happening in officialdom...

00:30:16.000 I think?

00:30:31.000 Today, everybody gets it.

00:30:32.000 We all understand the continents move and we understand how, right?

00:30:35.000 We know about subduction zones and these things and we've got a model that makes it make sense.

00:30:39.000 And you could present something that would challenge plate tectonics.

00:30:43.000 You could do that.

00:30:44.000 But, you know, you've got an uphill struggle because we have arrived at this through a lot of study, right?

00:30:49.000 And the evidence is really strong.

00:30:51.000 And so there is a consensus about it.

00:30:54.000 Consensus that shows up like that in the middle of an emerging pandemic, right, where you've got a brand new pathogen, which we know very little about.

00:31:03.000 I remember going out of the house wearing sacrificial gloves, cotton gloves, that I knew I could touch things and then when I got home I could throw them away or I could wash them, right?

00:31:15.000 I stopped doing that almost instantly as it became clear that actually, although many viruses do transmit from surfaces, this one doesn't, right?

00:31:23.000 It's not to say it can't happen ever, but almost never, right?

00:31:25.000 That's not its mode of transmission.

00:31:27.000 So the point is the consensus arises from the work, from people challenging each other and discovering that, yeah, that thing seemed to make sense, but it doesn't add up when you look at the evidence, right?

00:31:38.000 That's how the consensus happens.

00:31:40.000 These consensus, these consensus that we are being handed about how this virus works, what works to fight it, what doesn't work to fight it, what you should do in order to protect yourself.

00:31:51.000 These things are being handed down from on high.

00:31:54.000 And then they are silencing the people who are saying, hey, wait a minute.

00:31:57.000 That thing you just told me from on high doesn't square with all the stuff I can see, right?

00:32:03.000 So they are shutting down the challenge to a consensus that has no right to be labeled as scientific because it isn't.

00:32:09.000 It didn't arise through the normal process.

00:32:11.000 It isn't what most people think.

00:32:13.000 It is an official process.

00:32:15.000 That is not a scientific consensus.

00:32:18.000 And the lab leak is the perfect example of this, because behind the scenes, a lot of people understood that the story they were being told wasn't right, that there was something very conspicuous about the coincidence of this virus emerging in Wuhan on the doorstep of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

00:32:34.000 Lots of people understood that.

00:32:35.000 Very few were willing to say it in public.

00:32:37.000 And so that leads me to the thing that I think you need to track.

00:32:41.000 Which is you've got a bunch of heretics who are saying things about ivermectin, about the hazards of vaccines, about all of these topics.

00:32:49.000 Who do you believe?

00:32:49.000 You gonna believe the heretics?

00:32:50.000 Well, the heretics actually are an interesting group.

00:32:55.000 And the thing that unites them seems to be their independence of the structures that are controlling others.

00:33:03.000 So what do you make of it when the people who are free, who don't have to answer to their department chair, are saying one thing, and the people who are signed up for some system that holds their well-being in its hands are saying the other thing.

00:33:19.000 And in this case, YouTube is playing this weird role.

00:33:23.000 I'm free.

00:33:23.000 I can talk about scientific evidence.

00:33:26.000 But in order to talk about it with my audience, I have to go through YouTube, right?

00:33:30.000 So YouTube is playing like it's my department chair and it wants me to shut up about certain topics and it's going to turn up the heat on me until I do, which I won't.

00:33:39.000 But nonetheless, that's the point, is something would like to limit the discussion so that we are all on the same page on topics where we couldn't possibly all be on the same page.

00:33:48.000 Not only that, they're trying to limit the discussion when if you watch your videos and you listen to either Heather yourself or Dr. Corey or any of these other guests that you've had, all you are going to see is rational discussion of the facts and the facts presented with real data.

00:34:07.000 And when you censor that, we have a real problem.

00:34:10.000 And it's never good.

00:34:12.000 And there's this weird sort of dismissive air that people have about these things.

00:34:18.000 The propaganda in this regard has been so effective.

00:34:23.000 I was having a conversation with someone the other day, and they were discussing different treatments and how videos are being pulled, and they brought up ivermectin, and this other person that was with them said, good, because there's too much bad information out there,

00:34:38.000 they should pull that stuff.

00:34:39.000 And he had to explain, no, this is actually ivermectin.

00:34:44.000 There actually is some evidence to support its use, and it could be extremely beneficial to people, particularly in early stages of the disease.

00:34:51.000 And the only way we're going to know about this is if it gets discussed, if more doctors hear about this, more people hear about this, more studies emerge, and then that may become the new consensus if we're allowed to look at the facts Not we, but you guys, are allowed to look at the facts and discuss them openly.

00:35:08.000 If you're not, we have a real problem because now we're relying only on the organizations that have already shown that sometimes they're wrong.

00:35:18.000 So if that's the only way we get our information, we may be wrong.

00:35:23.000 And lives are in danger if we're wrong.

00:35:26.000 Oh, absolutely.

00:35:27.000 We will lose lives if we cannot sort out where.

00:35:30.000 I mean, even if those agencies were perfectly immune to capture, we have to be able to figure out where they've got it wrong so that they can get smarter, right?

00:35:37.000 The more intelligent people that understand the data looking at it and discussing it openly, the better for everybody.

00:35:44.000 Absolutely.

00:35:45.000 When we're talking about you guys, we're not talking about crazy conspiracy theorists that are discussing Hollow Earth.

00:35:52.000 We're talking about some real stuff.

00:35:54.000 I want to emphasize one thing that Brett said, which is...

00:35:57.000 Sorry.

00:36:00.000 Do you have COVID? Don't laugh.

00:36:01.000 No, I don't.

00:36:01.000 I just have a little...

00:36:02.000 Just kidding.

00:36:03.000 We already tested you.

00:36:04.000 A little catch in the throat.

00:36:04.000 No, the...

00:36:06.000 This is a terrible thing to have, though, a cough in a room.

00:36:09.000 Yeah, it's bad.

00:36:10.000 I've actually done a couple other interviews, and everyone's like, you know, Dr. Corey's coughing.

00:36:13.000 You sure he doesn't have COVID? So thanks, Joe.

00:36:15.000 You want a shot of whiskey?

00:36:16.000 Actually, that might be exactly what the doctor ordered.

00:36:20.000 You know, what Brett's saying about the independence, that's what I've noticed.

00:36:25.000 You know, the ones that seem to get it right...

00:36:27.000 They don't have masters to answer to.

00:36:30.000 I've learned, unfortunately, throughout the pandemic, I've developed a lot of cynicism and suspicion around some of the agencies because it doesn't comport with good science, and sometimes it's blatant.

00:36:42.000 The ones who are making sense are, like you said, transparent with the data, analyzing openly, expert at the data, amassing all the data, and having frank discussions.

00:36:52.000 When you said, like Brett said, you know, these consensuses come down, and when they're so blatant, Secondly, don't match reality.

00:36:59.000 So again, I don't want to retread old water, but like this airborne transmission, you know, when you have a super spreader event, like someone goes to choir practice and 59 people come home with COVID. When they were socially distancing and one person was singing,

00:37:16.000 like you don't need to be like a high level scientist to know that Probably that was airborne transmission.

00:37:23.000 There was numerous examples of that, and yet the officialdom was that it wasn't airborne.

00:37:27.000 So it was basic stuff that didn't make sense.

00:37:30.000 The lab leak, also, just on the face of it, I mean, even if you didn't go down to the genome level, when I heard That the lab was across the street from the wet market. 0.97

00:37:41.000 As a physician, I mean, I oftentimes have to figure out how to do things on very little information.

00:37:46.000 And that to me was so powerful.

00:37:51.000 So the sum of something is really, really clear.

00:37:54.000 And yet it doesn't comport with what's coming down.

00:37:57.000 And so when you look at the independent objective experts, I think you need – because here's the other thing.

00:38:02.000 I feel so bad in what we're talking about because the average person, who the heck knows what they should believe?

00:38:09.000 They're hearing newspapers and television and right and left and everyone's saying different things.

00:38:14.000 And you know what?

00:38:15.000 Some of the political spectrum, they're getting some things right, other things wrong.

00:38:19.000 Like, how do you believe anymore?

00:38:22.000 And this idea of capture is a real one.

00:38:25.000 And so, like, I'm very suspicious.

00:38:27.000 I'm very skeptical of everything I'm being told.

00:38:30.000 I'd like, you know, for some, like, ground rules for the layperson to follow.

00:38:35.000 Like, how do you know who's talking truth?

00:38:38.000 And I think openness, transparency, lack of external influences.

00:38:42.000 Like, for instance, our organization, we're a non-profit.

00:38:46.000 We took an oath as physicians to help patients. 0.99

00:38:49.000 When this thing came to our shores, all we wanted to do is learn as much as we could about the disease to figure out how to kick its ass, how to treat this thing. 0.98

00:38:57.000 And that's all we've done. 0.99

00:38:59.000 We don't make any money off of it.

00:39:01.000 We're just trying to doctor.

00:39:03.000 I think that makes us a credible source of information, at least I hope so.

00:39:07.000 We should also be really clear as to what information has come out over the last few weeks that might be at least some indication of why there's been a misinformation campaign.

00:39:25.000 Absolutely.

00:39:25.000 You want to handle that?

00:39:26.000 Yeah, I do, but I want to clear up one thing.

00:39:28.000 I think we have actually made an error that we should clear up right now, which is we've been talking about aerosolized transmission, and I think we've been calling it airborne transmission.

00:39:37.000 The point is it transmits both ways, and it took a long time to realize that it saturated the air rather than hanging in the air briefly, and you're right that that does explain the six-foot...

00:39:46.000 In the hospital, when we say something's airborne...

00:39:48.000 In the hospital...

00:39:50.000 You can move it towards your face if you want to sit in that direction.

00:39:53.000 In the hospital, airborne means aerosol.

00:39:56.000 It implies the same thing.

00:39:59.000 That's what we call it in the hospital.

00:40:00.000 The other thing I would just point out is the way you know what to believe, and nobody knows what to believe, right?

00:40:06.000 What you do is you build a model that gets more and more predictive over time.

00:40:15.000 Sure.

00:40:17.000 Sure.

00:40:20.000 Sure.

00:40:31.000 Right?

00:40:32.000 You want, as a member of the group of people trying to figure this out in real time, you want to find all the places that you're wrong, right?

00:40:39.000 Your model gets better as you accept those things.

00:40:41.000 And so that's sort of the hallmark of how consensus is properly built is the openness to push back, right?

00:40:48.000 We push back on each other.

00:40:49.000 We don't pretend to all agree to the same stuff.

00:40:51.000 Okay.

00:40:52.000 To the question you asked me, though, things that have emerged of late.

00:40:56.000 So first of all, we should talk about the evidence on ivermectin.

00:41:01.000 And we need to be careful, right?

00:41:03.000 The evidence on ivermectin is a vast landscape.

00:41:06.000 There's lots of evidence on its effectiveness with respect to SARS-CoV-2.

00:41:12.000 And the evidence is noisy, right?

00:41:15.000 There is clear signal within it.

00:41:18.000 One of the things that is absolutely maddening about trying to talk about that evidence is that the response is, A, incoherent.

00:41:26.000 The response pretends that there is no evidence that it works rather than a noisy dataset in which it generally does appear to work, but the degree to which it works and in what way it should be administered, there's variation around that.

00:41:39.000 So there's this monolith that says we don't have the evidence and what we need is large-scale randomized controlled trials.

00:41:47.000 And in a sense, this is an obvious tell, right?

00:41:52.000 Randomized control trials are good.

00:41:55.000 If you've got them, there are quite a number of randomized controlled trials with respect to ivermectin.

00:42:00.000 They may not be as large as you want, but in general, very large trials are necessary when you're looking for very small effects, right?

00:42:07.000 What we do have is several meta-analyses.

00:42:12.000 A meta-analysis is an analysis that takes a bunch of different studies that were done and figures out how to pool the data from them to look for a signal.

00:42:20.000 It makes a big study out of little ones.

00:42:22.000 And it has a huge advantage to it, right?

00:42:25.000 You can do a large study, and let's say that you got the dosage 50% what you needed to in order for it to be effective, right?

00:42:33.000 That large study would say molecule X does not show any evidence of being effective against disease Y because you got the dosage wrong, right?

00:42:41.000 It's not evidence that the molecule doesn't work.

00:42:43.000 It's evidence that something about that protocol with that molecule didn't work.

00:42:47.000 Whereas if you do a meta-analysis and you group together a lot of little studies, then you will have some bad studies that will fail to show an effect, and you'll have other studies that will get it closer to right, and so the net effect of all of them tells you what direction to go.

00:43:00.000 And in this case, we have meta-analyses, and they're very clear.

00:43:03.000 This molecule, which we've seen work in vitro, that is to say in the lab, in culture, Also is effective in patients, and it's effective in two different ways, right?

00:43:14.000 This is Dr. Corey's area of expertise, but let me just say I want to divide ivermectin into two things so that we're always clear what we're talking about.

00:43:23.000 Let's say ivermectin A is prophylactic ivermectin.

00:43:27.000 You take it to prevent getting the disease, right?

00:43:31.000 And this is an anti-parasitic drug?

00:43:34.000 It was discovered in Japan by Satoshi Omura, who got a Nobel Prize for it with William Campbell, a Merck scientist.

00:43:45.000 The Nobel Prize was awarded in 2015, but it was discovered in 1976. Yeah, I mean the first organism was in the 70s and the molecule was purified in the late 70s, early 80s.

00:43:58.000 Yeah, this molecule has cured river blindness and elephantitis to very devastating diseases.

00:44:05.000 It's regarded by the WHO as an essential medicine safe for children.

00:44:10.000 It has been administered four billion times.

00:44:13.000 It's a highly effective, safe drug for these parasites.

00:44:17.000 And so the thing that was mentioned earlier, where it was found in cell culture to work, there was this desire at the beginning of COVID to figure out, well, what molecules are effective?

00:44:27.000 Where might we look for a drug that would work?

00:44:29.000 And so they, you know, basically they weren't looking for protocol.

00:44:32.000 They were just throwing a bunch of molecules at the disease to see which things showed some sign of usefulness.

00:44:38.000 And from there, we get to all of these studies, which when compiled in a meta-analysis, tell a very clear story.

00:44:44.000 Let me add a couple of things because this is a cool story about...

00:44:46.000 So, ivermectin already won the Nobel Prize for the discoverers because it literally transformed the health status of huge portions of the globe in eradicating parasitic diseases.

00:44:58.000 The one called river blindness is...

00:45:00.000 It's a really moving story because you had populations, villages in Africa where men, by the time you were 40, you were blind.

00:45:09.000 And so you had like these communities where the children would lead the elders around like with a stick because they were all blind from this parasite.

00:45:20.000 And so basically this drug restored the sight and transformed the lives of millions of people around the world.

00:45:27.000 I find that a really moving story, just its history in terms of parasites.

00:45:31.000 And then Brett brought up viruses.

00:45:34.000 You know, that study that we already talked about in Australia, that study actually comes on 10 years of studies in the lab on other viruses.

00:45:42.000 So it's been shown to be effective against Zika, Dengue, West Nile, HIV, even influenza.

00:45:49.000 Again, all lab studies.

00:45:51.000 We don't really have clinical trials in the other viruses.

00:45:54.000 But when this pandemic came, it wasn't really a crapshoot to try out ivermectin in an RNA virus.

00:46:02.000 I didn't realize that.

00:46:04.000 Yeah, it already has 10 years of antiviral effects in the lab.

00:46:09.000 So in fact, I'm going to foreshadow a little bit.

00:46:12.000 It's my secret belief that as we go into the future, 10, 20 years, my hope and what I guess is that it actually will prove to be a really broad antiviral against other viruses.

00:46:24.000 And so I'm like really optimistic about the future of this molecule.

00:46:29.000 Other viruses.

00:46:30.000 We can talk about COVID still because, you know, the data that Brett brought up is, in my mind, it's profound.

00:46:38.000 And I think Brett's being very cautious, which is correct.

00:46:41.000 But as a guy who's been immersed in this data, who's been living with it, who's a physician who's been using it.

00:46:47.000 I mean, I've been using it for eight months.

00:46:49.000 I am part of a network of physicians around the world that I talk to, you know, regularly.

00:46:55.000 Many of whom have treated in the hundreds to thousands of patients.

00:47:00.000 We know how effective it is.

00:47:03.000 And so, you know, I have pretty strong opinions on this data, but the points that Brett brings up is very true.

00:47:10.000 You know, this obsession with this large randomized controlled trial is It's fraught with error when you do that.

00:47:22.000 It's not appropriate for a pandemic.

00:47:24.000 And it's also a tool that's being used as a disinformation tactic.

00:47:28.000 So some of it is scientifically based.

00:47:30.000 We all like big randomized controlled trials when you can get them, even though they are prone to error.

00:47:37.000 But what I try to remind the world is that when you look at the strength of medical evidence to prove something in medicine, you start at the bottom, which is an anecdote, right?

00:47:47.000 So let's say you got sick, Joe, and I gave you ivermectin.

00:47:50.000 The next day you felt better, and I'd say, I found the cure for COVID. That's not strong evidence, right?

00:47:56.000 Especially with a virus, people get better without it, right?

00:47:58.000 So you have anecdotes, case series, right?

00:48:01.000 Then you have like observational trials where you just follow a group of patients or you look at a group that you treated versus who you didn't, maybe retrospectively.

00:48:08.000 And it's called this pyramid of medical evidence.

00:48:13.000 Of that pyramid is not a large randomized controlled trial.

00:48:17.000 It's actually what Brett said.

00:48:19.000 It's a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

00:48:22.000 The reason why, because any individual trial can have an error or a flaw or a dosing or a timing problem, It might lead you to the wrong conclusion.

00:48:30.000 But if you have a whole collection of trials and then you put them all together and you look for the signal out of that, it's much more robust because it corrects for any individual flaws that you'll see in studies.

00:48:41.000 And so when we talk about that there are meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, 24 randomized controlled trials, thousands of patients, that's fairly unassailable evidence to show massive impact of this drug against COVID. Are there any credible critics of these conclusions?

00:49:01.000 Are there any interesting criticisms of the use of ivermectin?

00:49:06.000 I want to say something.

00:49:09.000 There is room for skepticism on ivermectin.

00:49:15.000 But it does not explain the behavior of the skeptics, right?

00:49:19.000 In other words, if we look at the standard of evidence that they appear to be applying here, I don't think it's defensible in the end, but reasonable people could potentially disagree.

00:49:29.000 The problem is when you've got a drug that's this safe, that does appear to work in many of the studies that have looked at it, I think?

00:49:46.000 I think?

00:49:55.000 And if it doesn't work, you haven't harmed them.

00:49:58.000 But if you fail to give it to them and it would have worked, you have.

00:50:02.000 So I would just point out the strange obsession with large randomized controlled trials is actually cryptically an attack on several things.

00:50:14.000 If you're going to insist that that is the only kind of evidence you will accept before prescribing this drug, You're signing up for new expensive drugs over cheap repurposed ones.

00:50:24.000 You're signing up for unknown risks over known ones.

00:50:27.000 We know 40 years of history on this ivermectin, for example.

00:50:32.000 You're signing up for shareholders over patients because these large-scale trials are very expensive and the drug companies have to pay for them.

00:50:39.000 So you're basically saying any drug that's out of patent and therefore nobody is going to, you know, lobby for it isn't going to be able to find the money to do the trials.

00:50:48.000 And you're signing up for effectively Phase 3 information over Phase 4. Now, Phase 4 is an informal designation for the phase after a drug comes to market, right?

00:51:02.000 The point is you don't really know.

00:51:04.000 How dangerous something is until you've seen it in a large population that has lots of variation in it and has enough time for problems to develop, right?

00:51:14.000 That's phase four.

00:51:15.000 But what we've done is we've effectively suspended a lot of the rules of evidence for things like vaccines that were brought to market under emergency use authorizations, and then we're setting a stupidly high standard for things that are very safe and appear to work.

00:51:31.000 And I would just say, by analogy, What's the best kind of evidence for a crime, right?

00:51:38.000 I would say video evidence of people committing the crime, right?

00:51:42.000 Video evidence in which you get a clear sense of who the person who's committing the crime is.

00:51:46.000 Okay?

00:51:47.000 Let's all agree that that's the best evidence.

00:51:49.000 What if we said that's the only evidence we're going to accept because we have really high evidentiary standards, right?

00:51:54.000 There's no crime if it didn't get recorded on video where you can see the person's face.

00:51:59.000 Okay?

00:52:00.000 Well, then the point is, alright, now effectively lots of stuff that we would like to make illegal isn't illegal because all you've got to do is make sure there's no camera around and you can do it.

00:52:09.000 That's what they're effectively doing here, right?

00:52:11.000 By insisting on that standard and ignoring all of the very high quality evidence that has come in some other form, they are effectively setting a bar so high that it can't be met.

00:52:21.000 And why they're doing it, we can speculate about.

00:52:24.000 But the fact that it makes no logical sense is transparent.

00:52:27.000 Well, let's speculate.

00:52:31.000 All right.

00:52:31.000 This is part of some of the things that I was discussing earlier when I said things that are coming to light.

00:52:36.000 New information that we know over the last few weeks.

00:52:40.000 So, Jamie, could you bring up that New York Times article?

00:52:44.000 Can I emphasize the point?

00:52:46.000 I like what Brett's saying about...

00:52:47.000 I'm sorry.

00:52:48.000 I'm a rookie here.

00:52:50.000 No worries.

00:52:51.000 You guys like veterans, man.

00:52:52.000 But this thing moves, so just grab that handle and just drag it towards you.

00:52:57.000 Yeah, but the problem is when you turn your face towards him, that's when you get a drop off of it.

00:53:02.000 So when Brett talks about behavior, I think it's really important because let's say there is skepticism around the data.

00:53:09.000 The behavior is really odd, right?

00:53:11.000 So Brett's talking about you have one of the world's safest drugs.

00:53:13.000 You have nothing but positive trials.

00:53:16.000 Even if the opposition wants to say they're low quality and small, which they're not, the precautionary principle would tell you to recommend it.

00:53:25.000 But here's another more clear example of abnormal behavior.

00:53:30.000 When you look at strong lidiasis, right, which is, or that's actually onchostarchiasis is river blindness, but the two other parasitic diseases for which ivermectin was approved as a standard of care worldwide, 10 trials with 852 patients.

00:53:48.000 Right now, ivermectin is sitting on 24 randomized controlled trials with 3,000 patients.

00:53:55.000 And it's not being recommended.

00:53:56.000 And what are the results of those trials, the ivermectin trials?

00:54:01.000 So in the most recent meta-analysis, is that what you're bringing up?

00:54:05.000 No, but Jamie has it.

00:54:06.000 He could bring it up.

00:54:07.000 So just published this weekend by...

00:54:11.000 Yes, by Andrew Bryan, Tess Laurie, Scott Mitchell, actually, who's a member of the FLCCC. But this is a group of researchers who, for decades, their main job is to review medicine,

00:54:26.000 medical evidence, to formulate guidelines for the big national and international healthcare agencies.

00:54:33.000 Let's go back to that term I used before.

00:54:35.000 They did this work independently.

00:54:37.000 No one paid them to do this work.

00:54:39.000 They did it because they saw, they looked at my paper and they saw my testimony and they immediately got interested and they started researching and they found consistent positive reproducible signals.

00:54:51.000 And so this meta-analysis which was just published basically found That there was on average a 62% reduction in death when you used ivermectin from all of these randomized controlled trials.

00:55:05.000 So basically you'd save two out of every three people that you treated.

00:55:09.000 And I would also again argue that's the minimum of what ivermectin is capable of because not in every trial were they treated early.

00:55:16.000 When you look at the early versus late, they do so much better.

00:55:20.000 What are the results for early?

00:55:22.000 So early around 80% reduction and sometimes even higher in hospitalization and death.

00:55:29.000 So if you treat patients, and even in those early, it's not my early.

00:55:33.000 So my dream My dream is that every household has ivermectin in the cupboard, and you take it upon development of first symptom of anything approximating a viral syndrome, especially in the context where, I mean,

00:55:48.000 you should be assuming any sort of viral flu-like illness that you're developing right now is COVID until proven otherwise, and take it.

00:55:55.000 And even if it's not COVID, it's safe to take, and it's probably effective against that virus.

00:55:59.000 Are there any side effects?

00:56:01.000 So they're all what's considered minor and transient, and that's another example of weird behavior.

00:56:08.000 When the WHO put out their guideline on ivermectin, they put in a lot of language questioning the safety of ivermectin.

00:56:16.000 Which is known as one of the safest drugs in history.

00:56:19.000 It's been mass distributed across continents, billions of doses, and they want to bring up cautions around safety.

00:56:26.000 While there are other guidelines for the other diseases that ivermectin is, from the WHO, they'll write in there that billions of doses have been administered, the side effects are minor and trans.

00:56:38.000 So they're inconsistent depending upon what disease they're talking about, ivermectin, being prescribed for?

00:56:42.000 With COVID, they are off the reservation.

00:56:44.000 What are the criticisms in terms of like when they're talking about the possible and potential side effects, what are they saying?

00:56:51.000 So right now, no, what they try to do is they're trying to suggest that there is more side effects when you use ivermectin versus placebo, but there's really nothing important.

00:57:01.000 So you get a little nausea.

00:57:03.000 Some people get a headache.

00:57:04.000 Some people can get a little bit of dizziness.

00:57:07.000 But they generally go away with stopping the drug.

00:57:10.000 And they're also reasonably well tolerated.

00:57:13.000 And so you'll tolerate a little bit of an ill effect from a drug if it's going to help you prevent hospital and death.

00:57:18.000 And so it's an extremely well tolerated drug.

00:57:20.000 And the last thing I'll say on the safety is a famous French toxicologist reviewed 350 studies on ivermectin.

00:57:28.000 And he was contracted to do this and he put his report out about a month and a half ago.

00:57:33.000 And in the executive summary, he writes that severe side effects from ivermectin are unequivocally and exceedingly rare.

00:57:43.000 Unequivocally and exceedingly rare.

00:57:45.000 It's a very, very safe drug.

00:57:47.000 All right.

00:57:48.000 A couple things.

00:57:50.000 One, Jamie, can you put the abstract of that paper back up?

00:57:54.000 Because there's this thing.

00:57:55.000 So the world is very focused on using ivermectin to treat COVID, which I understand, but we miss this other thing.

00:58:06.000 So scroll down a little bit.

00:58:08.000 Therapeutic advances.

00:58:09.000 There it is.

00:58:11.000 Sentence in the middle.

00:58:12.000 Okay.

00:58:12.000 This might be one of the most important sentences written this century.

00:58:17.000 Low certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average of 86%, 95% confidence interval between 79% and 91%.

00:58:31.000 So that sentence actually is a hallelujah sentence because what it means is even if ivermectin were completely ineffective at treating people who have COVID, That number is high enough.

00:58:47.000 Because it is over the number that we understand herd immunity to be for this disease, any number that has been proposed, as far as I know, because that number is so high, what it means is that ivermectin alone,

00:59:04.000 if properly utilized, is capable of driving this pathogen to extinctions.

00:59:11.000 And we should discuss what the word prophylaxis means because many people may not know.

00:59:16.000 They think about it as a condom.

00:59:17.000 Right.

00:59:18.000 Joe, I've been told multiple times when I talk about ivermectin to use preventively.

00:59:25.000 Yeah, because you're absolutely right.

00:59:27.000 A lot of people don't understand the context.

00:59:28.000 All it means is to take the drug to anticipate that you may get it.

00:59:33.000 So if you're in a high risk area, you take it and it'll protect you from infection.

00:59:39.000 Prevent you from contracting.

00:59:40.000 So I should say, I was very encouraged by that number.

00:59:44.000 That number is high enough to be independently the end of COVID if we decide to make it so.

00:59:51.000 I was concerned at the beginning of that sentence starts with low certainty evidence.

00:59:54.000 So I contacted Tess Laurie and I asked her what that meant.

00:59:58.000 And it turns out it's part of a categorization scheme within the data science that is used to do these meta-analyses.

01:00:03.000 And low certainty means that there is an expectation that if you had more information, the number would move a little bit.

01:00:10.000 It doesn't mean that it's uncertain whether the effect is there.

01:00:12.000 It means that identifying the exact number is liable to be sensitive to more information.

01:00:20.000 Again, this is the issue of ivermectin A is prophylaxis.

01:00:25.000 Ivermectin B is treatment.

01:00:26.000 The evidence that it is highly effective as treatment is, I would argue, overwhelming.

01:00:31.000 You can see it in this meta-analysis.

01:00:33.000 The signal is very clear.

01:00:34.000 And my experience has been when you look at the papers in which it's disappointing, you very frequently see a reason, right?

01:00:41.000 In general, they treat late.

01:00:43.000 We know that that is an obstacle to it working.

01:00:45.000 The last paper I went to Gave it on an empty stomach.

01:00:49.000 This is one of these things where, you tell me if I'm wrong, Pierre, but if you're treating parasites, you may want to keep the drug in your gut, and therefore you don't want it to dissolve and cross into your blood.

01:01:02.000 If you're treating or preventing COVID, you do want it to cross into your blood, and the fact is the molecule is fat-soluble.

01:01:09.000 So if you're taking it as prophylaxis, you should take it with fat, but they don't like to do stuff like that in these trials because Empty stomach is the way to get all of the patients to be the same.

01:01:19.000 If they've eaten something, they will have eaten different things and it creates noise.

01:01:23.000 So anyway, there's a bias there in some studies in which they block the effect in part by not letting it cross into the bloodstream.

01:01:31.000 Yeah, two more points on this abstract.

01:01:34.000 So the two most important words, right?

01:01:37.000 So Brett emphasized this finding of 86% protection against infection if you take it preventatively, right?

01:01:47.000 And that low certainty evidence means it could be higher than 86% protection.

01:01:51.000 It could be lower.

01:01:52.000 I maintain, I want to really emphasize this, is that if you look at the trials that make up those preventative trials, right?

01:01:59.000 The ones where you take it weekly, because they had some which you took weekly, some where you actually just took it once a month, and they actually had profound benefits.

01:02:09.000 But the ones that you took weekly...

01:02:11.000 Led to, like, near-perfect protection, like 100% protection in a large population of healthcare workers.

01:02:18.000 Now, in that trial, they also took it with, like, a seaweed called carrageenan.

01:02:23.000 It's more common in South America.

01:02:25.000 It's considered to be vericidal.

01:02:27.000 It's been shown to be vericidal.

01:02:28.000 And so they sprayed that in there.

01:02:30.000 Vericidal?

01:02:31.000 Vericidal, meaning can kill, like, homicidal, but vericidal means kills viruses, right?

01:02:36.000 So a virus murderer, right?

01:02:40.000 And so they kind of used two.

01:02:42.000 And actually, trials of that seaweed spray are actually also positive.

01:02:46.000 So the best trials of prevention really had two molecules that were probably working in concert.

01:02:51.000 But it led to perfect prevention in 1,200 healthcare workers, 800 who took this regimen, 400 who didn't.

01:03:02.000 Not one of, it was 788 healthcare workers got COVID over like a four month period.

01:03:07.000 Not one of them got COVID. Not one of them, but that's not the thing that's most impressive here because these were frontline workers who were so thoroughly exposed to COVID that 57% of the people in the 400 person control group who didn't take ivermectin did get COVID,

01:03:23.000 right?

01:03:24.000 That's a huge distinction.

01:03:27.000 Yes.

01:03:50.000 And this is my wheelhouse, evolution.

01:03:53.000 We are dealing with a limited time.

01:03:57.000 The more time this virus has to experiment with humans, the more likely we get stuck with it forever.

01:04:04.000 So our failure to apply ivermectin, and frankly it isn't just ivermectin, we now have a series of repurposed drugs for which there's not a large profit to be made because they're out of patent, but have shown high effectiveness in the treatment of COVID. Our failure to use these things properly in a coordinated way that is actually evidence-based is putting humanity in danger of getting stuck with this pandemic forever.

01:04:30.000 Absolutely.

01:04:31.000 I mean, the key thing that I want to communicate is that this is a treatable disease.

01:04:36.000 We do have an outpatient treatment for it.

01:04:39.000 It's not just ivermectin.

01:04:41.000 Brett mentioned a number of other molecules that are effective.

01:04:44.000 Ivermectin has the most data behind it.

01:04:47.000 And it also has the longest experience, especially when you're talking about population-wide distribution.

01:04:52.000 So you can't think of a better drug that already has a track record at eradicating a scourge of disease across continents, right?

01:05:00.000 The best thing it has going for it is that Trump never brought it up.

01:05:03.000 There is that.

01:05:04.000 So there's not a resistance on the left.

01:05:06.000 There shouldn't be.

01:05:07.000 Right.

01:05:07.000 The only resistance is the resistance because of the authorities.

01:05:10.000 The authorities not backing it or what's happening with YouTube censorship.

01:05:15.000 So I want to bring up the second most important word on that abstract.

01:05:19.000 And this is the key of kind of what you just said, Joe, is that...

01:05:24.000 The trials, I'm just so blown away by the evidence behind ivermectin.

01:05:30.000 So as a physician, I mean, that's what I do.

01:05:33.000 I read.

01:05:34.000 I look at therapies.

01:05:34.000 I'm always trying to figure out how to treat my patients better.

01:05:37.000 You know, I'm an intensivist, right?

01:05:39.000 So I deal with the sickest of the sick.

01:05:41.000 Depending on the month or the unit, about 20% of my patients will die.

01:05:46.000 And so I'm taking care of a lot of dying patients and a lot of patients who are near death, and there's nothing more satisfying than bringing them back.

01:05:53.000 A lot of those therapies are time-dependent, dose-dependent, and they're synergistic.

01:05:57.000 And so you really need to be constantly trying to figure out better ways to treat your patients, right?

01:06:05.000 When I look at the evidence for ivermectin, I've never seen A collection of trials so consistently and reproducibly positive, they line up in a way, it's almost visually beautiful, in that the treatment effects are always so large.

01:06:21.000 I am so moved by this.

01:06:23.000 I'm so amazed by this.

01:06:24.000 And in this process, and I've been fighting this fight now for eight months, when I first came out in public, as people know, I gave the Senate testimony, which a lot of people watched, I was shocked at the resistance that it met.

01:06:39.000 Like, I put all these trials, I showed all the evidence, and it was just getting dismissed.

01:06:44.000 And they were, like, basically, I almost felt like I was being condescended to and lectured, like, oh, you don't know how to read evidence.

01:06:50.000 And I was saying I can't think of in history trials that are lining up like this.

01:06:55.000 Randomized, observational, prevention, treatment, early, late.

01:06:58.000 Have you had any debates or any conversations publicly with anybody who disagrees?

01:07:03.000 I just had a debate with what I call an ivory tower academic last week.

01:07:07.000 It'll be up on...

01:07:08.000 Trial Site News.

01:07:10.000 Trial Site News is a website which played a big role in the pandemic because they have been following and reporting on ivermectin efficacy since last April.

01:07:22.000 In fact, a lot of different developments and things that I've learned about ivermectin I've gotten from Trial Site News.

01:07:29.000 It's a website where they follow everything pharma.

01:07:32.000 So anything that comes out of a drug trial or related to pharmaceutical industry, really therapeutics and trials, it goes on trial site news.

01:07:39.000 But they've been a really very close observer of ivermectin.

01:07:44.000 So the thing about what happens though when you bring this evidence forth is – and this is why we'll get back to this abstract – is that the opposition to ivermectin They're faced with, right now, 60 controlled trials showing benefit.

01:08:01.000 Maybe one or two didn't show a benefit.

01:08:03.000 58 out of the 60 show benefits.

01:08:06.000 And they say this is low quality evidence, poorly designed trials, small trials.

01:08:17.000 And That's been the same thing they've been saying for six months.

01:08:23.000 Now, when you grade the quality of evidence, there's actually standards, there's definitions, there's a way to do it.

01:08:29.000 So Tess Laurie and her group who did this, that's what they do.

01:08:32.000 They're experts at grading quality of evidence.

01:08:35.000 They grade the quality of evidence for survival with ivermectin.

01:08:40.000 So the 62% reduction is actually graded as moderate level certainty.

01:08:45.000 I got to emphasize, they did the work.

01:08:48.000 They looked under the hood of all these trials.

01:08:50.000 They looked at things like allocation concealment and randomization and all sorts of these terms of how you conduct a trial.

01:08:56.000 They grade the trials evidence as moderate and the reason why that's important Is that corticosteroids, which are the standard of care worldwide for the treatment of the hospitalized COVID patient, that was adopted immediately overnight based on one trial and that's moderate certainty.

01:09:14.000 It's very rare that you get high level or strong certainty.

01:09:17.000 It's very hard to get there.

01:09:18.000 You need like massive trials done by big pharma over years.

01:09:22.000 So moderate is actually quite strong.

01:09:25.000 So the level, the quality of evidence.

01:09:27.000 So no longer should we listen to our agencies or these leaders trying to dismiss ivermectin evidence as very low or low quality.

01:09:36.000 That's what the WHO did in March.

01:09:38.000 They dismissed the evidence as very low quality and they dissected it.

01:09:42.000 They removed many of the trials.

01:09:44.000 They threw this one out for this reason.

01:09:46.000 This is where I'm getting back to, and I hate talking about this stuff, but this disinformation.

01:09:52.000 Effectively, it's a dishonesty.

01:09:54.000 Clearly they're operating on what I call a non-scientific objective.

01:09:59.000 Their objective is to not have ivermectin adopted worldwide.

01:10:04.000 Ivermectin is seen as an opponent to whatever policies or product or pharmaceutical products they want to bring forward.

01:10:12.000 Now, does this resistance exist in a vacuum?

01:10:14.000 Is there evidence of this resistance in terms of emails that have been leaked, where people go back and forth and discuss whether or not Ivermectin should be promoted?

01:10:23.000 Reports.

01:10:24.000 So all of the agencies, and I can bring you a stack.

01:10:27.000 So from the Canadians, and it's all, by the way, North America and Western Europe.

01:10:34.000 So it's the EMA, which is European Medicines and Asian Cheeses, which is all of Europe.

01:10:38.000 And then you could look at France, Netherlands, like all of those Western European countries, Canada, the US, the NIH. Just look at their reviews of ivermectin.

01:10:50.000 It's almost like they've copied and pasted all around the world.

01:10:53.000 Every agency that's reviewed it has said that it's low quality evidence, small trials, poor control groups, different doses, which actually are strength of the trials evidence.

01:11:05.000 But it's like they've copied and pasted it.

01:11:08.000 And it's really tiresome and it's incorrect.

01:11:10.000 And I think they're all acting on a different objective.

01:11:13.000 They're not credibly assessing the data around it.

01:11:17.000 But what's promoting them to behave in this way?

01:11:21.000 Can we get the New York Times piece up, the Carl Zimmer piece?

01:11:26.000 So I've been wondering about this for the longest time.

01:11:31.000 There is obvious resistance to looking at the evidence, which is clear enough.

01:11:36.000 Why would they be...

01:11:37.000 And I should point out, there's another interesting piece of evidence, which is not only was the safety of ivermectin challenged by the CDC, was it?

01:11:46.000 Well, the WHO kind of suggested that it may not be safe.

01:11:50.000 But Merck itself, Merck, which was the manufacturer of this drug, Merck, which has given away millions of doses in Africa, attacked the safety of its own drug, said that it wasn't safe and shouldn't be used in this case, which was strange.

01:12:04.000 But then here, it's crazy.

01:12:07.000 Has that ever happened before?

01:12:09.000 Well, here's the thing.

01:12:10.000 I was waiting, you know, what don't we know?

01:12:13.000 And there are a certain number, I mean, you know, I don't know how much this is a Merck-centric phenomenon, but there are a couple things about Merck.

01:12:21.000 Merck has announced that it has a...

01:12:24.000 New drug that it's very excited about for COVID. Molnupiravir, Brett.

01:12:30.000 Molnupiravir.

01:12:31.000 All right.

01:12:32.000 So this is the article?

01:12:34.000 This is the article.

01:12:35.000 Scroll.

01:12:36.000 Let's see.

01:12:38.000 There's some paragraphs here.

01:12:40.000 Go back up.

01:12:42.000 Back up.

01:12:43.000 There's a paragraph about what happened when they looked for drugs that would be effective against COVID. So this is Carl Zimmer.

01:12:51.000 This is one of the world's premier science writers writing in the New York Times.

01:12:55.000 Back up.

01:12:57.000 More.

01:12:59.000 That's the top.

01:12:59.000 It's going to be about the three billion, Brett?

01:13:02.000 Well, we're going to get to the three billion here in a second, but...

01:13:06.000 Keep going.

01:13:07.000 Stop.

01:13:10.000 At the start of the pandemic, researchers began testing existing antivirals in hospital, hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, but many of those trials failed to show any benefit from the antivirals.

01:13:24.000 In hindsight, the choice to work in hospitals was a mistake.

01:13:28.000 Okay.

01:13:29.000 Go down a little bit.

01:13:31.000 Down a little bit more.

01:13:33.000 Stop.

01:13:36.000 So far, only one antiviral has demonstrated a clear benefit to people in hospitals.

01:13:42.000 Remdesivir, that's the $3,000 a dose drug that is authorized, originally investigated as a potential cure for Ebola.

01:13:49.000 The drug seems to shorten the course of COVID-19.

01:13:51.000 When given intravenously in patients in October, it became the first and so far the only antiviral drug to gain FDA approval to treat the disease.

01:13:59.000 Yet remdesivir's performance has left many researchers underwhelmed.

01:14:06.000 Weak.

01:14:07.000 Yeah.

01:14:08.000 I'm missing the – there's a paragraph in here where he says that the search for drugs that work didn't turn anything up.

01:14:16.000 In any case, people can find it on their own, I guess.

01:14:18.000 But this news report came just before Anthony Fauci – sorry, my glasses do not interface well – Before, Anthony Fauci gave a press conference about a $3 billion initiative to find drugs that work against COVID. Now,

01:14:36.000 of course, these drugs that they find will all be under patent and therefore highly profitable.

01:14:41.000 So what you've got is drug companies.

01:14:47.000 Merck is involved in Molnupiravir, this new drug.

01:14:52.000 It is also involved in an agreement with Johnson& Johnson to distribute their vaccine.

01:14:57.000 And strangely, we are ignoring the evidence that is right in front of us that we have multiple drugs that are highly effective for COVID. And one that I would point out again is highly effective as a prophylactic.

01:15:09.000 So I don't...

01:15:11.000 I don't know anything about the business side of this.

01:15:13.000 I do know what fiduciary responsibility is.

01:15:16.000 I know that the shareholder value must be driving things behind the scenes.

01:15:21.000 I know that these companies have been immunized from liability with respect to harms that might be done by the vaccines that they're distributing.

01:15:29.000 So there's a question about do all of those things add up to explain the many anomalies about the recommendations of how to treat patients who have COVID? I believe they do.

01:15:41.000 Well, let's put it this way.

01:15:42.000 I can't come up with anything else that makes any sense.

01:15:44.000 Well, it's a perfect storm, right?

01:15:46.000 You have a generic...

01:15:47.000 What is the expense of ivermectin?

01:15:51.000 Actually, I've seen it estimated in large bulk quantities.

01:15:56.000 You could make it for less than a dollar, like a dose.

01:15:59.000 In the United States, there's FDA-regulated product, so it's more expensive.

01:16:05.000 I mean, in India, they were distributing it in many regions, and we should talk about India in a second, but it's extremely cheap.

01:16:13.000 It's a very low cost.

01:16:14.000 That's a problem.

01:16:15.000 So extremely effective, extremely cheap, and generic.

01:16:18.000 Big problem.

01:16:19.000 Yeah, but...

01:16:22.000 Look, what I can't get myself to is what do these conversations sound like on the other side?

01:16:28.000 Who decides to shut down in the middle of a pandemic where you have a drug that's actually good enough to end the pandemic at any point you want it, right?

01:16:36.000 Who decides to prioritize business interests ahead of that?

01:16:41.000 I find it hard to imagine.

01:16:42.000 So what I'm actually guessing is going on is this.

01:16:47.000 You've got a pharmaceutical industry which frequently has obstacles.

01:16:51.000 The development of a new drug is extremely expensive.

01:16:54.000 It can be, you know, it can go bust.

01:16:57.000 You can develop a new drug and it doesn't get through the trials, so there's a lot of risk.

01:17:00.000 And so the pharmaceutical industry has engineered mechanisms to get their drugs through this process, right?

01:17:07.000 They've corrupted the system.

01:17:09.000 And my sense is that their ability to force the system to accept certain things and to ignore other things is so well developed at this point that it must have just gotten applied on autopilot.

01:17:21.000 And somehow we're stuck in the situation where the evidence that we have effective tools is overwhelming.

01:17:26.000 Those tools do not excite anybody in the pharmaceutical industry because there's no profit to be made.

01:17:31.000 And somehow that autopilot has us facing the possibility of getting stuck with this pathogen permanently because there's nobody at the helm.

01:17:40.000 That's about what I would guess.

01:17:42.000 I mean, you're seeing this is a system at work, right?

01:17:49.000 So we live in a public, in a health system Which favors for-profit medicines over non-profit.

01:17:59.000 It's the for-profit medicines that can hurdle over those bars, right?

01:18:05.000 To get those big pharma trials, no one's going to fund that around ivermectin.

01:18:10.000 Actually, philanthropy is funding a relatively big trial right now.

01:18:14.000 I think the world is waiting on the results.

01:18:16.000 I actually think that trial is unethical.

01:18:18.000 I could not, as a physician, knowing what I know, give someone a placebo right now for ivermectin.

01:18:24.000 The evidence is too overwhelming.

01:18:27.000 But you're in a system where clearly the things that are favored are those with financial interests.

01:18:33.000 And so that's who gets the ear of the agencies.

01:18:36.000 That's who gets attention by the FDA. And ivermectin is really ignored.

01:18:41.000 There's no one championing ivermectin except for like...

01:18:43.000 My little group of non-profit doctors who became expert at ivermectin.

01:18:48.000 I will also say though, we're not alone.

01:18:50.000 There's like our organization, we call ourselves the FLCCC for short, but there's little FLCCCs in countries all around the world that we're talking to who are also advocating and going to their governments and their agencies and finding very similar resistances.

01:19:05.000 It's like the same play over and over again.

01:19:08.000 The influence of the pharmaceutical companies is a real thing.

01:19:11.000 It's global.

01:19:12.000 It is, but I think what keeps stopping me in my tracks is the magnitude.

01:19:19.000 If you just simply extrapolate from what is evident in that meta-analysis about the capacity of ivermectin to address this, the amount of needless human suffering is almost...

01:19:34.000 It's incalculable.

01:19:35.000 It's incalculable.

01:19:37.000 And that we would allow it to continue.

01:19:39.000 I mean, Fauci was very excited in his press conference about this new initiative, and it sort of sounded like, well, we're settling in for a very long-term situation with this pathogen, right?

01:19:51.000 We were told that the vaccines were a solution to this, but it looks like they're just really gearing up for, you know, this.

01:19:57.000 And, of course, that will create profits for a long time to come.

01:20:01.000 Brett, can we say, just stop for a second and call attention to the absurdity of what that article just described?

01:20:09.000 You're talking about they're committing $3.2 billion to develop a better ivermectin.

01:20:20.000 We already have ivermectin.

01:20:21.000 It is already a profoundly effective antiviral.

01:20:25.000 It is cheap, widely available, could be produced in mass quantities and delivered to the masses and population.

01:20:31.000 Yet our government, in the middle of a pandemic, is giving $3.2 billion to the pharmaceutical industry in a program to develop a new oral antiviral pill.

01:20:42.000 It's almost, it's so transparent, you wish you'd just say, look, okay, I see what you're doing.

01:20:47.000 Will you do me a favor?

01:20:48.000 Just adjust one of the molecules on ivermectin.

01:20:52.000 We'll pay you for it.

01:20:53.000 Put a patent on it, we'll give you the money, okay?

01:20:54.000 Well, that's Molnupiravir.

01:20:56.000 So Molnupiravir doesn't share a molecular structure with ivermectin, but one of its purported main mechanisms of action is the same, is a similar one.

01:21:04.000 It's identical to one of the main mechanisms of action of ivermectin.

01:21:07.000 So it's a different drug.

01:21:09.000 But it's kind of doing the same thing.

01:21:11.000 Now, it's not as good.

01:21:12.000 What's the mechanism?

01:21:13.000 So it interrupts.

01:21:15.000 One of them is there's these enzymes that the virus uses to replicate.

01:21:18.000 And one of them is called RNA-dependent polymerase.

01:21:23.000 And it interferes and binds with that.

01:21:26.000 And so if you don't have that enzyme, you can't replicate.

01:21:29.000 And so that's one of its mechanisms.

01:21:33.000 The thing about Molnupiravir is they've already tested it in hospitalized patients, and it's failed.

01:21:39.000 It hasn't worked in the hospital, where we know ivermectin works in the hospital.

01:21:43.000 Even in late phase, we know ivermectin's working.

01:21:45.000 They're now testing in outpatient, which is the holy grail, because right now the NIH, which determines the treatment guidelines for this disease in this country, Besides Tylenol and wait till your lips turn blue, they offer nothing to outpatients.

01:21:58.000 So that is a ripe market to try to find the COVID killer.

01:22:04.000 Ivermectin is the COVID killer and should be the mainstay of any early outpatient treatment regimen, and yet it's not.

01:22:11.000 The one thing I want to bring up, and I want to go back to this, I love the example that Brett brings up, is just look at the behaviors.

01:22:18.000 Like, even just ignoring some of the signs, look at the behaviors.

01:22:20.000 So, when you look at some of the trials around their favored medicines, like remdesivir, they kind of do funny stuff with the trials.

01:22:28.000 They change endpoints, they use weak outcomes, like, okay, two days less of a hospitalization for $3,000, doesn't save lives, doesn't reduce mechanical ventilation, when you have other drugs that do.

01:22:41.000 Another absurdity is Mexico. 0.85

01:22:45.000 Mexico, out of all of the countries that we just talked about, they did something that I think is unique, historic, and needs to be recognized.

01:22:53.000 So what happened in Mexico is they have an agency called the IMSS. It's basically their social security department, which covers a large part of the healthcare system.

01:23:05.000 And they went rogue in Mexico back in December at a time when hospitals were full.

01:23:11.000 They were getting inundated.

01:23:12.000 They're almost like at that crisis peak like we were in in this country around December and January.

01:23:17.000 Remember when like LA was running out of oxygen and like India was last month. 1.00

01:23:21.000 So Mexico was in terrible condition back in December.

01:23:26.000 The IMSS, and I would say I would like that our paper and our advocacy was part of what made them pay attention to ivermectin.

01:23:33.000 They implemented a nationwide test and treat program.

01:23:38.000 Every outpatient testing center, if you tested positive, you were offered ivermectin.

01:23:44.000 And you got two days, you got 12 milligrams, which is not a high dose.

01:23:47.000 In fact, I consider that to be somewhat of an undertreatment.

01:23:50.000 But what happened within two weeks of that, hospitalization rates plummeted, death rates plummeted.

01:23:56.000 And over the next three months, they basically rid COVID, opened bars, opened restaurants at a time when the vaccination rate was like one to five percent.

01:24:06.000 So it wasn't the vaccines.

01:24:09.000 It was all related to this.

01:24:10.000 And then three weeks ago, maybe it's three weeks now, That agency put out their paper, their paper looking at the data of their program.

01:24:22.000 And you know what they reported is that in many thousands of patients, those that accepted the medicine and took it, their rate of hospitalization was up to 75% lower than those who didn't.

01:24:40.000 And that's not the only agency or country reporting that.

01:24:44.000 Now, why isn't that front page news in the major media in the United States?

01:24:48.000 You have a large country like Mexico, who just put out results of a nationwide program centered around ivermectin, where hospitalizations were reduced up to 75% in those given ivermectin.

01:25:00.000 And in your opinion, an insufficient dose.

01:25:04.000 What I like to say is it's the minimum of what it's capable of.

01:25:07.000 With hindsight, had you done more of a weight-based, right, because we're not all the same, the bigger you are, you probably need a little bit more, and also a longer duration, I think they could have gotten that number higher.

01:25:18.000 So it's, in my opinion, it's the minimum of what that program was capable of.

01:25:22.000 But even in that form and that dosing strategy was incredible what they did.

01:25:28.000 You know how many lives they saved by reducing that hospitalization?

01:25:31.000 And they emptied the hospitals.

01:25:32.000 They emptied them.

01:25:33.000 That is incredible.

01:25:34.000 And I always wondered, like, how's Mexico partying so early?

01:25:38.000 Ah, now there's your answer.

01:25:39.000 And the hospitalization data is so cool.

01:25:42.000 We have an analyst that works with us, a guy named Juan Chimie, who I think, when all is said and done in a couple of years, will be a historic figure.

01:25:48.000 He's a guy who helped teach me what ivermectin was doing in the world.

01:25:52.000 He's been tracking areas and countries and regions and states which have adopted ivermectin, and he's been looking at the numbers.

01:25:59.000 And we have many dozens of what's called temporally associated declines.

01:26:08.000 In the context of time, so when you initiated a point A, what happens very close in time after that, every time ivermectin is deployed or adopted, you see these rapid declines.

01:26:18.000 Now, everybody's curves around the world have been fluctuating, right?

01:26:22.000 We have these peaks, we have these, you know, the epidemiologic curves of cases and deaths.

01:26:26.000 But when you look at the ivermectin initiations, it's always reproducible.

01:26:31.000 It's literally within one to two weeks you see these drops.

01:26:34.000 And how are these results being received?

01:26:37.000 Crickets.

01:26:39.000 So the Mexico preprint, this is how crazy the world is.

01:26:45.000 So the Mexico preprint I thought would be front page news across Mexico that they'd found a cure.

01:26:52.000 The federal health ministry in Mexico Really was against the IMSS. So it's almost like the CDC and the NIH were fighting.

01:27:00.000 I was trying to come up with an analogy because I don't know Mexico that well, but I do know those are two large preeminent health care agents.

01:27:07.000 But the federal health ministry was against this program.

01:27:10.000 Insufficient evidence, dah, dah, dah, dah.

01:27:12.000 And I think they were partly because they were captured.

01:27:15.000 But these rogue sort of clinical experts who are trying to act in a humanitarian basis using a precautionary principle, which Brett brought up, which is like, safe med seems like it only got upside, let's just do it.

01:27:27.000 And they did it, and it worked.

01:27:29.000 But in the papers, There's still discussion, insufficient evidence.

01:27:34.000 And then some people, now they're planting things in the papers, as I understand it, saying that it's political.

01:27:39.000 That paper in which they reported their results, some people are excusing this because that's how they want to get re-elected.

01:27:44.000 So it's like, again, it gets devolved into political controversy.

01:27:49.000 And so...

01:27:50.000 But the fact that our government isn't talking to the group of doctors that headed up the IMSS and carried out and initiated this program to learn how they did it, it's unforgivable.

01:28:02.000 Why aren't we talking to these leaders Of the IMSS program in Mexico.

01:28:07.000 They're not far from here, right, Joe?

01:28:10.000 Pretty close.

01:28:10.000 Yeah, they're pretty close, right?

01:28:11.000 You kind of can walk.

01:28:13.000 We could probably drive down there today.

01:28:15.000 Yeah, if you had a few days, you could walk.

01:28:17.000 Have them on your podcast.

01:28:18.000 But that's just Mexico.

01:28:20.000 And I could probably talk all day long, but just 10 days ago, the state of La Pampa in Argentina, southern Argentina, They did a similar program where they gave ivermectin to patients who tested positive.

01:28:34.000 They also are reporting.

01:28:36.000 There they had 40% less hospitalization, 30% less death, and 40% less ICU use.

01:28:43.000 And so in that small program out of Argentina, and then when you look at India, Remember how crazy, how India was, the headlines for a while, like literally there was smoke over all the cities from the funeral pyres because so many people were dying?

01:28:56.000 Well, in a number of the states that aggressively adopted ivermectin, you saw those curves and they plummeted to near zero.

01:29:04.000 In states that didn't, you saw the curves go up.

01:29:07.000 So it's almost like there was a natural experiment in India around ivermectin.

01:29:12.000 You know, just to finish, you know, Brett talked about the preventative trials, the treatment trials, early, late.

01:29:18.000 Now you're also getting data from real world.

01:29:21.000 That's a really credible, in fact, to me, that's probably the most powerful source of evidence is you're seeing it work on a population-based data.

01:29:33.000 We're good to go.

01:29:48.000 To me, we're not just dealing with the costs in the present.

01:29:51.000 We're dealing with how much cost will humanity experience in the future if we don't drive this thing extinct while we have the chance.

01:29:57.000 And we do appear to have the chance.

01:29:58.000 So if you would put up the graph I sent you, I apologize for the complexity of this.

01:30:06.000 But actually, hold up for just a second, Jamie.

01:30:10.000 So I've been talking to various people about whether or not the data on ivermectin suggests it could drive SARS-CoV-2 to extinction.

01:30:18.000 And I became convinced that it could.

01:30:21.000 When this meta-analysis came out, I talked to Tess Lorre.

01:30:26.000 She said she believed that it could, I believe.

01:30:28.000 Is it fair to say, Pierre, that you believe that it could?

01:30:31.000 Oh, absolutely.

01:30:32.000 Okay.

01:30:33.000 But not everybody agrees.

01:30:35.000 And actually, on my podcast with Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, he actually, he said he hoped I was right, but he doubted it.

01:30:45.000 And anyway, we've gone back and forth about it a number of times.

01:30:50.000 And I tried to focus him on a couple of things.

01:30:53.000 And last night, he contacted me and he said, Brett, you were right.

01:30:56.000 It'll do it.

01:30:57.000 And then he said, let me show you.

01:30:59.000 And he sent me this graph.

01:31:02.000 I didn't send you the graph? 1.00

01:31:04.000 Oh, damn. 0.99

01:31:05.000 No worries. 1.00

01:31:06.000 We got time.

01:31:06.000 All right.

01:31:08.000 So Robert came around.

01:31:09.000 He did come around.

01:31:11.000 Those glasses, by the way, are preposterous.

01:31:13.000 They do not work well with headphones.

01:31:14.000 I should have remembered that.

01:31:18.000 You know, I see they're supposed to make it more convenient.

01:31:23.000 They do when you're not wearing headphones.

01:31:26.000 Let's, if we can make a note, so, and this is where the story just keeps getting like more and more amazing, right?

01:31:33.000 So, Brett is rightly focusing on the preventive aspects, right?

01:31:37.000 Because it's great to treat and make sure you stay alive and don't go to the hospital.

01:31:41.000 Much better to just not get sick and to eradicate the virus.

01:31:45.000 We save a definitely large number of people if we drive it to extinction.

01:31:49.000 Make a note that the body of evidence, which is the weakest, but it's some of the most compelling, long COVID. So let's talk about that after.

01:31:57.000 I want to talk about our experiences with long COVID. Okay.

01:32:00.000 Okay.

01:32:00.000 So this is incredibly complex.

01:32:03.000 And I must tell you, it's complex enough that I have had to stare at it and talk to Robert about what it means.

01:32:09.000 And so I'm going to take you through the highlights.

01:32:12.000 Explain it to people that are just looking at this or listening only.

01:32:15.000 So what we've got is a graph In which we have some curves that descend through the graph.

01:32:22.000 And the curves, these curves are parallel to each other.

01:32:26.000 And the basic idea is, do you guys remember what R naught is from the beginning of the pandemic?

01:32:33.000 So R naught is the reproductive rate of the virus.

01:32:37.000 At one, each infected person tends to infect one other person.

01:32:41.000 So the amount of infected people tends to stay the same over time.

01:32:45.000 Above one, you get one of these explosions of new cases.

01:32:49.000 It goes below one, you see a decline in cases.

01:32:53.000 Anytime you have a decline in cases, anytime R0 is less than 1, you are headed towards the extinction of the pathogen, and lots of pathogens do go extinct.

01:33:03.000 SARS and MERS are both extinct, as far as we know.

01:33:06.000 Now, they can come back, but extinction is what we're shooting for.

01:33:11.000 Now, the point of this graph is, remember, ivermectin shows itself to be about 86% effective at preventing contraction of COVID. That means that, so if you, so R0 for COVID is somewhere between two,

01:33:30.000 it's a little bit above two.

01:33:32.000 So the green line there is just below the line that we would draw for COVID. This graph was not drawn with COVID in mind.

01:33:41.000 What this means is, and can you scroll up so we can see, oh, the bottom there, it says critical boundary for combined AVE sub S. AVE sub S is the rate at which people exposed do not come down with the disease when treated.

01:33:59.000 That's on the Y axis, I mean the X axis.

01:34:01.000 On the Y axis we have AVE sub I, which is the rate of reduction of viral shedding.

01:34:09.000 And the basic point here is that for a disease like COVID with an R0 of about a little over 2, with 70% of the population compliant with the prophylactic protocol,

01:34:27.000 we would drive R0. R0 becomes R sub F in the treatment.

01:34:33.000 So the reproductive rate under treatment is R sub F. And it will be less than one if you get 70% of the population to take the prophylaxis.

01:34:43.000 So the point is that level of prophylaxis is more than sufficient by a lot to drive this to extinction if you only had 70% compliance.

01:34:54.000 Is there any evidence of the efficacy in variants?

01:34:59.000 Yes, I do.

01:35:01.000 Well...

01:35:03.000 We don't have trials testing where they really measured the variants and showed, but we do know this epidemiologic data.

01:35:14.000 So if you look at India, lots of Delta variant.

01:35:17.000 From looking at the epidemiology of what happened there, ivermectin was slaying the Delta variant.

01:35:22.000 South Africa and Zimbabwe, especially Zimbabwe when they were getting hurt earlier in this year, they basically eradicated COVID with widespread adoption of ibuprofen.

01:35:31.000 They were dealing with the South African variant.

01:35:35.000 Brazil is a bit of a mess in the sense that there's so much controversy around the different treatments and there's political overtones.

01:35:42.000 That there's no systematic use of ivermectin, but there have been pockets and cities that first didn't adopt it and then did.

01:35:50.000 And we know in that P1 variant out of Brazil, totally susceptible to ivermectin.

01:35:55.000 So from what we've seen, and then the UK variant, we saw in Slovakia and Czech Republic, same thing, responsiveness to ivermectin.

01:36:03.000 Just by looking at sort of epidemiologically seeing these variances pop out, I have gotten no data to suggest it doesn't work against any of the variants.

01:36:14.000 And that's what we would expect because its mechanisms of action are multiple.

01:36:20.000 And they don't really will change to the outer surface of the spike protein.

01:36:25.000 We think that to evade ivermectin, you'd really have to have a very, very different virus.

01:36:31.000 And so we have no evidence to suggest that it's not going to work.

01:36:37.000 This sounds like a gigantic ivermectin infomercial sponsored by ivermectin.

01:36:43.000 Well, a lot of money to be made there, Joe.

01:36:46.000 But not really.

01:36:47.000 Not really.

01:36:48.000 I mean, sarcastic.

01:36:49.000 There's no money to be made.

01:36:50.000 There's just lives to save.

01:36:52.000 I'm sorry.

01:36:52.000 But it's so funny.

01:36:55.000 This is one of the best examples of something that is almost too good to be true, but turns out actually to be true.

01:37:01.000 Right.

01:37:01.000 And the problem is it's actually putting those of us who can see it in danger, right?

01:37:05.000 Because as people ignore this evidence with this much at stake, this many people needlessly suffering and dying, people losing their loved ones, right?

01:37:15.000 The desire to just simply get people to look at the evidence and then extrapolate.

01:37:20.000 What would a reasonable person do faced with a safe drug with noisy data that has a very strong signal of efficacy that works both As a treatment and as a prophylaxis, what would you do if you were in charge?

01:37:32.000 And what you hear back is the most maddening, well, you know, I'm evidence-based.

01:37:39.000 If it isn't a large-scale, randomized, controlled trial, then it isn't evidence to me.

01:37:43.000 And it's like only a crazy person would say that in this case, and yet you hear it all the time.

01:37:47.000 Especially all these different countries that you've outlined that have adopted treatment.

01:37:52.000 South Africa, Mexico.

01:37:54.000 Here's the key, though, is that...

01:37:56.000 The reasons for the opposition I think are multiple.

01:38:01.000 I hate talking about the sinister stuff which is the disinformation aspects where they're literally making concerted efforts to get leaders to inject doubt around the science.

01:38:11.000 Some of it is just intellectual skepticism like this what we call evidence-based medicine.

01:38:17.000 It's gotten a little perverted and I think it's not always practiced correctly.

01:38:24.000 And so you have a lot of resistance to the science around ivermectin.

01:38:30.000 Now I lost my train of thought that I wanted to say about that.

01:38:34.000 Go ahead.

01:38:35.000 Do you want me to help you?

01:38:38.000 Because we're just talking about profitability.

01:38:40.000 We're talking about the fact that it's in all these different countries, like it's kind of too good to be true.

01:38:45.000 Well, the profit part is, I mean, I agree that's one of them.

01:38:49.000 Oh, the other point I wanted to make is that, and this is so maddening, is that The other resistance is what I call ivory tower syndrome or this evidence-based, I call it maniacism, which is this obsession with this big randomized control trial.

01:39:04.000 But part and parcel of that obsession where they won't believe anything until you do that trial is that they don't do the work.

01:39:11.000 What I've seen is a lot of intellectual laziness and just flat-out laziness.

01:39:16.000 Like when I see people reviewing the evidence and I'm like, They clearly either didn't read the trials, didn't look at all the trials.

01:39:25.000 I just find it's a very cursory view now, whether they're doing it on purpose or not.

01:39:29.000 And I'm going to call out one particular body, which is the IDSA, which is the Infectious Disease Society of America.

01:39:37.000 And they, like all of the other agencies, there are professional societies of infectious disease experts, and in their review of ivermectin, they don't recommend use outside of clinical trials, and they also say that the evidence is low-quality,

01:39:53.000 small trials, but they also say something else which is absurd.

01:39:57.000 They wrote, That of concern is that almost all of the published trials are positive.

01:40:05.000 And so they suspect publication bias.

01:40:10.000 Want me to repeat that?

01:40:12.000 So they literally, in their review, they say, you know...

01:40:16.000 We noticed that all of the studies are positive, so we think there might be a publication bias.

01:40:22.000 I want to wring someone's neck.

01:40:24.000 You think there might be a publication bias?

01:40:26.000 So if you don't know what a publication bias is, is that in medicine, when people do studies, Let's say you study a drug and you find out it didn't really work, right?

01:40:36.000 Your motivation for finishing the manuscript, submitting, like it's a lot of work to submit and publish papers in scientific journals, might flag and you might not publish negative trials.

01:40:48.000 And so there's something that happens, which is a publication by where you only see positive trials and it gives you only a one-sided view of the efficacy.

01:40:55.000 So you might wrongly say, oh man, This drug works because all the trials say it works, but you're not accounting for all the trialists who aren't publishing.

01:41:04.000 Now, there are ways of investigating and looking for publication bias, and I will tell you that the lead researcher for the Unitated WHO, who he used to collaborate with, he's no longer doing the work now, He did look at that and he found no publication bias.

01:41:20.000 The way you combat publication bias is when you do a clinical trial of a medicine, it's been standard now, is that you're supposed to register your trial in a clinical trials registry.

01:41:34.000 Before you do the trial.

01:41:35.000 And most journals will not publish your trial unless it was pre-registered.

01:41:39.000 And the reason why is they want to make sure if you register a trial on ivermectin and then never publish, they can find you and say, what happened?

01:41:47.000 What happened to your trial?

01:41:48.000 Did you find out it didn't work and didn't publish?

01:41:50.000 Like, what's going on?

01:41:51.000 Anyway, long story short, there's no publication.

01:41:55.000 So let me ask you this.

01:41:56.000 If there is proven to be no publication bias, the people that initially were skeptical because of a publication bias, when proven that that's not the case, why is there not a corresponding enthusiasm?

01:42:11.000 Because their objection wasn't a real objection.

01:42:14.000 It was stalling.

01:42:15.000 And I would just point out, it is lovely that we have a registry that tells us there's no publication bias, but you don't need it because the experience in Mexico, in Uttar Pradesh, in Goa, and all of these places where it's been tried is perfectly consistent with the result that you see in the studies, right?

01:42:30.000 So the observational studies are consistent.

01:42:34.000 You've got, you know...

01:42:36.000 The Argentina Frontline Healthcare Worker Study, that's an unambiguous result that would be essentially impossible to, you know, this is the one where, what was it, 237 out of 400 who didn't take it got sick.

01:42:53.000 58%, Joe.

01:42:55.000 58% who didn't take it got sick.

01:42:57.000 And none of the ones who took it got it.

01:42:59.000 Zero of 788?

01:43:01.000 Wow.

01:43:02.000 237 of 407 got COVID. 58%.

01:43:08.000 That shows you how high risk these people were and how well protected those that took that regimen of ivermectin and the carrageenan.

01:43:16.000 So let's be real clear here.

01:43:17.000 None of the people who took it prophylactically in that study got COVID. 58% of the people that didn't take it got COVID. Correct.

01:43:26.000 That's crazy.

01:43:26.000 And the point is that, you know, that is within a study.

01:43:31.000 Yes.

01:43:31.000 If the study is not outright fraudulent, the chances of getting a result that skewed are effectively zero.

01:43:39.000 It's just insane that these calls for or these criticisms of potential publication bias aren't met with once the evidence has been established, once you've looked at it and they'd say, no, there's no publication bias.

01:43:53.000 Why aren't people going, well, this is amazing news then?

01:43:56.000 Right.

01:43:56.000 Because this is what we've been searching for.

01:43:58.000 So, again, I want to just point out the evidence that the molecule works is overwhelming, right?

01:44:06.000 Figuring out how to use it best is a question that reasonable people could disagree over, but it's something that we would find out if we applied it and collected the information.

01:44:15.000 But that graph, which I realized I forgot to say where it came from, that was work done by Ira Longini at the University of Florida and his postdoc, Natalie Dean.

01:44:27.000 And what that, I think I forgot to say, the y-axis on there is the one fly in the ointment, which is that Those curves are drawn based on an effectiveness at preventing viral shedding and an effectiveness at preventing the contraction of the disease.

01:44:45.000 And although there's every reason to expect that viral shedding would be low with the use of ivermectin, I don't think we have that data yet.

01:44:52.000 But anyway, Assuming that that comes out the way one would expect based on what we do know, what that graph says is that given an R-naught of the type that we believe we have, that we have a single tool that even if it didn't work to treat sick people,

01:45:10.000 Is effective enough to rid the world of this disease, and the farther below one the effectiveness is, the more rapidly we can drive it to extinction.

01:45:21.000 But why we are not even considering this, why we are instead of applying this drug good enough today to do the job, and instead going to invest $3 billion to see if there are any drugs out there that we can come up with that might work, it really does suggest that what is driving here has to do with...

01:45:40.000 Profits.

01:45:40.000 I hate to say it, but yes.

01:45:42.000 Let me bring up the principal investigator of that trial.

01:45:44.000 So his name is Hector Carvalho.

01:45:45.000 He's this lovely, lovely guy.

01:45:47.000 This is the Argentina health care worker.

01:45:48.000 Yeah, he's so great.

01:45:50.000 He's actually retired, but he used to run hospitals.

01:45:52.000 He had very prominent positions.

01:45:53.000 And he was the PI, principal investigator of this trial.

01:45:56.000 And I've gotten to be friendly and collegial with him because we've shared data and insights, and we lecture in different places.

01:46:05.000 I asked him, I said, you know, because his trial was already done last June, and I said, what's the latest data as you're following these patients?

01:46:13.000 And he says, still today, out of those large groups of healthcare workers, the only times anyone's gotten sick when he's looked at those cases, either they forgot to take their doses or they took inappropriate doses, but generally almost all of them have maintained protection.

01:46:30.000 The other thing I'm going to borrow with you because it goes to your question is he has this phrase which I love.

01:46:35.000 He says, unfortunately, ivermectin has affected the most sensitive organ on humans, the wallet.

01:46:46.000 I thought that was a pretty clever, witty way of saying what the problem is.

01:46:50.000 It answers your question, like, why aren't we doing this?

01:46:52.000 And apparently, ivermectin is really damaging to the wallet, Joe.

01:46:57.000 How much of this did you guys discuss on your podcast that has been taken down?

01:47:02.000 Yeah.

01:47:03.000 We discussed a lot of it that, you know, some of this is new.

01:47:06.000 The entire podcast has been taken down?

01:47:08.000 The entire podcast has been taken down.

01:47:11.000 You know, I should also point out, I don't know, did you mention that Dr. Corey's Senate testimony was taken down by YouTube?

01:47:17.000 I find this one of the most glaring facts.

01:47:20.000 No.

01:47:21.000 Your Senate testimony has been taken down?

01:47:23.000 Oh, a long time ago.

01:47:24.000 Yeah.

01:47:24.000 I mean, it hit almost 9 million views and then it got disappeared.

01:47:29.000 Oh, that's the other thing I wanted to bring up with Hector Carvalho in Argentina.

01:47:32.000 You know, this is the PI, this incredible study.

01:47:35.000 And by the way, his is not alone.

01:47:37.000 We have now 14 prophylaxis studies and some of them quite large.

01:47:42.000 Every time he mentions ivermectin, he says it's scrubbed from the internet.

01:47:46.000 He can't really share his data.

01:47:49.000 There's a lot of censorship down there around ivermectin.

01:47:54.000 The drug is specifically called out in YouTube's community guidelines.

01:47:59.000 They mention it.

01:48:00.000 Right?

01:48:01.000 Thou shalt not discuss the effectiveness of ivermectin.

01:48:05.000 But you're allowed to discuss remdesivir?

01:48:08.000 Oh, yeah.

01:48:09.000 It's approved.

01:48:10.000 It's part of the NIH guideline.

01:48:12.000 You know, there was an article written by Matt Taibbi.

01:48:14.000 Right.

01:48:14.000 I mean, the look on your face says it all.

01:48:16.000 This is not adding up.

01:48:18.000 Yeah, so I got interviewed for it and I thought it was a fair representation.

01:48:24.000 He balanced both sides, but I liked his phrase.

01:48:27.000 He called me some sort of ghost of the internet because wherever I go, things get removed.

01:48:32.000 Things disappear.

01:48:33.000 And so his got taken down.

01:48:35.000 I did a long interview with a guy named John Campbell from the UK. He has almost a million subscribers on YouTube.

01:48:41.000 He's a medical educator.

01:48:42.000 Been covering lots of COVID-related topics.

01:48:47.000 And we discussed ivermectin for a half hour.

01:48:51.000 That got taken down.

01:48:52.000 Another medical educator, Dr. Bean, who's really a great, a phenomenal educator who I've conversed with.

01:48:59.000 When I went on his, and he's constantly reviewing data on many aspects of COVID, but I think at one point every video of his where he addressed ivermectin got demonetized.

01:49:10.000 And this is a medical educator.

01:49:12.000 That's his whole...

01:49:14.000 Demonetize I can live with.

01:49:15.000 Yeah.

01:49:16.000 I don't like it.

01:49:16.000 It's the shutting down the discussion.

01:49:18.000 Yeah.

01:49:18.000 I don't like the demonetization because what it is is it's a thinly veiled attempt at self-censorship.

01:49:25.000 If you demonetize people enough for very specific subjects, they will no longer breach those subjects because they know it's going to hurt their pockets.

01:49:33.000 Right.

01:49:36.000 I ran across something.

01:49:37.000 I think you're more familiar with it than I am, but I ran across it yesterday.

01:49:41.000 Evidence that, let's see if I get the list right, the AP, Reuters, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, the Washington Post.

01:49:51.000 Who else is on this list?

01:49:53.000 Financial Times, a long list of places where information is distributed have teamed up to prevent the distribution of what they're calling medical misinformation, which of course now, you know, your listeners will have heard a discussion about a very promising drug for treating and preventing COVID,

01:50:14.000 which we're now forbidden to talk about on YouTube, at least in positive light.

01:50:20.000 And The implication, you know, if you think so, I've been making the argument that capture was originally named regulatory capture, right?

01:50:31.000 And it gives the impression, oh, the regulatory agency has been captured by the thing that it's supposed to regulate, the nuclear industry.

01:50:37.000 It may have captured the Department of Energy, for example, and therefore decisions start going its way.

01:50:45.000 In this case, I really think we need to start thinking in terms of capture that extends to other places, right?

01:50:51.000 You expect the regulator to be captured, but you don't necessarily expect the New York Times to be captured.

01:50:57.000 You don't expect all of the places that you might discuss what's going on.

01:51:00.000 You don't expect the places where you would discuss capture to be captured, and yet they are.

01:51:05.000 And so to have YouTube Controlling the bounds of discussion, obviously forbidding scientifically viable conversations from happening, which are the only thing that stands a chance of correcting this unbearable momentum in favor of a single solution,

01:51:25.000 which itself has hazards associated with it.

01:51:28.000 Right?

01:51:29.000 And I don't know if we do or don't want to go there.

01:51:31.000 But the point is, this, you know, this drug, comparatively safe, very safe by any measure, is highly effective.

01:51:41.000 And yet, the official policy is effectively vaccines At any cost and get everybody on them.

01:51:50.000 And don't talk about other stuff that's not approved.

01:51:52.000 Don't talk about the alternatives.

01:51:54.000 And none of it makes any sense because just consider the anomalies, right?

01:51:59.000 The anomalies are things that even if you accept what the opponents of this perspective are saying can't be explained, right?

01:52:09.000 Why is it that we are not giving, let's say that everybody who's vaccine skeptical is a crazy person, right?

01:52:17.000 I don't think they are.

01:52:18.000 I'm vaccine skeptical.

01:52:19.000 But, and I don't mean that generally.

01:52:22.000 I'm very enthusiastic about vaccines in a general sense.

01:52:25.000 I'm highly vaccinated.

01:52:26.000 But in this case, I'm worried about a set of vaccines that were sped through this process where their manufacturers have been immunized from liability and where there is a very strong signal that something is not right.

01:52:38.000 Why is it, given that you have a population of vaccine-hesitant people, however they got there, even if they got there from confusion, where we're trying to reach herd immunity in order to ostensibly drive the pathogen to extinction, where this drug appears to give people immunity to a large extent,

01:52:56.000 maybe a complete extent from the pathogen in question, why would we not be giving ivermectin to those who won't take the vaccine, can't take the vaccine, to whom the vaccine will not reach, All of those categories, even if you believe the vaccine was far and away the best solution to this problem,

01:53:13.000 all of those categories would benefit from having ivermectin, and the population as a whole would benefit from them having it because it would leave fewer people for this pathogen to jump to, and yet we don't do it.

01:53:26.000 I don't think that can be explained by anything.

01:53:29.000 There is no logical defense for it.

01:53:30.000 It would be a great way to fill that hole of people who aren't going to get vaccinated.

01:53:34.000 100%.

01:53:36.000 You know, the graph, I don't know if you mentioned this, but, you know, In that graph, when you look at the population, you already have now a large proportion that have been vaccinated and then a large proportion of herd immunity.

01:53:47.000 So the amount of water the ivermectin has to carry to get us to the goal line is not as large.

01:53:54.000 It's not as large.

01:53:55.000 It's not as large at all.

01:53:56.000 And you're going to want to deploy this.

01:53:58.000 I mean, imagine that you took the vaccine, right?

01:54:02.000 And then you had a breakthrough case, right?

01:54:05.000 This is now happening regularly.

01:54:08.000 Why are we not giving ivermectin to people with breakthrough cases of COVID? They did what they were asked to do, and they now have this condition.

01:54:18.000 So anyway, there's a large rabbit hole surrounding what they are pushing instead of ivermectin, but really what we can't answer.

01:54:28.000 We're vaccinating children, right?

01:54:30.000 That's not safe.

01:54:32.000 We have a drug that we could administer that is safe in children that appears to be highly effective, right?

01:54:39.000 If you were going to insist that children have some sort of protection in spite of the fact that they tolerate COVID very well, ivermectin would be a far better choice.

01:54:47.000 You know, one difference, I don't know how big of a difference it is, if I understood you correctly, but the way I see that censorship and that TNI, I think it's called Trusted News Initiative, I don't know enough about it, but from what I understand, it was a consortium of major media outlets that came to some sort of agreement to suppress medical misinformation and I guess it was somehow defined as anything that doesn't come from what I call the gods of science and knowledge,

01:55:14.000 right?

01:55:14.000 So from the leading agencies.

01:55:16.000 And when you talk about, I've been working on this analogy, which is that it's almost like you're in a plane emergency, right?

01:55:22.000 And a plane is crashing, like we're in an emergency right now.

01:55:25.000 And everyone's saying, listen to the captain.

01:55:27.000 You have to listen to the captain's instructions.

01:55:29.000 Don't listen to anyone else, but listen to the captain.

01:55:31.000 And no one's considering, what if the hijackers already got the captain?

01:55:36.000 And you're not listening to really good advice.

01:55:39.000 And that's what it seems like here.

01:55:40.000 And we're listening to hijackers.

01:55:41.000 Yeah, or your house is on fire and there's a bucket of water and somebody stops you from using it because you haven't proved its water.

01:55:48.000 I love those analogies, yes.

01:55:51.000 Yeah, something is not adding up here.

01:55:55.000 And I think it is worth pointing out that...

01:55:58.000 I don't know what explains it, but throughout this story, we've got Dr. Fauci in a very strange position.

01:56:08.000 Again.

01:56:08.000 Yeah, again, right?

01:56:10.000 And that's the problem.

01:56:11.000 So at the same point that we have a drug that appears to work, in fact, we have several of them, Yeah.

01:56:34.000 Why is the same guy in a position where he may have contributed to causing the pandemic, and now here he is in a position to do something about the pandemic, and he's making exactly the wrong decision.

01:56:44.000 He's not wielding the tools we have.

01:56:46.000 He's announcing a search for new tools as if the tools we have don't exist.

01:56:50.000 Nothing here adds up.

01:56:52.000 And at the very least, okay, so nothing adds up.

01:56:57.000 We can't talk about it in the official channels because the official channels are constrained.

01:57:01.000 And then the free people who discuss this on the internet, who take their expertise on the internet and discuss the fact that something is not adding up, are being silenced by YouTube and Facebook and whoever else.

01:57:13.000 And the point is, it all points to one thing, right?

01:57:17.000 For some reason, there's a desire not to apply this tool, and there is a pursuit of other tools, and there is no cost-benefit analysis that will cause that system to rethink.

01:57:26.000 It's not scientifically based.

01:57:29.000 That's what I want to be clear.

01:57:30.000 Because, you know, Joe, what happened to me is...

01:57:34.000 The guy that I was a year ago and the guy that I am now is totally different.

01:57:39.000 Like, I just see the world a lot different.

01:57:41.000 I guess you could say I'm more cynical, but every time I get cynical, I also find out that I'm correct in that cynicism.

01:57:48.000 Like, everything that I'm suspecting, I'm actually finding evidence that the forces that I think are acting improperly actually are.

01:57:56.000 And, you know, when is it going to stop?

01:58:01.000 Well, it's just so extraordinary than all the years you've been practicing medicine, that in the last year, it's changed you this much in the face of this ever.

01:58:10.000 Because of what happened to the science, I always thought that data would win out and science trumps all.

01:58:16.000 I came into it naive, and we came with our experience, our expertise, our insights into the disease that me and the group, We obsessively studied this disease, and we're also decades of experience,

01:58:31.000 highly published.

01:58:32.000 And when we came out with our protocols, I don't know if you know this, but I gave Senate testimony back in May, a year ago, and I gave testimony To the world saying that it was critical that we use corticosteroids.

01:58:47.000 And I did that at a time when every national and international health agency said, do not use corticosteroids in COVID. And I was roundly attacked, harassed, and criticized for that very public recommendation.

01:59:00.000 What was the reason why you recommended it?

01:59:03.000 Because we knew it was critical in this disease.

01:59:06.000 So about four reasons.

01:59:08.000 Number one, my colleague in our group, his name is Umberto Maduri.

01:59:12.000 He is the world experts at corticosteroids and lung disease.

01:59:17.000 Decades of practice.

01:59:19.000 He's made multiple contributions to our specialty.

01:59:21.000 Him and another group of scholars reviewed all of the trials from SARS, MERS, and H1N1, so the prior pandemics.

01:59:30.000 And when you really carefully control, because they were all what's called observational trials back then, and so there's a lot of what are called confounders.

01:59:37.000 But when you control for the confounders really carefully, What him and his group, and what I think is a landmark paper, what they found was that corticosteroids were actually life-saving in the prior coronavirus pandemics.

01:59:50.000 So we knew that when you really look carefully, again, going back to that laziness and the lack of deep expertise and deep dives into the data, which is what Humberto and his group did back in April of last year, they found that it was actually life-saving.

02:00:06.000 So that was one reason I knew.

02:00:08.000 The other reason I knew is because I was born, raised, trained, lived in New York.

02:00:13.000 I moved to Wisconsin.

02:00:15.000 I was recruited by the University of Wisconsin five years ago.

02:00:17.000 But I know guys and gals in every ICU in New York City.

02:00:22.000 And when they got hit, It was bad.

02:00:25.000 And I was in Wisconsin.

02:00:26.000 We weren't hit yet.

02:00:27.000 And I was on the phone with them every day.

02:00:29.000 I was trying to learn everything I could about disease.

02:00:31.000 And the stuff that I was hearing, first of all, that was just Armageddon.

02:00:34.000 It was insane, the stuff that I was hearing.

02:00:37.000 I mean, it just still brings back really horrible memories of what happened to New York and Seattle and Detroit and New Orleans.

02:00:44.000 If you remember that time when, I mean, to know what it was like on the inside, the newspapers did a reasonable job of describing it, but it was really, really bad.

02:00:52.000 But I knew from them that people were crashing onto ventilators and they weren't coming off.

02:01:00.000 They weren't coming off.

02:01:01.000 They were dying on ventilators, the lungs were deteriorating, and they were just doing what's called supportive care only, which is Tylenol, fluids, oxygen, and it wasn't working.

02:01:11.000 And then some of the colleagues who said, you know, we've got to try something, they were trying steroids, which what we were saying, we kind of knew, we already knew steroids were indicated.

02:01:21.000 And those that started to use steroids, you started...

02:01:23.000 Actually, it was interesting.

02:01:24.000 It started popping up on social media.

02:01:27.000 Doctors, some of them anonymously, were starting to post like, hey, we're using steroids.

02:01:32.000 We're using it early when they're...

02:01:33.000 As soon as they get on oxygen and we're finding they're not getting intubated.

02:01:36.000 You know, they're coming off ventilators and we're actually discharging patients.

02:01:40.000 And so you had like on the ground, like real-time feedback that was working.

02:01:45.000 We knew from prior trials.

02:01:47.000 And then I wrote a...

02:01:49.000 A paper talking about how the type of lung disease that COVID causes, and I don't want to get too wonky here, but it's a disease called organizing pneumonia, which is not an infectious pneumonia.

02:02:01.000 It's actually, although they call it a pneumonia, it's just a reaction to a lung injury, to exposure to something.

02:02:07.000 And so the lungs are reacting in the form of an organizing pneumonia.

02:02:13.000 The cardinal therapy for organizing pneumonia is steroids.

02:02:18.000 And not only is it steroids, but it's oftentimes high-dose steroids, and you're supposed to weed them off as the disease gets better, not some predefined time.

02:02:28.000 And I think we talked about it on your podcast, and I just have to say it again, but...

02:02:34.000 My belief, leaving ivermectin alone, is that many, many thousands of people are dying around the world from undertreatment with corticosteroids.

02:02:45.000 We now have significant amounts of data to show that.

02:02:48.000 The trials which use methylprednisolone at higher doses have much better outcomes.

02:02:54.000 And also you need longer durations.

02:02:56.000 What the whole world is doing is they're following.

02:02:58.000 Remember how we talked about the pitfalls of a large randomized controlled trial?

02:03:02.000 So when I said to use corticosteroids in the Senate testimony, I was attacked, criticized everywhere because there was no randomized control trial.

02:03:10.000 Seven weeks later, Oxford put out the recovery trial, which is their big trial in the UK, and they showed that corticosteroids were life-saving.

02:03:18.000 So we were validated.

02:03:19.000 We were validated back then.

02:03:22.000 And they used a small dose of a corticosteroid for a predetermined time, 10 days.

02:03:29.000 By the way, I've been traveling around the country in different ICUs throughout the pandemic because I left University of Wisconsin.

02:03:35.000 I helped out my old ICU in New York when they were getting inundated.

02:03:38.000 And then I was in Greenville and Milwaukee.

02:03:40.000 And so I've been in a bunch of ICUs.

02:03:42.000 And I kept seeing doctors using six milligrams of dexamethasone for 10 days and stopping.

02:03:49.000 They were literally stopping steroids where patients were still sick on high amounts of oxygen on ventilators.

02:03:55.000 And I mean, there's nothing more absurdly bizarre than doing that.

02:04:00.000 Like the disease is still marching on.

02:04:02.000 It's still overwhelming these patients and you're stopping a medicine.

02:04:05.000 Why do they stop?

02:04:06.000 Because the trial said that.

02:04:08.000 That was the trial protocol.

02:04:09.000 So people decided they're not going to doctor anymore.

02:04:12.000 They're just going to follow the trial protocol.

02:04:14.000 And I'm saying, you got a doctor.

02:04:16.000 You follow the patient.

02:04:17.000 You don't follow some protocol.

02:04:19.000 I mean, the human condition is a bit variable, don't you think?

02:04:23.000 We're not all the same.

02:04:24.000 But the hidden feature of your story here, right, is that back when we were talking about corticosteroids, you had doctors who were pooling their insights, right?

02:04:37.000 And it resulted in a discovery that something should be done.

02:04:41.000 To have YouTube and all of its fellows in the, what is it, TNI, deciding that we can't talk in public about this topic It means that that process can't happen.

02:04:53.000 Now, why is that process being frustrated?

02:04:56.000 We can guess.

02:04:57.000 Yes, it probably has to do with profits.

02:04:58.000 And I must say, every time I try to sort through the logic of why this would be suppressed, the consequence of it being suppressed is obvious, which is that the standard of care doesn't improve.

02:05:09.000 But why?

02:05:11.000 I keep coming back to these emergency use authorizations, which have a provision in them.

02:05:15.000 They cannot grant an emergency use authorization if there is an existing treatment that is safe and effective, right?

02:05:22.000 The vaccines would not have been authorized if ivermectin was understood to be what it is.

02:05:26.000 And that, I have the sense, is the key thing that explains everything else.

02:05:32.000 Somehow, those EUAs and the liability waivers That these companies have been granted mean that this is all the more profitable if they can silence a discussion about a cheap, effective competitor that is safe that already exists.

02:05:49.000 And so in some sense, they started with the conclusion.

02:05:52.000 Ivermectin doesn't exist.

02:05:54.000 It does not effectively treat this disease.

02:05:56.000 And anybody who says otherwise is spreading so-called medical misinformation when, in fact, what they're spreading is information, right?

02:06:04.000 So bunk is debunk.

02:06:06.000 Information is misinformation.

02:06:07.000 It's all on its head.

02:06:09.000 We're through the licking glass.

02:06:10.000 I want to bring up something that you glossed over earlier, but you stopped.

02:06:14.000 You didn't go back to it.

02:06:15.000 It's long COVID and the effectiveness on long COVID. Yeah.

02:06:18.000 So I don't want to use that term infomercial because it's a bad term.

02:06:23.000 Well, because it cheapens the subject in a bit.

02:06:26.000 But the way I want to say it is that...

02:06:31.000 The efficacy of ivermectin in all of these phases is just truly remarkable.

02:06:36.000 And it's, you know, Paul Maric, he uses this phrase that hopefully this is going to be taken seriously.

02:06:45.000 But, you know, he said it's like this is a gift.

02:06:47.000 This was a gift to humanity, this drug.

02:06:50.000 And it's showing itself not only in the data that we've already reviewed, but Long COVID, right?

02:06:56.000 We still don't understand exactly what's causing long COVID, right?

02:06:59.000 But if you know anything about it, right, it's a whole constellation of symptoms, generally marked by fatigue.

02:07:05.000 People just don't feel well, right?

02:07:07.000 They feel run down, sometimes dizzy, sometimes with fevers, headache, sore joints.

02:07:13.000 Brain fog.

02:07:14.000 And then the brain fog.

02:07:15.000 So a lot of it is cognitive.

02:07:17.000 They just don't feel like they're themselves.

02:07:19.000 They're forgetful.

02:07:20.000 And when you interact with some of these patients as a physician, it's really sad.

02:07:26.000 Like, I know 29-year-olds who are disabled.

02:07:29.000 Like, literally healthy 29-year-olds who can't go back to work.

02:07:34.000 And they can't participate in their relationships.

02:07:36.000 They can't do the fun stuff that they do.

02:07:38.000 Anything they do, they feel terrible.

02:07:41.000 Okay.

02:07:42.000 What's interesting, so we don't really know what drives it.

02:07:44.000 We're starting to get more and more insights.

02:07:47.000 In fact, we are working now in a collaboration.

02:07:50.000 It's a network of folks, and two in particular doing a lot of research on long COVID. They're doing a lot of immunological studies and a lot of investigations into different inflammatory markers and what are called cytokines.

02:08:04.000 So we're starting to understand that it is persistent inflammation.

02:08:08.000 We don't think it's persistent virus.

02:08:11.000 We think it's persistent viral proteins that are in some of the immune cells that are triggering the immune cells.

02:08:17.000 And so what's interesting is ivermectin is showing really strong efficacy.

02:08:23.000 And when my first case of a patient who I treated for long COVID, I mean, they literally were almost crying in joy because they had been sick for so long.

02:08:33.000 And I have dozens of testimonials of people who...

02:08:38.000 We're sick for months.

02:08:40.000 They took Ivermectin and they said like within 12 to 24 hours, suddenly they started to feel better.

02:08:46.000 Well, let me ask you this.

02:08:46.000 It's not long COVID. Are we thinking that the virus is still infecting people?

02:08:52.000 No, we don't think it's persistent virus.

02:08:54.000 If that's the case, then how is Ivermectin curing these people that have this long-term...

02:09:03.000 It has, we think, a number of antiviral properties.

02:09:06.000 So it interrupts the replication and entry of the virus.

02:09:09.000 But it also has a number of anti-inflammatory properties.

02:09:12.000 So it actually modulates and it decreases the inflammation in the body.

02:09:16.000 So if something's triggering ongoing inflammation, ivermectin can tamp that down.

02:09:22.000 So we think it's acting as an anti-inflammatory.

02:09:25.000 But it also binds to the spike protein.

02:09:27.000 And we think that there are persistent proteins in some of these cells.

02:09:31.000 And so ivermectin, we believe, is somehow binding to and kind of suppressing the triggering of inflammation by these proteins.

02:09:40.000 Again, I wouldn't say don't quote me on that, but I will be the first to admit we need to learn a lot more about long COVID. What's interesting about long COVID is if you talk to a patient, yeah, you keep doing the studies, just help me to feel better,

02:09:55.000 right?

02:09:55.000 Like the average patient, they don't really care what it is or what we're treating.

02:10:00.000 They want to know that what we're doing is working.

02:10:02.000 And those are our theories as to why it works, but it's really, really satisfying.

02:10:06.000 Now, the trick with ivermectin and long COVID is there's kind of two groups.

02:10:11.000 There are some patients Which literally get better after like a couple of doses and then they're good to go.

02:10:17.000 They like feel better and they're back to normal.

02:10:19.000 Whereas quite a few others, I'd say the majority, kind of need...

02:10:23.000 And here's where you got to doctor and titrate.

02:10:26.000 You kind of got to go longer, sometimes higher doses.

02:10:29.000 Sometimes we pair it with corticosteroids.

02:10:30.000 What's the standard dose?

02:10:31.000 So it's 0.2 milligrams per kilogram.

02:10:36.000 So for like a 70 kilogram male, it'll be about 12, 15 milligrams.

02:10:42.000 But we sometimes use a little bit higher doses if we don't get the effect and or longer durations or more frequently.

02:10:49.000 So I have one guy I've been treating for many months and him we've messed around with a few things and now we're down to like once or twice a week is what we're using it and but he feels he starts to feel unwell after he doesn't have a dose for a few days and so some of them you have to you treat long but The thing is,

02:11:07.000 I just want to, if I can, just talk about our organization, because it is a non-profit, Joe, and our protocols are all on our website, and I think they're really helpful for patients and physicians.

02:11:18.000 This is good, sound medicine that I want to share, but our website is flccc.net.

02:11:24.000 And we're a non-profit, and we've put out our protocols, the rationale, the studies for them, and we put out what's called the iRecover protocol.

02:11:32.000 That's our protocol for long COVID. It also applies to post-vaccine syndromes.

02:11:40.000 We have encountered numerous patients who've gotten quite sick after the vaccines, and that's persisted.

02:11:48.000 And there, The reason why ivermectin is so potent is much more clear to explain, right?

02:11:55.000 The vaccines, right, tell your body to make spike proteins.

02:12:00.000 And the whole big thing, the discussions around vaccines, which Brett really addressed with Steve and Robert on his podcast, but we're learning that the spike protein is actually not benign.

02:12:12.000 It's a pathogen.

02:12:13.000 It can make some people sick and some people quite sick.

02:12:16.000 And ivermectin binds to the spike protein.

02:12:20.000 So if you're one of those people who have a prolonged illness or are suddenly not feeling well after a vaccine, ivermectin seems to neutralize the spike protein and make patients a lot better.

02:12:32.000 That's been another really satisfying aspect.

02:12:34.000 People who've come to me really sick, they're feeling terrible after the vaccines, sometimes one to two to three weeks, and they take ivermectin and they're feeling better within a couple of days.

02:12:45.000 So there are a number of things to say here, and I think we should be cautious because some things like the evidence that ivermectin binds the spike protein, it's hard to find evidence of that directly.

02:12:58.000 True.

02:12:59.000 But in any case...

02:13:00.000 And the evidence...

02:13:01.000 Actually, I want to thank you for caution because I do want to be more cautious.

02:13:06.000 A couple of things.

02:13:07.000 The evidence for binding to spike protein is more what's called in silico.

02:13:12.000 It's basically computational modeling, where they're looking as to see what it would bind to.

02:13:17.000 And we think that the binding of ivermectin to COVID is how it works.

02:13:24.000 And it makes sense, not only from the in silico studies, but also the fact that it prevents entry.

02:13:29.000 Because if it binds to COVID, that also would suggest why you're preventing people from getting ill, because they can't enter.

02:13:37.000 But the other thing that I really want to emphasize as far as caution is that when we say that we're having efficacy and success in treating long COVID, I want to be clear.

02:13:48.000 We do not have clinical trials to support that protocol.

02:13:53.000 All we have is clinical experience, but it's becoming larger and wider.

02:13:59.000 Again, my network of physicians that have been using ivermectin for acute as well as long is growing, and the numbers of patients they're treating is also increasing.

02:14:09.000 But remember that pyramid I talked about before?

02:14:11.000 When you talk about treatment of long COVID, you're at the lower levels of the pyramid, right?

02:14:15.000 I don't have big trials or lots of even small clinical trials.

02:14:20.000 So I think one thing that is conspicuous is many things lead back to spike protein, right?

02:14:28.000 So COVID is a bizarre disease, right?

02:14:32.000 It does a lot of damage to a lot of different systems, as Pierre can tell you.

02:14:38.000 The fact that the vaccines utilize spike protein At the level of the drawing board makes sense, but this was done at the drawing board before it was understood that the spike protein itself was cytotoxic.

02:14:53.000 Now, one of the things that we got tremendous pushback for on my podcast with Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch was the claim made by Robert that spike protein is cytotoxic.

02:15:06.000 Cytotoxic means kills cells.

02:15:09.000 This is actually unambiguous.

02:15:11.000 And the pushback was actually very carefully phrased because what they're really saying is that the spike protein in the vaccines is not cytotoxic as far as we know.

02:15:22.000 There is no evidence of that, right?

02:15:24.000 But as Robert points out, this is nonsense because what we know, what we learned too late to prevent the vaccine manufacturers from using spike protein Was that spike protein is cytotoxic.

02:15:36.000 And the subunit that they have used is based on that spike protein.

02:15:41.000 Now they have locked it.

02:15:43.000 So this is a protein that changes form, right?

02:15:46.000 It basically closes like a clamp.

02:15:49.000 And they have modified the sequence to lock it open in order that the part of the spike protein that is, this is too deep in the weeds probably, But that is not covered by sugars, right, is available for the immune system to discover it.

02:16:02.000 So they've locked it open.

02:16:03.000 And there is a possibility that that would prevent it from being toxic.

02:16:07.000 But they didn't design it to be non-toxic.

02:16:09.000 They locked it so that the immune system could see it.

02:16:13.000 And the problem is that this vaccine or these vaccines have already failed at several different levels.

02:16:20.000 The way the vaccine is supposed to work, it is supposed to be injected into you.

02:16:23.000 At the injection site, it is supposed to have the mRNAs or the DNA enter the cells, trigger the production of spike protein.

02:16:31.000 The spike protein is supposed to move to the surface of the cell and it is supposed to stay there.

02:16:36.000 It has a domain that is supposed to stick it into the cell surface where the immune system is supposed to see it and learn it, right?

02:16:42.000 Now, the fact is, the components of the vaccine do not stay in the injection site, and the spike proteins do not stay locked to the cell surface.

02:16:52.000 Maybe some of them do, but many of them seem to float around the body.

02:16:55.000 So we have this molecule, which is based on a COVID molecule or a SARS-CoV-2 molecule that is cytotoxic.

02:17:02.000 I think?

02:17:20.000 It makes sense that there's been an error here, right?

02:17:37.000 COVID itself, long COVID after the virus is gone, but there are still viral proteins, probably spike protein, and post-vaccine syndrome, where the spike protein has been produced in isolation of the virus, all of them have a similar collection of symptoms.

02:17:52.000 And this would also explain why ivermectin, whatever its mechanism of action, and there seem to be several, seems to be effective in treating all of them.

02:18:00.000 But it's all telling us a kind of remarkable story.

02:18:04.000 And, you know, you have to ask, like, if you put the question to a business school class, what would you expect the behavior of a corporation that manufactures a product to be at the point you've immunized them from liability, right?

02:18:18.000 I think the answer would be obvious, right?

02:18:20.000 You would expect them to become a lot less sensitive to the harm that their product does and to pursue profit in spite of Potential harm.

02:18:27.000 Is that what's going on?

02:18:28.000 Because it sure seems logical that the behavior would come from that calculation.

02:18:34.000 Now let me ask you this about the spike protein.

02:18:36.000 This effect, first of all, how do we know that it's not staying in the area of the injection, going throughout the body and crossing the blood-brain barrier?

02:18:48.000 How has this been measured?

02:18:49.000 And why do some people get the vaccine and have no side effects whatsoever?

02:18:55.000 Okay.

02:18:56.000 So, I talked to Robert a little bit about this.

02:18:58.000 The evidence that the spike protein is cytotoxic, I'm working from memory here, but I believe it comes from human cell cultures.

02:19:06.000 And this is from the Salk Institute's paper?

02:19:08.000 Yeah.

02:19:09.000 From mice.

02:19:11.000 And from...

02:19:12.000 I've now forgotten the term.

02:19:16.000 There's a term for bits of brain that have been grown separately on a chip for work in the laboratory.

02:19:26.000 I'll see if I can find the term.

02:19:28.000 But in any case, it's been demonstrated in these...

02:19:35.000 Are you answering the question, Brett, of how do we know the spike proteins circulate?

02:19:40.000 Well, so A, I believe we know that the manufacturers ran a test that was basically, whether intentional or not, built to fail, right?

02:19:52.000 Apparently they used whole body—there's a— A reporter protein that fluoresces that you can basically put in place of the mRNAs for the spike protein, and then you can see where it ends up in a mouse model.

02:20:08.000 You can basically see which parts of the animal are lit up.

02:20:11.000 But if you do that by sectioning the tissues, so you're looking at the tissues, it's a very sensitive assay.

02:20:17.000 If you do it by looking at the whole animal, then the photons have to go through a lot of tissue to get out, and so you don't see it.

02:20:22.000 And so it's not surprising that you would see it concentrated at the injection site.

02:20:27.000 So, in any case, in the demonstration phase, we had a test that wasn't capable of seeing smaller amounts that circulate around the body.

02:20:36.000 What we now have is evidence, for example, from this recent autopsy case, in which the spike proteins have been found throughout many tissues of a person who died following, it was following COVID, right?

02:20:51.000 Yeah.

02:20:52.000 Right.

02:20:53.000 Oh, no.

02:20:53.000 It's following vaccination.

02:20:54.000 There's one following vaccine.

02:20:56.000 There's also an autopsy study with COVID. But what you said was correct on both.

02:21:01.000 I don't want to detract from it.

02:21:02.000 But what we're seeing now is I think people are misunderstanding whether it's virus or protein.

02:21:09.000 And we think even in the non-vaccinated, what they're seeing is actually just viral proteins, not actual virus in a lot of those tissues.

02:21:18.000 Well, we see a couple different things.

02:21:20.000 We see spike proteins, but we also see this lipid nanoparticle coat material.

02:21:26.000 So the lipid nanoparticles are designed to protect the mRNA and get it into the cells that are supposed to transcribe, they're supposed to make the spike protein.

02:21:36.000 And this coding is now floating around the body.

02:21:39.000 It has conspicuously shown up in some places where you really wouldn't want to see a signal like ovaries.

02:21:45.000 And so we have that.

02:21:46.000 And then we have the question of the spike protein, which is not the initial vaccination floating around.

02:21:52.000 It's the consequence of...

02:22:04.000 Yeah.

02:22:05.000 Yeah.

02:22:17.000 And is there a theory as to why some people get vaccinated and have zero side effects?

02:22:23.000 All I can say is I agree with the question because it does seem to be that it's very well tolerated by many people.

02:22:31.000 The argument is what is the proportion that don't and what is an acceptable proportion of those that don't?

02:22:41.000 I try not to address vaccines.

02:22:44.000 I try to focus on ivermectin because, you know, I think the ivermectin is such an important part of all of this.

02:22:51.000 And I think it would answer and solve a lot of the concerns around the vaccines.

02:22:55.000 And we consider it as a bridge to vaccination.

02:23:01.000 It's just so incredible that you've got this treatment, rather, that seems to be, well, first of all, is an antiparasitic that also works as an antiviral, that also works as an anti-inflammatory drug, that also binds to the spike protein.

02:23:15.000 I mean, it does so many things. 0.96

02:23:17.000 It's like, I smell bullshit, but not really. 0.99

02:23:21.000 Yeah, exactly. 1.00

02:23:22.000 It's like you would be super skeptical.

02:23:24.000 I'd like to say I wouldn't be here.

02:23:26.000 I wouldn't be here.

02:23:27.000 I wouldn't be anywhere talking about ivermectin if the data didn't support that, nor would my group.

02:23:33.000 Which is one of the reasons why it's so infuriating that this is being censored, which is one of the reasons why I wanted to have you guys in here early.

02:23:40.000 We should say we were scheduled to do this a few weeks from now, but we realized, like, okay, this is something that's...

02:23:46.000 it's heating up and there's a narrative, and this narrative is gonna get squashed if they wind up pulling your channel.

02:23:53.000 And, like, as far as we know, they don't have any influence right now over Spotify.

02:23:57.000 Or is there some, whatever it is.

02:24:00.000 And again, we don't know what this is.

02:24:01.000 And I don't want to pretend that I have evidence of some nefarious intentions.

02:24:07.000 I don't have a problem with YouTube.

02:24:09.000 And I think part of what the dilemma that YouTube faces is that they're managing at scale.

02:24:14.000 And I think it's insane and impossible.

02:24:17.000 And I think once you...

02:24:18.000 Once you make a choice to say this is disinformation or that anything that doesn't go against the accepted narrative by the WHO or the CDC is disinformation and we need to get rid of that, it's bad information, it's deceptive or it's dangerous,

02:24:34.000 whatever the label they put on it.

02:24:37.000 Once you make that distinction, you've put a You put motion, you put some events into motion, some actions, and it's very difficult to get people to admit that they made a mistake.

02:24:48.000 Agreed.

02:24:49.000 This is part of the problem with censorship.

02:24:52.000 Because we've seen already it was incorrect, at least in terms of being completely disputed, the lab leak theater.

02:25:00.000 It's not been disproven, and in fact...

02:25:03.000 People were getting censored and removed from social media platforms and banned for suggesting this in the past.

02:25:11.000 Now you can just openly do it and you can openly discuss it.

02:25:15.000 So I think the thing to point to is this.

02:25:20.000 Any time somebody decides they are going to upgrade conversation by forbidding certain things from being mentioned, you know, there are contexts in which that makes sense, right?

02:25:30.000 If you're teaching evolution, the requirement that you stop every time somebody wants to say, how do you know God didn't do it, right?

02:25:38.000 You have to curate that discussion and eliminate that.

02:25:41.000 But that's not the position that YouTube is in.

02:25:44.000 YouTube is dealing with a platform that covers us all. 0.63

02:25:47.000 And yeah, there's gonna be a lot of garbage circulated on that platform, to be sure. 0.59

02:25:51.000 That is the nature of human dialogue, right? 0.76

02:25:54.000 If you do it on paper, it'll be on paper.

02:25:56.000 If you do it on video, it'll be on YouTube.

02:25:58.000 It's just a human issue.

02:25:59.000 Right.

02:25:59.000 But at the point that you say, well, wouldn't it be great if we got rid of the nonsense?

02:26:05.000 Let's purge the platform of nonsense.

02:26:07.000 Okay, now you've created a tool.

02:26:10.000 That tool is inevitably going to be captured by people who are going to use it to shut down their competitors in order to profit from it.

02:26:17.000 It is going to be captured.

02:26:18.000 So the answer is, look, you're not really going to beat an open discussion in which nothing is forbidden short of actually breaking the law.

02:26:26.000 Right?

02:26:27.000 You're not going to upgrade the conversation.

02:26:29.000 And although you will shut down some cranks, you're also going to shut down some people who are trying to help you see that the tool you need is right in front of you.

02:26:38.000 Now, I could be wrong about that, right?

02:26:40.000 I freely admit...

02:26:42.000 This is new to me.

02:26:43.000 I am new to COVID. I have some specialties that are relevant.

02:26:47.000 Being an evolutionist allows me to see certain things.

02:26:49.000 It's a very good generalist toolkit, but I'm not a doctor.

02:26:52.000 I'm not a virologist, right?

02:26:54.000 I could be wrong about things here, but the only way we're going to figure out...

02:26:59.000 Whether I'm wrong, whether you're wrong, whether all of the people who see the same thing here or something similar are wrong is to have it out.

02:27:07.000 And if we are going to shield that discussion from the public so that doctors do not know that other doctors are seeing a signal and that they might have a tool at their disposal that they're not using, then people are going to die needlessly.

02:27:20.000 And YouTube needs to understand that it is taking responsibility for that.

02:27:24.000 I got to speak up about that because I think you said it earlier, Joe, when there's never been a time where censorship has led to a societal good.

02:27:36.000 Yeah, I think that was before the podcast, but yeah.

02:27:39.000 We talked briefly about that.

02:27:42.000 Never.

02:27:43.000 Never.

02:27:44.000 And if you look at any great thinker in history, any of their comments on censorship, it's considered to be like an indisputable harm to a healthy society.

02:27:54.000 And then when you talk about extending it to science, and so in the beginning, I tried to be a little bit magnanimous and say, okay, you know, Hate speech, calls for violence, insurrection, if you want to censor that, that's clear because if you don't,

02:28:12.000 people will get hurt, right?

02:28:13.000 And so I agree that – and I don't want to debate what is appropriate to censor – What isn't?

02:28:19.000 But I just can't figure out why a healthy debate of science and of medicine by credible physicians using data...

02:28:27.000 And you're basically saying to the average person in this country that you can't think for yourself.

02:28:32.000 We need to protect you from people talking about medicines That you can't credibly assess whether they're true, whether they're using the data correctly.

02:28:43.000 And so you're removing anyone's ability.

02:28:46.000 You're basically saying, we need to think for you because you're going to hurt yourself.

02:28:49.000 From medicines, from medical misinformation, you want to put that on the same shelf as calls for violence and insurrection.

02:28:56.000 Like, by the way, even before this happened, there's plenty of nonsense on the internet around But this is a different thing, right?

02:29:04.000 Because of the fact that it's a pandemic, everybody is very urgent in their actions.

02:29:08.000 So the excuse is they have to act quickly to stop this stuff.

02:29:13.000 The spread of disinformation can happen very rapidly.

02:29:17.000 They've decided it's different.

02:29:18.000 I agree with what you just said.

02:29:19.000 They've decided that, you know what?

02:29:22.000 Normally we wouldn't do that, but in this state of emergency, we're going to take on these powers and we're going to stensor.

02:29:28.000 And what Brett said was really important, and I think you've pointed that out, but like that one little experience of learning from other doctors on the front lines back in last spring about steroids to further support and validate that that's really what you need to do, that saved lives.

02:29:42.000 That saved a lot of lives.

02:29:44.000 And even when I gave the Senate testimony in May, even though I was attacked and criticized, being able to talk about the science and the support for steroids, many doctors started using it.

02:29:56.000 Actually, that wasn't censored.

02:29:58.000 Actually, I don't think they were censoring as hard in the beginning as they are now, at least around the steroids, because that didn't get taken down.

02:30:04.000 It also didn't get 9 million views.

02:30:06.000 The first censorship that I saw was almost valid.

02:30:09.000 They were censoring people from talking about 5G. There was a lot of nonsense.

02:30:14.000 But it was clearly goofy. 0.74

02:30:17.000 And they were pulling some of that stuff down.

02:30:20.000 Now, normally, you would say, well, that's wise.

02:30:23.000 The problem we're seeing is, once you do start censoring, once you clear that lane, you have a tool now.

02:30:31.000 You have this thing and you have a history of use.

02:30:33.000 So then you start going, well, what else can we censor?

02:30:36.000 Well, this is not in compliance with whatever organization we're currently following.

02:30:39.000 So let's censor that.

02:30:40.000 Whether it's Hunter Biden's laptop or lab leak.

02:30:44.000 But I just want to finish what you said.

02:30:46.000 I just have to emphasize again, because there's nothing more important than what you last said, is that there are lives, the suppression of ivermectin.

02:30:57.000 We could talk about the theoretical objections to the censorship in which there are many, especially history.

02:31:03.000 I think we threw out our history books as we went into the pandemic.

02:31:06.000 But just looking at Ivermectin, where's the incalculable loss of life?

02:31:13.000 And prolongation and worsening of this, not only in the U.S. across the world, incalculable doesn't even come close because I got to tell you, a lot of the world still follows the U.S. We're still considered, especially in medicine, some of the top trained and the tops of science and research around medicine.

02:31:33.000 So if the U.S. had adopted ivermectin, That would have had an immense global impact.

02:31:40.000 And so this particular instance, this issue of ivermectin and their censorship, I just got to say they got it wrong.

02:31:48.000 And it's almost hard for me to talk about what the implications of that was.

02:31:53.000 I mean, they literally...

02:31:54.000 Yeah, you don't want to say it.

02:31:57.000 They're horrifying.

02:31:58.000 You don't even want to put that responsibility on some other humans or set of humans account, right?

02:32:09.000 Well, you've seen it firsthand.

02:32:11.000 I see the people dying, man.

02:32:13.000 I see them crashing on the ventilators.

02:32:16.000 You know, especially, it's this thing about the early treatment, which you picked up on, Joe.

02:32:19.000 Like, if you treat them early, they don't go to the hospital.

02:32:22.000 They don't need me in the ICU. I'm really good at what I do, but these patients are really hard to get better once they're in ICU. They're very hard to turn around when you start late.

02:32:31.000 Even with ivermectin, I have seen it work, but most of the time I'm seeing them in advanced forms of disease.

02:32:37.000 You see these patients, they're trapped in the hospital on high-flow oxygen support devices for weeks.

02:32:43.000 And there's all sorts of other insanity with the visiting policies.

02:32:47.000 They can't see their loved ones.

02:32:49.000 For weeks at a time, they're in these rooms.

02:32:51.000 Either on ventilators or not, they can't see.

02:32:54.000 There's no visitors.

02:32:55.000 And they're all alone.

02:32:56.000 They die alone a lot.

02:32:58.000 Are there other things that are used in conjunction with ivermectin that are common like IV vitamins or anything along those lines?

02:33:05.000 So our protocols, so myself and Paul Maric and myself and a number of other in our group, we're also expert around the research on high dose intravenous vitamin C, of which there's very good data for...

02:33:19.000 Severe lung injury as well as emerging data in COVID. So we use high-dose IV vitamin C. So our protocols...

02:33:26.000 So when you say high-dose, how many milligrams are you talking about?

02:33:28.000 So we're doing actually for...

02:33:31.000 It's about three grams IV every six hours.

02:33:36.000 So that'll be about 12 grams a day, but that's IV. That is many, many, many, many fold higher concentrations than oral.

02:33:44.000 Oral vitamin C is not a very effective acute treatment, mostly because it's limited by absorption kinetics.

02:33:51.000 You can't get a lot of IV vitamin C into the bloodstream.

02:33:54.000 IV is a completely different- You mean oral vitamin C? Yeah, did I say that wrong?

02:33:58.000 I meant oral.

02:33:58.000 You said IV. Yeah, so oral is limited.

02:34:00.000 You can't get very high concentrations.

02:34:02.000 But IV, you can achieve high super physiologic concentrations.

02:34:08.000 And we know that has really beneficial effects.

02:34:11.000 We have studies that show we have our own practice.

02:34:13.000 So if you look at our protocols, The sicker you are, when you get to the hospital, and this disease is really complex.

02:34:20.000 It has a number of different inflammatory and what we call pathophysiologic pathways.

02:34:25.000 And so we use a whole host of medicines.

02:34:27.000 Our protocol is called MATH+. It's methylprednisolone ascorbic acid, which is vitamin C, thiamine, which is another vitamin, heparin, which is an anticoagulant, and then we have a number of other medicines.

02:34:38.000 So ivermectin, We use an antidepressant called fluvoxamine, which actually has very profound anti-inflammatory properties, which is kind of a cool story, too.

02:34:49.000 That drug, so Steve Kirsch, who is on your program, he's been a big champion of early treatment, and one of the drugs that he's helped fund research and try to bring to prominence, again, safe, low-cost, off-pat medicine.

02:35:04.000 He's struggled to get that into the wider community.

02:35:07.000 I would point out that this video was also removed by YouTube, in spite of the fact that we sat with him and talked about fluvoxamine, among other things, with Robert Malone, the literal inventor of mRNA vaccine technology.

02:35:20.000 So YouTube somehow feels qualified to shut these people down.

02:35:26.000 Joe, when you talk about all the other stuff, so we use a whole bunch of stuff.

02:35:29.000 And the only thing, bring up fluvoxamine, because you'll kind of like it, because it's just kind of like, it's so cool how science plays out, is that what happened around fluvoxamine is that there was a psychiatric hospital in France, and the area was getting hit hard with COVID, and they noticed That the people getting sick and going to the hospital were the nurses and the doctors.

02:35:49.000 And the patients were going at very low rates, were getting sick.

02:35:53.000 And now, patients with chronic mental illness, especially institutionalized, generally not known for their physical health or good nutritional habits.

02:36:01.000 I mean, they oftentimes have an epidemic of smoking, tobacco addiction, obesity.

02:36:06.000 I mean, there's a lot of things that can travel with mental illness.

02:36:09.000 Yet, they were doing better than the nurses and doctors.

02:36:12.000 And so people said, What's going on?

02:36:15.000 They started to look into that.

02:36:16.000 And they started to look at all the variables that might differ.

02:36:18.000 And they noticed that depressed people was highly protective.

02:36:23.000 That if you had a diagnosis of depression, your chances of going to the hospital and dying was much, much less.

02:36:28.000 And really what that was, it was a proxy for the antidepressant that they were on.

02:36:32.000 That's sort of what kind of engendered the investigations.

02:36:35.000 And now we have a number of trials showing that that antidepressant, mostly for its anti-inflammatory properties, you know, a lot of drugs have what we call pleiotropic effects.

02:36:45.000 They work on, you know, a few different mechanisms.

02:36:47.000 And so anyway, long answer to say that we use combination therapy protocol.

02:36:53.000 It's critical that you use a combination of therapies.

02:36:56.000 And the sicker you are, the more that we're going to use.

02:36:58.000 And so I invite your listeners to look at our protocols.

02:37:02.000 So I wanted to just fill in one more piece of the puzzle, which is, and this is me guessing, but there is a distinction between public health and the science of human health.

02:37:19.000 Public health, unfortunately, has to deal with the game theory of people, right?

02:37:23.000 So if you had, let's say, a vaccine that was highly effective at addressing a dangerous pathogen like measles or polio or something like that, but there was some risk involved in taking the vaccine, people who decided not to take the vaccine would get the benefit of everybody else's having taken it without suffering the risk themselves.

02:37:45.000 So that makes sense, logically speaking.

02:37:48.000 In order to get people to take the vaccine enough to gain the herd immunity that would prevent the virus or the pathogen from continuing, public health officials will oversimplify.

02:38:02.000 And at some points, they may even lie in order to get people to behave in a certain way.

02:38:07.000 Now, I don't support this, but I do recognize that it's an actual problem.

02:38:11.000 How do you get the collective to do what it needs to do if the individuals are calculating their benefit and they may benefit from staying out of a protocol that they should participate in from the point of view of the whole society?

02:38:26.000 But because what we have now is YouTube and the other platforms and the AP and Reuters and all of these groups listening to the public health authorities as if they were scientific authorities, what they are ending up doing is taking this license to lie to the public.

02:38:44.000 And they are using it to shut down the scientific discussion of what we ought to do.

02:38:48.000 And I swear it looks like capture is what has gotten a hold of this process.

02:38:53.000 So if there's some part of governmental structure that is allowed to lie, and then it is captured by something that is looking to make a profit, and it starts shutting down those who are discussing the problem and the immense human suffering that arises out of it,

02:39:10.000 I don't know. 0.96

02:39:11.000 What's the polite word for clusterfuck? 0.99

02:39:14.000 It's the only word. 0.99

02:39:15.000 It's the only word.

02:39:16.000 There is no synonym for that.

02:39:18.000 Have you had a debate with anybody who opposes these ideas?

02:39:24.000 So that's an interesting question.

02:39:26.000 So I did have a video debate around the science of ivermectin a week ago.

02:39:31.000 That'll be up on trial site news I think any day now.

02:39:34.000 Who opposed it?

02:39:35.000 So it was someone who wrote an editorial in a very prominent journal basically saying that the evidence for ivermectin is weak and shouldn't be trusted and basically just criticized all the trials.

02:39:48.000 And so when you ask, like, have I debated anyone openly?

02:39:51.000 What's interesting is I'm ready anytime.

02:39:56.000 Put them anywhere.

02:39:57.000 I'll debate the science of ivermectin.

02:40:00.000 No one's coming forward.

02:40:01.000 No one's inviting me to debate.

02:40:03.000 No one's out there.

02:40:04.000 And the reason why is they have an impossible task.

02:40:08.000 They don't want to debate because they can't win debate.

02:40:11.000 Because what they have to do is, here I have 60 controlled trials.

02:40:16.000 30 of them randomized, all showing benefit.

02:40:20.000 Their only argument is that the evidence is low quality.

02:40:26.000 They're forced to say why we shouldn't trust the evidence.

02:40:30.000 They have no evidence to show it doesn't work.

02:40:32.000 All of the evidence shows it works.

02:40:34.000 Their only tool, their only fight is to say, don't trust the evidence.

02:40:38.000 And as the evidence builds, and as it's looked into more, as you could see from that publication this weekend, Their argument that this is low quality or very low quality starts to break apart.

02:40:50.000 They don't really have an argument.

02:40:52.000 Nobody wants to fight me.

02:40:53.000 The guy who I debated last week, you can watch and be the judge.

02:40:59.000 I mean, he just kept nattering on the same old talking points about these little trials.

02:41:06.000 But at the same time, when you look at what I call the totality of the evidence, what we talked about, prevention, epidemiologic, early, late, randomized, observational...

02:41:16.000 And he had no response to that?

02:41:18.000 Not that part.

02:41:19.000 He just kept saying, you know, those are...

02:41:21.000 Oh, I'll tell you what his response is, is when you look at observational trials and epidemiology, you have to be careful because those are associations, not causations.

02:41:32.000 And again, not to get too cute, but as a patient, if you're in the bed sick before me and I say, we have this drug that's highly associated with recovery and survival, we can't prove it works, but it's highly associated in that the people who get it, they all seem to do much,

02:41:48.000 much better than those.

02:41:49.000 As a patient, I don't think you really care.

02:41:51.000 We want to know that it works.

02:41:52.000 And we have causation trials.

02:41:55.000 In fact, we have now double-blind randomized control trials showing that the time to viral clearance is greatly shortened with ivermectin.

02:42:04.000 Just a week ago, an Israeli group, a very prominent university, showed a trial that viral cultures cleared quicker.

02:42:13.000 And so when you were wondering earlier, Brett, about whether the cases or whether the viral transmission would be lower around people you treat with ivermectin, the evidence right now in double-blind randomized controlled trials, very carefully done, is really showing that it eradicates the virus.

02:42:29.000 The other thing, and this is where I'm going to get to the sinister, because the WHO guideline document, and again, I think you already know about the history, the more recent history of the WHO, and I want to be clear, the successes of the WHO for their first We're good to go.

02:43:00.000 The WHO has really done very poorly in a number of global emergencies, and this one's no different.

02:43:06.000 But the reason why I want to bring something up is that I want the world to know that if you look at their guideline document for March 31st, There's a section where they talk about something called a dose-response relationship, and that's really important in science when you're looking at an effective therapeutic.

02:43:25.000 If you find evidence of a dose-response, which is to say, higher the dose, higher the response, right?

02:43:32.000 Dose-response relationship, that's like an unassailable pillar of efficacy.

02:43:38.000 The existing evidence at the time of that guideline, we know because their researcher was out there in public lecturing on it.

02:43:45.000 He was showing that single day versus multi-day, you had much faster eradication of the virus.

02:43:52.000 So viral clearance had a dose response.

02:43:55.000 In that document, They say we looked at dose response amongst these five outcomes and we found none.

02:44:03.000 Guess which outcome they didn't mention?

02:44:07.000 Viral clearance.

02:44:09.000 That to me is a crime.

02:44:10.000 That is evidence of a crime.

02:44:12.000 They deliberately left out scientific evidence to show efficacy of a drug because they didn't want that recommended.

02:44:21.000 And they need to prove to me why they didn't put it in there when their own researcher was giving public lectures showing a dose response in terms of viral clearance.

02:44:33.000 So, as somebody who is wading into a discussion that is only partly in my area of expertise, I pay very close attention to the arguments that come back because I want, if I'm saying something that's actually not robust, I want to know about it right away because it's dangerous for me to keep down that path.

02:44:51.000 So I watch.

02:44:53.000 And I think the problem is the arguments that come back here amount to scientific sophistry, right?

02:45:00.000 These arguments aren't really real arguments.

02:45:03.000 You know, the idea that, well, you've got to be careful with those trials because correlation does not imply causation.

02:45:09.000 Well, that's not actually true.

02:45:11.000 Correlation does imply causation when there's a pre-existing hypothesis, right?

02:45:15.000 That's what we use to establish causation, is we say, I believe X causes Y, and here's how I'm going to find out.

02:45:22.000 I'm going to look at whether where X goes up, Y also goes up, right?

02:45:27.000 So this argument is one that sounds sophisticated, but it's actually wrong.

02:45:32.000 Likewise, the insistence on large randomized controlled trials being like insisting on video documentation of a crime.

02:45:41.000 All of these arguments are effectively obstructionist, right?

02:45:46.000 They're not real arguments.

02:45:48.000 And it's not to say that real arguments don't occur, right?

02:45:51.000 We can talk about whether or not the spike protein that is created by the mRNAs in the vaccine is toxic the way wild spike protein is.

02:46:03.000 But the presumption would have to be that it is.

02:46:06.000 And the circumstantial evidence suggests so.

02:46:09.000 So, in any case, there are arguments to be made.

02:46:12.000 Occasionally you get one back, but most of what you get back appears to be obstructionist.

02:46:16.000 And one of the hallmarks of obstructionist arguments is that they don't update.

02:46:19.000 When you properly challenge them, they just move on to the next argument, right?

02:46:23.000 You don't get an acknowledgement that actually you were right about that.

02:46:26.000 So, I mean, I'm seeing that across the board.

02:46:30.000 I'd love to know, you know, it'd be wonderful to know exactly what the truth of what's in front of us is, but the evidence that we have is so strong already that really anybody who's not encouraged by it and interested in following that path to find out how good it is is doing something wrong.

02:46:49.000 I like how you say the evidence is very strong and the behaviors around it are inexplicable because it's really those two things that you're observing.

02:46:57.000 You're seeing this really almost unassailable data and the behaviors are bizarre.

02:47:02.000 Like you're asking, Joe, where are they coming back saying, no, you're wrong, Dr. Corey, and they take the 60 trials and they show how every single one of those 60 trials somehow led to the wrong conclusion.

02:47:18.000 And that I am incorrect in my conclusions.

02:47:22.000 Where are they doing that?

02:47:24.000 Where are those papers being published?

02:47:26.000 You should have to show your work if you're going to pull down a video in that regard, right?

02:47:31.000 Absolutely.

02:47:31.000 You know, you feel like in the appeal you should be able to just say, here, here's the paper.

02:47:36.000 What's wrong with it?

02:47:37.000 How is what I said misinformation given how well it matches this paper?

02:47:41.000 And of course their point is...

02:47:42.000 And how did you get to spam?

02:47:43.000 Right.

02:47:44.000 Yeah, how did you get to that?

02:47:45.000 Yeah, I think there was just a category.

02:47:47.000 What was it?

02:47:48.000 Spam?

02:47:49.000 Spam, deceptive practices, and scams.

02:47:52.000 Yeah, so you fell in under...

02:47:53.000 Scams.

02:47:54.000 You weren't spamming anyone about ivermectin.

02:47:56.000 Deceptive practices.

02:47:57.000 Yeah.

02:47:58.000 So it has to be deceptive practices.

02:48:00.000 Oh, yeah. 0.98

02:48:01.000 But either way, it's horseshit. 0.99

02:48:03.000 It's a nonsense critique. 0.99

02:48:04.000 Yeah.

02:48:05.000 Right.

02:48:06.000 I think it's really important for people to understand that this is a censorship issue as much as this is a medical issue.

02:48:16.000 There's a bunch of things going on here.

02:48:17.000 This is a public health issue.

02:48:19.000 There's a lot going on with the subject, but there's no one, no human other than No one's benefiting from this censorship.

02:48:31.000 This is not good.

02:48:32.000 It's not good for any of us.

02:48:33.000 It's bad for humanity.

02:48:47.000 What you do is beyond, in my opinion, it's beyond reproach because you guys do correct mistakes.

02:48:54.000 You are entirely honest.

02:48:55.000 You are doing this all in good faith.

02:48:59.000 You are talking about this.

02:49:01.000 You and your wife are both scientists.

02:49:04.000 You're both biologists.

02:49:05.000 You're talking about this from an educated perspective.

02:49:08.000 All the ducks are in a row and yet you're in danger of losing your channel.

02:49:13.000 And this is the argument that everyone Who is anti-censorship, as said, from the beginning of time.

02:49:19.000 You can't allow it to start because it's like a fire that keeps looking for fuel.

02:49:24.000 It burns down the house.

02:49:25.000 It's like, okay, how about the yard? 1.00

02:49:27.000 Fuck this yard. 1.00

02:49:28.000 We need to burn this yard down. 1.00

02:49:30.000 This yard is non-compliance. 0.84

02:49:31.000 And it's just going to keep going.

02:49:32.000 And what we're seeing It's not wackos that are saying the cell towers are killing people with radiation and 5G is the devil and they're putting chips in you and it's magnetizing all the sites where you're getting vaccinated. 0.98

02:49:46.000 No, it's fucking real scientists now. 0.93

02:49:48.000 Now it's real scientists getting censored and there's no evidence whatsoever that they're incorrect. 0.94

02:49:54.000 That's dangerous for all of us, especially for people like me that aren't scientists, that rely on people like you to go over this data with a keen, sober eye and analyze it and disseminate it in a way that it's going to give people at least the ability to make an educated decision.

02:50:11.000 That ability is being, it seems like, purposely removed from us.

02:50:18.000 I really, really appreciate that.

02:50:21.000 And I will say...

02:50:23.000 This is a complex topic.

02:50:25.000 We have been showing our work from the start.

02:50:28.000 We've made errors.

02:50:30.000 We've gone back and corrected them.

02:50:31.000 But what is motivating us is that there is a lot of There's a lot of risk to human beings out there.

02:50:39.000 Just even the loss of one person so devastates a family that just thinking about all the people who are going to be harmed by the fact that we're not following the evidence and figuring where it leads, it's just...

02:51:07.000 So, thank you, Joe.

02:51:17.000 Yeah, and I appreciate the way you summarized that, Joe.

02:51:20.000 And, you know, I want to sort of say something positive, which is this censorship, we all agree, it's really harmful and it's actually hurting people and it's hurting people on a global scale.

02:51:31.000 But, you know, I have faith, I've seen now, we're starting to see that there are groups There is an organized opposition who are now understanding that some of these agencies are captured and that if they keep listening to them,

02:51:48.000 they're going to keep getting what's happening, which is uncontrollable spread, crisis situations.

02:51:54.000 And so when you look around the world, if you look at India, Finally, they broke free from the WHO. Numerous states in India adopted ivermectin in their treatment guidelines.

02:52:05.000 Uttar Pradesh already did it months ago.

02:52:07.000 That's a state of 240 million people.

02:52:11.000 It would be like the 10th largest country in the world if it was a country.

02:52:14.000 That's just one state in India.

02:52:15.000 They've been using it aggressively and they have some of the best numbers available.

02:52:19.000 Not only in India and in the world.

02:52:21.000 A number of other states also broke free. 0.65

02:52:24.000 And then now our organization, we're being approached by a number of, I'm just going to say, very well-resourced philanthropists from a number of countries around the world who are now trying to organize distribution campaigns, just as you would for the parasites.

02:52:41.000 Now they're trying to organize them based on the evidence in a number of countries of the world.

02:52:46.000 And the other thing is we've seen these incredible successes.

02:52:49.000 So Zimbabwe is a huge success story.

02:52:51.000 In fact, one of our colleagues down there is a lovely doctor.

02:52:54.000 She's just awesome. 0.92

02:52:56.000 Really great doctor.

02:52:56.000 Her name is Jackie Stone.

02:52:58.000 She at one point said a couple of months ago, she's like, we're bored around here.

02:53:02.000 We're looking for the next pandemic.

02:53:04.000 She's making a joke, but literally there was no more cases and the hospitals were empty.

02:53:10.000 South Africa, where Dr. Marek and myself gave a lot of lectures early on in January, there was a whole movement that started and fought the government.

02:53:17.000 They moved ivermectin from illegal, it was illegal to import or possess ivermectin, they moved it to now you can actually prescribe it, compound it, and it's available in society.

02:53:30.000 There are successes against what we clearly know is just incorrect and harmful advice from, unfortunately, those leaders that we look to for good guidance.

02:53:43.000 We just haven't gotten it.

02:53:44.000 I think that's a good way to wrap this up.

02:53:45.000 I'm going to bring this home.

02:53:47.000 Thank you, gentlemen, for coming in here and doing this, and thank you for your tireless work on exposing this and letting people know.

02:53:54.000 And brave because there's a lot at stake, particularly your channel and your main source of income for your family and your reputation and the fact that you're willing to go against the current orthodoxy.

02:54:10.000 I'm happy you guys exist.

02:54:13.000 It's stunning that we find ourselves in this position where there really is a clear thing that's being ignored.

02:54:23.000 Whether or not it's right or wrong, I mean, let it have its day in court.

02:54:27.000 Yeah.

02:54:28.000 And they're not.

02:54:29.000 Yeah.

02:54:30.000 Thank you, Joe.

02:54:30.000 Thank you.

02:54:31.000 My pleasure.

02:54:31.000 Appreciate it.

02:54:32.000 All right.

02:54:33.000 Sort that out for yourselves, ladies and gentlemen.

02:54:35.000 Goodbye.

The Joe Rogan Experience - June 22, 2021

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

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript