In this episode, Dr. Brett and Dr. Corey discuss the early days of the COVID pandemic, the discovery of the drug Ivermectin, and how it changed the way we think about infectious disease treatment. This episode is brought to you by the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group of lung and ICU specialists who are dedicated to eradicating COVID and providing the most effective treatment options for this pandemic. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this podcast, and thank you to all those who have shared their time and energy to make this podcast possible. This is a must listen for anyone who is interested in learning more about the impact of COVID on public health, infectious disease, or any other pandemic that we are trying to address. Joe Rogan Experience: Train by Day, by Night, All Day All Day by Joe Rogans Podcast by Night by Night. - - The Experience: Podcast by Day and Night - All Day, All Night by Night by Day - By Night, By Day, All Day In the Darkhorse Podcast: The Darkhorse Experience: Dark Horse Podcast - Darkhorse Radio - Dark Horse Radio by Night - DarkHorse Radio by Day & Early Warning Network Darkhorse Media by Night: Darkhorse The Dark Horse Media by Day: , Darkhorse, Darkhorse.co/The Darkhorse/Darkhorse Radio , -- Darkhorse is a podcast by Night Shift -- by Nightlife -- Nightlife Media - Nightlife, -- Nightlife | & Nightlife -- , Nightlife/Nightlife and Nightlife by Day -- Daylife by Night Life -- and Night Life, Night Life by NightLife -- the Nightlife / Daylife/Daylife/ Morning Life , and Evening Life Dr. & Evening Life by Day/Day Life - Evening Life, Nightlife? -- -- & Night Life? -- & | -- Dr. Dayne -- from the Dark Horse? -- and Evening Life! -- and all the rest? -- from Day to Nightlife! -- from day to Day, Night Life/Night Life? And more! ( ) , Evening Life/Day, Day to Day ...and more!
00:00:40.000So I'm a lung and ICU specialist who's part of a group of other ICU specialists.
00:00:48.000We came together early in the pandemic to develop treatment protocols for COVID. We first developed a hospital treatment protocol back in March.
00:00:57.000And 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.
00:01:12.000And how did you, Brett, how did you get involved with Dr. Corey and how did your initial conversation get started?
00:01:22.000Well, Heather and I have been podcasting on the developing COVID story for quite some time.
00:01:31.000We 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.
00:01:42.000And at first, we were just simply looking at the evidence on COVID, what it is, how it transmits, how it should change your behavior.
00:01:50.000You know, in those early days, it was scary.
00:01:52.000We didn't know if it was transmitted on surfaces or what.
00:01:54.000So Heather and I just did our analysis live, or not live.
00:02:00.000But 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.
00:02:08.000And we should explain your credentials, like what...
00:02:22.000Epidemiology is an evolutionary process.
00:02:25.000The immune system is both a product of evolution and it evolves in real time when you have an infection.
00:02:31.000So 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.
00:02:53.000We didn't know whether or not there was something...
00:02:55.000Where was the initial indication from?
00:02:59.000Actually, 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,
00:03:14.000the 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.
00:03:24.000In fact, he's the most published intensivist in the world.
00:03:30.000And people came to him to develop protocols.
00:03:34.000So he grabbed his four closest colleagues and friends, of which I'm honored to be one.
00:03:38.000I'm a good friend of his, and he's a mentor to me.
00:03:41.000And 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.
00:03:54.000And we followed all the therapeutics that were being trialed and tested around the world.
00:03:59.000Ivermectin, the first paper was last, about March or April, but it came out of a lab.
00:04:05.000It was just like what's called a cell culture model.
00:04:07.000It 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.
00:04:19.000They could find almost no viral material when they used Ivermectin in the cell culture model.
00:04:25.000Some places around the world took that bench study and brought it out into clinical use.
00:04:31.000And I call that, you know, the bench to the bedside.
00:04:33.000And if you know anything about medicine development, very few what we call molecules make it from the bench to the bedside.
00:04:59.000It'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?
00:05:20.000No, we have, and YouTube has behaved very bizarrely with respect to our channels.
00:05:25.000They'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.
00:05:39.000So it's not clear what they are doing or why, but it is clear that they don't want certain things discussed.
00:06:22.000Well, there's a number of different agencies like you just mentioned, right?
00:06:25.000In 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.
00:07:24.000Well, 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?
00:07:33.000You know, the way I talk about this is that you're seeing just this inconsistent standard, especially around therapeutics.
00:07:40.000The drugs that they favor and the ones that they don't, really, it's very hard to follow consistent scientific principles being applied there.
00:07:49.000In fact, there seems to be other principles being applied.
00:07:51.000But what you just highlighted Is this discord between guidance from major agencies are completely different, right?
00:08:01.000So now they're diverging around vaccines.
00:09:24.000This becomes part of the issue with highlighting it, right?
00:09:27.000So I think we probably need to put a bunch of things on the table, otherwise we're going to end up very...
00:09:33.000Yeah, 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.
00:10:01.000They can say what they want because they're YouTube.
00:10:02.000And 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.
00:10:14.000And so there basically is no recourse other than making a public stir, which has apparently gotten their attention in this case.
00:10:24.000So the first one was for spam, deceptive practices, and scams.
00:10:46.000I'm not sure that they actually matter.
00:10:48.000There 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.
00:11:09.000And what they said was deceptive medical information.
00:11:14.000So 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,
00:12:04.000As 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.
00:12:13.000And their basis for claiming that is that the WHO or the CDC has said otherwise.
00:12:21.000If 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,
00:12:53.000But 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?
00:13:13.000Where does the CDC and the World Health Organization not agree?
00:13:17.000So we talked about vaccines already, remdesivir.
00:13:21.000Another important one was this idea of whether the virus is airborne transmitted, right?
00:13:27.000So there's three ways that you can transmit a virus, right?
00:13:30.000One is direct contact surfaces, like Hand to mouth, right, like spittle or whatever, you touch your mouth and it goes that way.
00:13:37.000Droplet, 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.
00:13:45.000Or airborne, where it's actually inhaled.
00:13:48.000And just sharing the air with someone with COVID, you can catch it.
00:15:37.000But, you know, and actually this is one of the places where Heather and I were way ahead.
00:15:42.000We 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,
00:15:58.000you know, there was a clock ticking, and the room filled up with the stuff.
00:16:02.000And if the window was open, it filled up a lot slower, that kind of thing, right?
00:16:06.000So 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.
00:16:46.000I think there's so many influences at the WHO. I think there's other factors that are making them reluctant to call airborne trips.
00:16:53.000Because of the implications they would have around infection control, resources, N95. This is just me theorizing.
00:17:01.000I can't pretend to understand the WHO. I know that that organization...
00:17:06.000Has been well described now over 20 years to be highly susceptible to many outside influence.
00:17:13.000And 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.
00:17:24.000And 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.
00:17:33.000And then they said, I think China's doing a great job.
00:18:01.000People need to understand that their masks are not going to be perfectly effective.
00:18:07.000If 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.
00:18:15.000You get into the Uber and your driver is sick and they've been breathing this stuff out.
00:18:20.000You 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.
00:18:31.000And so for them to be behind the evidence here is actually potentially very, I mean, I hesitate to say it, but it's deadly.
00:18:38.000And 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.
00:18:51.000In 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.
00:19:05.000And you get dismissed and you get censored from Facebook and you get censored from YouTube, right?
00:19:15.000Now, 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,
00:19:33.000if not likely, that it leaked from a lab.
00:19:36.000In 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.
00:19:50.000Interrupting a comedy bit on a comedy showing, this is how strong the narrative is at a corporate level.
00:19:56.000Because 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.
00:20:08.000Jon Stewart literally is in the middle of a comedy bit and Colbert's trying to handicap it.
00:20:13.000He'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.
00:20:52.000Because 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.
00:21:07.000And I believe one of their spouses died.
00:21:09.000I do not know about the spouse having died.
00:21:11.000I think I just didn't read it carefully enough.
00:21:12.000But you're right about the three workers and the belief that this happened.
00:21:17.000But my point is that this keeps evolving.
00:21:20.000So to stop conversations, it's very dangerous because you might be censoring something that's absolutely 100% true.
00:21:29.000So there's people that would have gotten that information and it would have educated them and expanded their understanding of it.
00:21:36.000U.S. Intel reports identified three Wuhan lab researchers who fell ill November 2019. Look at this, but the evidence is far from conclusive.
00:21:53.000I just want to be clear if the spouse died.
00:21:58.000I 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?
00:22:08.000Not enough evidence and basically you had that discussion suppressed.
00:22:13.000I want to bring that into the larger context, which for me, that's an example of what's called disinformation.
00:22:19.000So 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.
00:22:34.000So I want to be clear that misinformation is what I'm being accused of.
00:22:38.000Which is I'm a medical misinformationist because I'm providing information that is not supported by the establishment, right?
00:22:46.000So anything that doesn't agree with them is misinformation.
00:22:50.000So the science around the lab leak was inconvenient to a lot of people.
00:22:55.000And so that was distorted, suppressed, and debunked, right?
00:22:59.000But now we're finding out that if we really do look at the science, the truth is a little different.
00:23:03.000I'm going to say that it's very similar to the ivermectin story.
00:23:06.000The science around ivermectin is up against one of the largest and most powerful disinformation campaigns, I think, almost ever.
00:23:15.000And 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.
00:24:04.000But one of the things about this story that's so bizarre is that at the point that it suddenly shifted, nothing changed, right?
00:24:13.000There was no new piece of information.
00:24:14.000The 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?
00:24:26.000So the point was there was no I think?
00:24:44.000So this was a question of disinformation.
00:24:47.000This was a question of actually stigmatizing people who were simply reading the evidence.
00:24:53.000The 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...
00:25:03.000Not only embarrassed by the fact that they blew it, but also it is clear that behind the scenes they knew better, right?
00:25:11.000You can read this in Fauci's emails with Christian Anderson.
00:25:14.000It is clear that they also saw the signal in the genome that this did not look like a fully natural virus.
00:25:21.000And 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.
00:25:44.000So 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.
00:26:00.000And 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.
00:26:10.000It is an indication that he does not feel like defending himself on Twitter, presumably because he can't defend himself.
00:26:16.000It's not even just that he's not defending himself.
00:26:44.000There's no entertainment value to it in terms of like...
00:26:47.000Exaggerating or putting a bunch of emotions to things or screaming out.
00:26:51.000You'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,
00:27:07.000because 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,
00:27:29.000actually 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.
00:27:40.000And 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.
00:28:01.000The sheer volume of uploads they get on a daily basis is insane.
00:28:05.000And 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.
00:28:20.000Like they're just throwing a bunch of charges against a wall like a bad cop and then pulling your video.
00:28:26.000And 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.
00:28:38.000And this is where it's important because we've seen the narrative be wrong multiple times over the last year.
00:28:43.000And I don't think it necessarily has to be wrong because of a conspiracy or some weird nefarious intentions.
00:28:50.000I think there's really a possibility that there's a lot of confusion.
00:28:54.000During that confusion you need educated voices.
00:29:42.000What 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?
00:29:55.000And that is the right way to do this work.
00:29:58.000Now, what is happening in officialdom...
00:30:54.000Consensus 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.
00:31:03.000I 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?
00:31:15.000I stopped doing that almost instantly as it became clear that actually, although many viruses do transmit from surfaces, this one doesn't, right?
00:31:23.000It's not to say it can't happen ever, but almost never, right?
00:31:27.000So 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?
00:31:40.000These 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.
00:31:51.000These things are being handed down from on high.
00:31:54.000And then they are silencing the people who are saying, hey, wait a minute.
00:31:57.000That thing you just told me from on high doesn't square with all the stuff I can see, right?
00:32:03.000So they are shutting down the challenge to a consensus that has no right to be labeled as scientific because it isn't.
00:32:09.000It didn't arise through the normal process.
00:32:18.000And 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.
00:32:50.000Well, the heretics actually are an interesting group.
00:32:55.000And the thing that unites them seems to be their independence of the structures that are controlling others.
00:33:03.000So 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.
00:33:19.000And in this case, YouTube is playing this weird role.
00:33:26.000But in order to talk about it with my audience, I have to go through YouTube, right?
00:33:30.000So 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.
00:33:39.000But 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.
00:33:48.000Not 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.
00:34:07.000And when you censor that, we have a real problem.
00:34:12.000And there's this weird sort of dismissive air that people have about these things.
00:34:18.000The propaganda in this regard has been so effective.
00:34:23.000I 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,
00:34:39.000And he had to explain, no, this is actually ivermectin.
00:34:44.000There actually is some evidence to support its use, and it could be extremely beneficial to people, particularly in early stages of the disease.
00:34:51.000And 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.
00:35:08.000If 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.
00:35:18.000So if that's the only way we get our information, we may be wrong.
00:35:23.000And lives are in danger if we're wrong.
00:35:27.000We will lose lives if we cannot sort out where.
00:35:30.000I 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?
00:35:37.000The more intelligent people that understand the data looking at it and discussing it openly, the better for everybody.
00:36:30.000I'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.
00:36:42.000The 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.
00:36:52.000When you said, like Brett said, you know, these consensuses come down, and when they're so blatant, Secondly, don't match reality.
00:36:59.000So 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,
00:37:16.000like you don't need to be like a high level scientist to know that Probably that was airborne transmission.
00:37:23.000There was numerous examples of that, and yet the officialdom was that it wasn't airborne.
00:37:27.000So it was basic stuff that didn't make sense.
00:37:30.000The 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.
00:37:41.000As a physician, I mean, I oftentimes have to figure out how to do things on very little information.
00:38:27.000I'm very skeptical of everything I'm being told.
00:38:30.000I'd like, you know, for some, like, ground rules for the layperson to follow.
00:38:35.000Like, how do you know who's talking truth?
00:38:38.000And I think openness, transparency, lack of external influences.
00:38:42.000Like, for instance, our organization, we're a non-profit.
00:38:46.000We took an oath as physicians to help patients.
00:38:49.000When 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.
00:39:03.000I think that makes us a credible source of information, at least I hope so.
00:39:07.000We 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.
00:39:26.000Yeah, I do, but I want to clear up one thing.
00:39:28.000I 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.
00:39:37.000The 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...
00:39:46.000In the hospital, when we say something's airborne...
00:40:32.000You 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?
00:40:39.000Your model gets better as you accept those things.
00:40:41.000And so that's sort of the hallmark of how consensus is properly built is the openness to push back, right?
00:41:18.000One of the things that is absolutely maddening about trying to talk about that evidence is that the response is, A, incoherent.
00:41:26.000The 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.
00:41:39.000So there's this monolith that says we don't have the evidence and what we need is large-scale randomized controlled trials.
00:41:47.000And in a sense, this is an obvious tell, right?
00:41:55.000If you've got them, there are quite a number of randomized controlled trials with respect to ivermectin.
00:42:00.000They 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?
00:42:07.000What we do have is several meta-analyses.
00:42:12.000A 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.
00:42:20.000It makes a big study out of little ones.
00:42:22.000And it has a huge advantage to it, right?
00:42:25.000You 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?
00:42:33.000That large study would say molecule X does not show any evidence of being effective against disease Y because you got the dosage wrong, right?
00:42:41.000It's not evidence that the molecule doesn't work.
00:42:43.000It's evidence that something about that protocol with that molecule didn't work.
00:42:47.000Whereas 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.
00:43:00.000And in this case, we have meta-analyses, and they're very clear.
00:43:03.000This 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?
00:43:14.000This 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.
00:43:23.000Let's say ivermectin A is prophylactic ivermectin.
00:43:27.000You take it to prevent getting the disease, right?
00:43:34.000It was discovered in Japan by Satoshi Omura, who got a Nobel Prize for it with William Campbell, a Merck scientist.
00:43:45.000The 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.
00:43:58.000Yeah, this molecule has cured river blindness and elephantitis to very devastating diseases.
00:44:05.000It's regarded by the WHO as an essential medicine safe for children.
00:44:10.000It has been administered four billion times.
00:44:13.000It's a highly effective, safe drug for these parasites.
00:44:17.000And 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?
00:44:27.000Where might we look for a drug that would work?
00:44:29.000And so they, you know, basically they weren't looking for protocol.
00:44:32.000They were just throwing a bunch of molecules at the disease to see which things showed some sign of usefulness.
00:44:38.000And from there, we get to all of these studies, which when compiled in a meta-analysis, tell a very clear story.
00:44:44.000Let me add a couple of things because this is a cool story about...
00:44:46.000So, 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.
00:45:00.000It's a really moving story because you had populations, villages in Africa where men, by the time you were 40, you were blind.
00:45:09.000And 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.
00:45:20.000And so basically this drug restored the sight and transformed the lives of millions of people around the world.
00:45:27.000I find that a really moving story, just its history in terms of parasites.
00:45:34.000You 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.
00:45:42.000So it's been shown to be effective against Zika, Dengue, West Nile, HIV, even influenza.
00:46:04.000Yeah, it already has 10 years of antiviral effects in the lab.
00:46:09.000So in fact, I'm going to foreshadow a little bit.
00:46:12.000It'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.
00:46:24.000And so I'm like really optimistic about the future of this molecule.
00:47:24.000And it's also a tool that's being used as a disinformation tactic.
00:47:28.000So some of it is scientifically based.
00:47:30.000We all like big randomized controlled trials when you can get them, even though they are prone to error.
00:47:37.000But 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?
00:47:47.000So let's say you got sick, Joe, and I gave you ivermectin.
00:47:50.000The next day you felt better, and I'd say, I found the cure for COVID. That's not strong evidence, right?
00:47:56.000Especially with a virus, people get better without it, right?
00:47:58.000So you have anecdotes, case series, right?
00:48:01.000Then 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.
00:48:08.000And it's called this pyramid of medical evidence.
00:48:13.000Of that pyramid is not a large randomized controlled trial.
00:48:19.000It's a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
00:48:22.000The 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.
00:48:30.000But 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.
00:48:41.000And 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?
00:49:01.000Are there any interesting criticisms of the use of ivermectin?
00:49:09.000There is room for skepticism on ivermectin.
00:49:15.000But it does not explain the behavior of the skeptics, right?
00:49:19.000In 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.
00:49:29.000The 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?
00:49:55.000And if it doesn't work, you haven't harmed them.
00:49:58.000But if you fail to give it to them and it would have worked, you have.
00:50:02.000So I would just point out the strange obsession with large randomized controlled trials is actually cryptically an attack on several things.
00:50:14.000If 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.
00:50:24.000You're signing up for unknown risks over known ones.
00:50:27.000We know 40 years of history on this ivermectin, for example.
00:50:32.000You're signing up for shareholders over patients because these large-scale trials are very expensive and the drug companies have to pay for them.
00:50:39.000So 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.
00:50:48.000And 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?
00:51:04.000How 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?
00:51:15.000But 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.
00:51:31.000And I would just say, by analogy, What's the best kind of evidence for a crime, right?
00:51:38.000I would say video evidence of people committing the crime, right?
00:51:42.000Video evidence in which you get a clear sense of who the person who's committing the crime is.
00:52:00.000Well, 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.
00:52:09.000That's what they're effectively doing here, right?
00:52:11.000By 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.
00:52:21.000And why they're doing it, we can speculate about.
00:52:24.000But the fact that it makes no logical sense is transparent.
00:53:16.000Even 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.
00:53:25.000But here's another more clear example of abnormal behavior.
00:53:30.000When 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.
00:53:48.000Right now, ivermectin is sitting on 24 randomized controlled trials with 3,000 patients.
00:54:11.000Yes, 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,
00:54:26.000medical evidence, to formulate guidelines for the big national and international healthcare agencies.
00:54:33.000Let's go back to that term I used before.
00:54:39.000They 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.
00:54:51.000And 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.
00:55:05.000So basically you'd save two out of every three people that you treated.
00:55:09.000And I would also again argue that's the minimum of what ivermectin is capable of because not in every trial were they treated early.
00:55:16.000When you look at the early versus late, they do so much better.
00:55:22.000So early around 80% reduction and sometimes even higher in hospitalization and death.
00:55:29.000So if you treat patients, and even in those early, it's not my early.
00:55:33.000So 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,
00:55:48.000you should be assuming any sort of viral flu-like illness that you're developing right now is COVID until proven otherwise, and take it.
00:55:55.000And even if it's not COVID, it's safe to take, and it's probably effective against that virus.
00:56:01.000So they're all what's considered minor and transient, and that's another example of weird behavior.
00:56:08.000When the WHO put out their guideline on ivermectin, they put in a lot of language questioning the safety of ivermectin.
00:56:16.000Which is known as one of the safest drugs in history.
00:56:19.000It's been mass distributed across continents, billions of doses, and they want to bring up cautions around safety.
00:56:26.000While 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.
00:56:38.000So they're inconsistent depending upon what disease they're talking about, ivermectin, being prescribed for?
00:56:42.000With COVID, they are off the reservation.
00:56:44.000What are the criticisms in terms of like when they're talking about the possible and potential side effects, what are they saying?
00:56:51.000So 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.
00:58:12.000This might be one of the most important sentences written this century.
00:58:17.000Low certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average of 86%, 95% confidence interval between 79% and 91%.
00:58:31.000So 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.
00:58:47.000Because 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,
00:59:04.000if properly utilized, is capable of driving this pathogen to extinctions.
00:59:11.000And we should discuss what the word prophylaxis means because many people may not know.
01:00:43.000We know that that is an obstacle to it working.
01:00:45.000The last paper I went to Gave it on an empty stomach.
01:00:49.000This 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.
01:01:02.000If you're treating or preventing COVID, you do want it to cross into your blood, and the fact is the molecule is fat-soluble.
01:01:09.000So 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.
01:01:19.000If they've eaten something, they will have eaten different things and it creates noise.
01:01:23.000So 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.
01:01:31.000Yeah, two more points on this abstract.
01:01:34.000So the two most important words, right?
01:01:37.000So Brett emphasized this finding of 86% protection against infection if you take it preventatively, right?
01:01:47.000And that low certainty evidence means it could be higher than 86% protection.
01:01:52.000I maintain, I want to really emphasize this, is that if you look at the trials that make up those preventative trials, right?
01:01:59.000The 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.
01:02:42.000And actually, trials of that seaweed spray are actually also positive.
01:02:46.000So the best trials of prevention really had two molecules that were probably working in concert.
01:02:51.000But it led to perfect prevention in 1,200 healthcare workers, 800 who took this regimen, 400 who didn't.
01:03:02.000Not one of, it was 788 healthcare workers got COVID over like a four month period.
01:03:07.000Not 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,
01:03:57.000The more time this virus has to experiment with humans, the more likely we get stuck with it forever.
01:04:04.000So 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.
01:05:39.000So I deal with the sickest of the sick.
01:05:41.000Depending on the month or the unit, about 20% of my patients will die.
01:05:46.000And 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.
01:05:53.000A lot of those therapies are time-dependent, dose-dependent, and they're synergistic.
01:05:57.000And so you really need to be constantly trying to figure out better ways to treat your patients, right?
01:06:05.000When 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.
01:06:24.000And 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.
01:06:39.000Like, I put all these trials, I showed all the evidence, and it was just getting dismissed.
01:06:44.000And 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.
01:06:50.000And I was saying I can't think of in history trials that are lining up like this.
01:07:10.000Trial 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.
01:07:22.000In fact, a lot of different developments and things that I've learned about ivermectin I've gotten from Trial Site News.
01:07:29.000It's a website where they follow everything pharma.
01:07:32.000So anything that comes out of a drug trial or related to pharmaceutical industry, really therapeutics and trials, it goes on trial site news.
01:07:39.000But they've been a really very close observer of ivermectin.
01:07:44.000So 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.
01:08:01.000Maybe one or two didn't show a benefit.
01:08:06.000And they say this is low quality evidence, poorly designed trials, small trials.
01:08:17.000And That's been the same thing they've been saying for six months.
01:08:23.000Now, when you grade the quality of evidence, there's actually standards, there's definitions, there's a way to do it.
01:08:29.000So Tess Laurie and her group who did this, that's what they do.
01:08:32.000They're experts at grading quality of evidence.
01:08:35.000They grade the quality of evidence for survival with ivermectin.
01:08:40.000So the 62% reduction is actually graded as moderate level certainty.
01:08:45.000I got to emphasize, they did the work.
01:08:48.000They looked under the hood of all these trials.
01:08:50.000They looked at things like allocation concealment and randomization and all sorts of these terms of how you conduct a trial.
01:08:56.000They 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.
01:09:14.000It's very rare that you get high level or strong certainty.
01:09:54.000Clearly they're operating on what I call a non-scientific objective.
01:09:59.000Their objective is to not have ivermectin adopted worldwide.
01:10:04.000Ivermectin is seen as an opponent to whatever policies or product or pharmaceutical products they want to bring forward.
01:10:12.000Now, does this resistance exist in a vacuum?
01:10:14.000Is 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?
01:10:24.000So all of the agencies, and I can bring you a stack.
01:10:27.000So from the Canadians, and it's all, by the way, North America and Western Europe.
01:10:34.000So it's the EMA, which is European Medicines and Asian Cheeses, which is all of Europe.
01:10:38.000And 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.
01:10:50.000It's almost like they've copied and pasted all around the world.
01:10:53.000Every 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.
01:11:05.000But it's like they've copied and pasted it.
01:11:08.000And it's really tiresome and it's incorrect.
01:11:10.000And I think they're all acting on a different objective.
01:11:13.000They're not credibly assessing the data around it.
01:11:17.000But what's promoting them to behave in this way?
01:11:21.000Can we get the New York Times piece up, the Carl Zimmer piece?
01:11:26.000So I've been wondering about this for the longest time.
01:11:31.000There is obvious resistance to looking at the evidence, which is clear enough.
01:11:37.000And 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?
01:11:46.000Well, the WHO kind of suggested that it may not be safe.
01:11:50.000But 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.
01:12:10.000I was waiting, you know, what don't we know?
01:12:13.000And 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.
01:13:10.000At 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.
01:13:24.000In hindsight, the choice to work in hospitals was a mistake.
01:13:36.000So far, only one antiviral has demonstrated a clear benefit to people in hospitals.
01:13:42.000Remdesivir, that's the $3,000 a dose drug that is authorized, originally investigated as a potential cure for Ebola.
01:13:49.000The drug seems to shorten the course of COVID-19.
01:13:51.000When 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.
01:13:59.000Yet remdesivir's performance has left many researchers underwhelmed.
01:14:08.000I'm missing the – there's a paragraph in here where he says that the search for drugs that work didn't turn anything up.
01:14:16.000In any case, people can find it on their own, I guess.
01:14:18.000But 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,
01:14:36.000of course, these drugs that they find will all be under patent and therefore highly profitable.
01:14:47.000Merck is involved in Molnupiravir, this new drug.
01:14:52.000It is also involved in an agreement with Johnson& Johnson to distribute their vaccine.
01:14:57.000And 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.
01:15:11.000I don't know anything about the business side of this.
01:15:13.000I do know what fiduciary responsibility is.
01:15:16.000I know that the shareholder value must be driving things behind the scenes.
01:15:21.000I know that these companies have been immunized from liability with respect to harms that might be done by the vaccines that they're distributing.
01:15:29.000So 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.
01:16:22.000Look, what I can't get myself to is what do these conversations sound like on the other side?
01:16:28.000Who 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?
01:16:36.000Who decides to prioritize business interests ahead of that?
01:17:09.000And 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.
01:17:21.000And somehow we're stuck in the situation where the evidence that we have effective tools is overwhelming.
01:17:26.000Those tools do not excite anybody in the pharmaceutical industry because there's no profit to be made.
01:17:31.000And somehow that autopilot has us facing the possibility of getting stuck with this pathogen permanently because there's nobody at the helm.
01:18:27.000But you're in a system where clearly the things that are favored are those with financial interests.
01:18:33.000And so that's who gets the ear of the agencies.
01:18:36.000That's who gets attention by the FDA. And ivermectin is really ignored.
01:18:41.000There's no one championing ivermectin except for like...
01:18:43.000My little group of non-profit doctors who became expert at ivermectin.
01:18:48.000I will also say though, we're not alone.
01:18:50.000There'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.
01:19:05.000It's like the same play over and over again.
01:19:08.000The influence of the pharmaceutical companies is a real thing.
01:19:12.000It is, but I think what keeps stopping me in my tracks is the magnitude.
01:19:19.000If 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...
01:19:37.000And that we would allow it to continue.
01:19:39.000I 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?
01:19:51.000We were told that the vaccines were a solution to this, but it looks like they're just really gearing up for, you know, this.
01:19:57.000And, of course, that will create profits for a long time to come.
01:20:01.000Brett, can we say, just stop for a second and call attention to the absurdity of what that article just described?
01:20:09.000You're talking about they're committing $3.2 billion to develop a better ivermectin.
01:20:21.000It is already a profoundly effective antiviral.
01:20:25.000It is cheap, widely available, could be produced in mass quantities and delivered to the masses and population.
01:20:31.000Yet 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.
01:20:42.000It's almost, it's so transparent, you wish you'd just say, look, okay, I see what you're doing.
01:20:56.000So 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.
01:21:04.000It's identical to one of the main mechanisms of action of ivermectin.
01:21:33.000The thing about Molnupiravir is they've already tested it in hospitalized patients, and it's failed.
01:21:39.000It hasn't worked in the hospital, where we know ivermectin works in the hospital.
01:21:43.000Even in late phase, we know ivermectin's working.
01:21:45.000They'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.
01:21:58.000So that is a ripe market to try to find the COVID killer.
01:22:04.000Ivermectin is the COVID killer and should be the mainstay of any early outpatient treatment regimen, and yet it's not.
01:22:11.000The 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.
01:22:18.000Like, even just ignoring some of the signs, look at the behaviors.
01:22:20.000So, when you look at some of the trials around their favored medicines, like remdesivir, they kind of do funny stuff with the trials.
01:22:28.000They 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.
01:22:45.000Mexico, 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.
01:22:53.000So 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.
01:23:05.000And they went rogue in Mexico back in December at a time when hospitals were full.
01:23:12.000They're almost like at that crisis peak like we were in in this country around December and January.
01:23:17.000Remember when like LA was running out of oxygen and like India was last month.
01:23:21.000So Mexico was in terrible condition back in December.
01:23:26.000The IMSS, and I would say I would like that our paper and our advocacy was part of what made them pay attention to ivermectin.
01:23:33.000They implemented a nationwide test and treat program.
01:23:38.000Every outpatient testing center, if you tested positive, you were offered ivermectin.
01:23:44.000And you got two days, you got 12 milligrams, which is not a high dose.
01:23:47.000In fact, I consider that to be somewhat of an undertreatment.
01:23:50.000But what happened within two weeks of that, hospitalization rates plummeted, death rates plummeted.
01:23:56.000And 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.
01:24:10.000And 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.
01:24:22.000And 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.
01:24:40.000And that's not the only agency or country reporting that.
01:24:44.000Now, why isn't that front page news in the major media in the United States?
01:24:48.000You 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.
01:25:00.000And in your opinion, an insufficient dose.
01:25:04.000What I like to say is it's the minimum of what it's capable of.
01:25:07.000With 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.
01:25:18.000So it's, in my opinion, it's the minimum of what that program was capable of.
01:25:22.000But even in that form and that dosing strategy was incredible what they did.
01:25:28.000You know how many lives they saved by reducing that hospitalization?
01:25:39.000And the hospitalization data is so cool.
01:25:42.000We 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.
01:25:48.000He's a guy who helped teach me what ivermectin was doing in the world.
01:25:52.000He's been tracking areas and countries and regions and states which have adopted ivermectin, and he's been looking at the numbers.
01:25:59.000And we have many dozens of what's called temporally associated declines.
01:26:08.000In 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.
01:26:18.000Now, everybody's curves around the world have been fluctuating, right?
01:26:22.000We have these peaks, we have these, you know, the epidemiologic curves of cases and deaths.
01:26:26.000But when you look at the ivermectin initiations, it's always reproducible.
01:26:31.000It's literally within one to two weeks you see these drops.
01:26:34.000And how are these results being received?
01:26:39.000So the Mexico preprint, this is how crazy the world is.
01:26:45.000So the Mexico preprint I thought would be front page news across Mexico that they'd found a cure.
01:26:52.000The federal health ministry in Mexico Really was against the IMSS. So it's almost like the CDC and the NIH were fighting.
01:27:00.000I 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.
01:27:07.000But the federal health ministry was against this program.
01:27:12.000And I think they were partly because they were captured.
01:27:15.000But 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.
01:27:50.000But 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.
01:28:02.000Why aren't we talking to these leaders Of the IMSS program in Mexico.
01:28:07.000They're not far from here, right, Joe?
01:28:20.000And 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.
01:28:36.000There they had 40% less hospitalization, 30% less death, and 40% less ICU use.
01:28:43.000And 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?
01:28:56.000Well, in a number of the states that aggressively adopted ivermectin, you saw those curves and they plummeted to near zero.
01:29:04.000In states that didn't, you saw the curves go up.
01:29:07.000So it's almost like there was a natural experiment in India around ivermectin.
01:29:12.000You know, just to finish, you know, Brett talked about the preventative trials, the treatment trials, early, late.
01:29:18.000Now you're also getting data from real world.
01:29:21.000That'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.
01:30:35.000And 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.
01:30:45.000And anyway, we've gone back and forth about it a number of times.
01:30:50.000And I tried to focus him on a couple of things.
01:30:53.000And last night, he contacted me and he said, Brett, you were right.
01:31:18.000You know, I see they're supposed to make it more convenient.
01:31:23.000They do when you're not wearing headphones.
01:31:26.000Let's, if we can make a note, so, and this is where the story just keeps getting like more and more amazing, right?
01:31:33.000So, Brett is rightly focusing on the preventive aspects, right?
01:31:37.000Because it's great to treat and make sure you stay alive and don't go to the hospital.
01:31:41.000Much better to just not get sick and to eradicate the virus.
01:31:45.000We save a definitely large number of people if we drive it to extinction.
01:31:49.000Make 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.
01:31:57.000I want to talk about our experiences with long COVID. Okay.
01:32:03.000And I must tell you, it's complex enough that I have had to stare at it and talk to Robert about what it means.
01:32:09.000And so I'm going to take you through the highlights.
01:32:12.000Explain it to people that are just looking at this or listening only.
01:32:15.000So what we've got is a graph In which we have some curves that descend through the graph.
01:32:22.000And the curves, these curves are parallel to each other.
01:32:26.000And the basic idea is, do you guys remember what R naught is from the beginning of the pandemic?
01:32:33.000So R naught is the reproductive rate of the virus.
01:32:37.000At one, each infected person tends to infect one other person.
01:32:41.000So the amount of infected people tends to stay the same over time.
01:32:45.000Above one, you get one of these explosions of new cases.
01:32:49.000It goes below one, you see a decline in cases.
01:32:53.000Anytime 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.
01:33:03.000SARS and MERS are both extinct, as far as we know.
01:33:06.000Now, they can come back, but extinction is what we're shooting for.
01:33:11.000Now, 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,
01:33:32.000So the green line there is just below the line that we would draw for COVID. This graph was not drawn with COVID in mind.
01:33:41.000What 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.
01:33:59.000That's on the Y axis, I mean the X axis.
01:34:01.000On the Y axis we have AVE sub I, which is the rate of reduction of viral shedding.
01:34:09.000And 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,
01:34:27.000we would drive R0. R0 becomes R sub F in the treatment.
01:34:33.000So 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.
01:34:43.000So 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.
01:34:54.000Is there any evidence of the efficacy in variants?
01:35:03.000We don't have trials testing where they really measured the variants and showed, but we do know this epidemiologic data.
01:35:14.000So if you look at India, lots of Delta variant.
01:35:17.000From looking at the epidemiology of what happened there, ivermectin was slaying the Delta variant.
01:35:22.000South Africa and Zimbabwe, especially Zimbabwe when they were getting hurt earlier in this year, they basically eradicated COVID with widespread adoption of ibuprofen.
01:35:31.000They were dealing with the South African variant.
01:35:35.000Brazil is a bit of a mess in the sense that there's so much controversy around the different treatments and there's political overtones.
01:35:42.000That there's no systematic use of ivermectin, but there have been pockets and cities that first didn't adopt it and then did.
01:35:50.000And we know in that P1 variant out of Brazil, totally susceptible to ivermectin.
01:35:55.000So from what we've seen, and then the UK variant, we saw in Slovakia and Czech Republic, same thing, responsiveness to ivermectin.
01:36:03.000Just 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.
01:36:14.000And that's what we would expect because its mechanisms of action are multiple.
01:36:20.000And they don't really will change to the outer surface of the spike protein.
01:36:25.000We think that to evade ivermectin, you'd really have to have a very, very different virus.
01:36:31.000And so we have no evidence to suggest that it's not going to work.
01:36:37.000This sounds like a gigantic ivermectin infomercial sponsored by ivermectin.
01:36:43.000Well, a lot of money to be made there, Joe.
01:37:01.000And the problem is it's actually putting those of us who can see it in danger, right?
01:37:05.000Because as people ignore this evidence with this much at stake, this many people needlessly suffering and dying, people losing their loved ones, right?
01:37:15.000The desire to just simply get people to look at the evidence and then extrapolate.
01:37:20.000What 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?
01:37:32.000And what you hear back is the most maddening, well, you know, I'm evidence-based.
01:37:39.000If it isn't a large-scale, randomized, controlled trial, then it isn't evidence to me.
01:37:43.000And it's like only a crazy person would say that in this case, and yet you hear it all the time.
01:37:47.000Especially all these different countries that you've outlined that have adopted treatment.
01:37:56.000The reasons for the opposition I think are multiple.
01:38:01.000I 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.
01:38:11.000Some of it is just intellectual skepticism like this what we call evidence-based medicine.
01:38:17.000It's gotten a little perverted and I think it's not always practiced correctly.
01:38:24.000And so you have a lot of resistance to the science around ivermectin.
01:38:30.000Now I lost my train of thought that I wanted to say about that.
01:38:38.000Because we're just talking about profitability.
01:38:40.000We're talking about the fact that it's in all these different countries, like it's kind of too good to be true.
01:38:45.000Well, the profit part is, I mean, I agree that's one of them.
01:38:49.000Oh, 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.
01:39:04.000But 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.
01:39:11.000What I've seen is a lot of intellectual laziness and just flat-out laziness.
01:39:16.000Like 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.
01:39:25.000I just find it's a very cursory view now, whether they're doing it on purpose or not.
01:39:29.000And I'm going to call out one particular body, which is the IDSA, which is the Infectious Disease Society of America.
01:39:37.000And 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,
01:39:53.000small trials, but they also say something else which is absurd.
01:39:57.000They wrote, That of concern is that almost all of the published trials are positive.
01:40:24.000You think there might be a publication bias?
01:40:26.000So 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?
01:40:36.000Your 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.
01:40:48.000And 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.
01:40:55.000So 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.
01:41:04.000Now, 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.
01:41:20.000The 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.
01:41:35.000And most journals will not publish your trial unless it was pre-registered.
01:41:39.000And 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?
01:41:56.000If 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?
01:42:11.000Because their objection wasn't a real objection.
01:42:15.000And 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?
01:42:30.000So the observational studies are consistent.
01:42:36.000The 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.
01:43:31.000If the study is not outright fraudulent, the chances of getting a result that skewed are effectively zero.
01:43:39.000It'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.
01:43:53.000Why aren't people going, well, this is amazing news then?
01:43:56.000Because this is what we've been searching for.
01:43:58.000So, again, I want to just point out the evidence that the molecule works is overwhelming, right?
01:44:06.000Figuring 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.
01:44:15.000But 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.
01:44:27.000And 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.
01:44:45.000And 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.
01:44:52.000But 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,
01:45:10.000Is 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.
01:45:21.000But 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...
01:45:53.000And he was the PI, principal investigator of this trial.
01:45:56.000And I've gotten to be friendly and collegial with him because we've shared data and insights, and we lecture in different places.
01:46:05.000I 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?
01:46:13.000And 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.
01:46:30.000The other thing I'm going to borrow with you because it goes to your question is he has this phrase which I love.
01:46:35.000He says, unfortunately, ivermectin has affected the most sensitive organ on humans, the wallet.
01:46:46.000I thought that was a pretty clever, witty way of saying what the problem is.
01:46:50.000It answers your question, like, why aren't we doing this?
01:46:52.000And apparently, ivermectin is really damaging to the wallet, Joe.
01:46:57.000How much of this did you guys discuss on your podcast that has been taken down?
01:48:52.000Another medical educator, Dr. Bean, who's really a great, a phenomenal educator who I've conversed with.
01:48:59.000When 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.
01:49:18.000I don't like the demonetization because what it is is it's a thinly veiled attempt at self-censorship.
01:49:25.000If 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.
01:49:53.000Financial 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,
01:50:14.000which we're now forbidden to talk about on YouTube, at least in positive light.
01:50:20.000And The implication, you know, if you think so, I've been making the argument that capture was originally named regulatory capture, right?
01:50:31.000And it gives the impression, oh, the regulatory agency has been captured by the thing that it's supposed to regulate, the nuclear industry.
01:50:37.000It may have captured the Department of Energy, for example, and therefore decisions start going its way.
01:50:45.000In this case, I really think we need to start thinking in terms of capture that extends to other places, right?
01:50:51.000You expect the regulator to be captured, but you don't necessarily expect the New York Times to be captured.
01:50:57.000You don't expect all of the places that you might discuss what's going on.
01:51:00.000You don't expect the places where you would discuss capture to be captured, and yet they are.
01:51:05.000And 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,
01:51:25.000which itself has hazards associated with it.
01:52:26.000But 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.
01:52:38.000Why 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,
01:52:56.000maybe 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,
01:53:13.000all 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.
01:53:26.000I don't think that can be explained by anything.
01:53:36.000You 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.
01:53:47.000So the amount of water the ivermectin has to carry to get us to the goal line is not as large.
01:54:08.000Why 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.
01:54:18.000So anyway, there's a large rabbit hole surrounding what they are pushing instead of ivermectin, but really what we can't answer.
01:54:32.000We have a drug that we could administer that is safe in children that appears to be highly effective, right?
01:54:39.000If 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.
01:54:47.000You 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,
01:56:11.000So at the same point that we have a drug that appears to work, in fact, we have several of them, Yeah.
01:56:34.000Why 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.
01:56:52.000And at the very least, okay, so nothing adds up.
01:56:57.000We can't talk about it in the official channels because the official channels are constrained.
01:57:01.000And 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.
01:57:13.000And the point is, it all points to one thing, right?
01:57:17.000For 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.
01:57:30.000Because, you know, Joe, what happened to me is...
01:57:34.000The guy that I was a year ago and the guy that I am now is totally different.
01:57:39.000Like, I just see the world a lot different.
01:57:41.000I 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.
01:57:48.000Like, everything that I'm suspecting, I'm actually finding evidence that the forces that I think are acting improperly actually are.
01:57:56.000And, you know, when is it going to stop?
01:58:01.000Well, 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.
01:58:10.000Because of what happened to the science, I always thought that data would win out and science trumps all.
01:58:16.000I 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,
01:58:32.000And 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.
01:58:47.000And 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.
01:59:00.000What was the reason why you recommended it?
01:59:03.000Because we knew it was critical in this disease.
01:59:19.000He's made multiple contributions to our specialty.
01:59:21.000Him and another group of scholars reviewed all of the trials from SARS, MERS, and H1N1, so the prior pandemics.
01:59:30.000And 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.
01:59:37.000But 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.
01:59:50.000So 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.
02:00:27.000And I was on the phone with them every day.
02:00:29.000I was trying to learn everything I could about disease.
02:00:31.000And the stuff that I was hearing, first of all, that was just Armageddon.
02:00:34.000It was insane, the stuff that I was hearing.
02:00:37.000I mean, it just still brings back really horrible memories of what happened to New York and Seattle and Detroit and New Orleans.
02:00:44.000If 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.
02:00:52.000But I knew from them that people were crashing onto ventilators and they weren't coming off.
02:01:01.000They 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.
02:01:11.000And 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.
02:01:21.000And those that started to use steroids, you started...
02:01:49.000A 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.
02:02:01.000It's actually, although they call it a pneumonia, it's just a reaction to a lung injury, to exposure to something.
02:02:07.000And so the lungs are reacting in the form of an organizing pneumonia.
02:02:13.000The cardinal therapy for organizing pneumonia is steroids.
02:02:18.000And 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.
02:02:28.000And I think we talked about it on your podcast, and I just have to say it again, but...
02:02:34.000My belief, leaving ivermectin alone, is that many, many thousands of people are dying around the world from undertreatment with corticosteroids.
02:02:45.000We now have significant amounts of data to show that.
02:02:48.000The trials which use methylprednisolone at higher doses have much better outcomes.
02:02:56.000What the whole world is doing is they're following.
02:02:58.000Remember how we talked about the pitfalls of a large randomized controlled trial?
02:03:02.000So when I said to use corticosteroids in the Senate testimony, I was attacked, criticized everywhere because there was no randomized control trial.
02:03:10.000Seven weeks later, Oxford put out the recovery trial, which is their big trial in the UK, and they showed that corticosteroids were life-saving.
02:04:24.000But 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?
02:04:37.000And it resulted in a discovery that something should be done.
02:04:41.000To 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.
02:04:53.000Now, why is that process being frustrated?
02:04:57.000Yes, it probably has to do with profits.
02:04:58.000And 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.
02:05:11.000I keep coming back to these emergency use authorizations, which have a provision in them.
02:05:15.000They cannot grant an emergency use authorization if there is an existing treatment that is safe and effective, right?
02:05:22.000The vaccines would not have been authorized if ivermectin was understood to be what it is.
02:05:26.000And that, I have the sense, is the key thing that explains everything else.
02:05:32.000Somehow, 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.
02:05:49.000And so in some sense, they started with the conclusion.
02:07:42.000What's interesting, so we don't really know what drives it.
02:07:44.000We're starting to get more and more insights.
02:07:47.000In fact, we are working now in a collaboration.
02:07:50.000It'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.
02:08:04.000So we're starting to understand that it is persistent inflammation.
02:08:11.000We think it's persistent viral proteins that are in some of the immune cells that are triggering the immune cells.
02:08:17.000And so what's interesting is ivermectin is showing really strong efficacy.
02:08:23.000And 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.
02:08:33.000And I have dozens of testimonials of people who...
02:08:46.000It's not long COVID. Are we thinking that the virus is still infecting people?
02:08:52.000No, we don't think it's persistent virus.
02:08:54.000If that's the case, then how is Ivermectin curing these people that have this long-term...
02:09:03.000It has, we think, a number of antiviral properties.
02:09:06.000So it interrupts the replication and entry of the virus.
02:09:09.000But it also has a number of anti-inflammatory properties.
02:09:12.000So it actually modulates and it decreases the inflammation in the body.
02:09:16.000So if something's triggering ongoing inflammation, ivermectin can tamp that down.
02:09:22.000So we think it's acting as an anti-inflammatory.
02:09:25.000But it also binds to the spike protein.
02:09:27.000And we think that there are persistent proteins in some of these cells.
02:09:31.000And so ivermectin, we believe, is somehow binding to and kind of suppressing the triggering of inflammation by these proteins.
02:09:40.000Again, 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,
02:10:36.000So for like a 70 kilogram male, it'll be about 12, 15 milligrams.
02:10:42.000But we sometimes use a little bit higher doses if we don't get the effect and or longer durations or more frequently.
02:10:49.000So 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,
02:11:07.000I 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.
02:11:18.000This is good, sound medicine that I want to share, but our website is flccc.net.
02:11:24.000And 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.
02:11:32.000That's our protocol for long COVID. It also applies to post-vaccine syndromes.
02:11:40.000We have encountered numerous patients who've gotten quite sick after the vaccines, and that's persisted.
02:11:48.000And there, The reason why ivermectin is so potent is much more clear to explain, right?
02:11:55.000The vaccines, right, tell your body to make spike proteins.
02:12:00.000And 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.
02:12:13.000It can make some people sick and some people quite sick.
02:12:16.000And ivermectin binds to the spike protein.
02:12:20.000So 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.
02:12:32.000That's been another really satisfying aspect.
02:12:34.000People 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.
02:12:45.000So 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.
02:13:07.000The evidence for binding to spike protein is more what's called in silico.
02:13:12.000It's basically computational modeling, where they're looking as to see what it would bind to.
02:13:17.000And we think that the binding of ivermectin to COVID is how it works.
02:13:24.000And it makes sense, not only from the in silico studies, but also the fact that it prevents entry.
02:13:29.000Because if it binds to COVID, that also would suggest why you're preventing people from getting ill, because they can't enter.
02:13:37.000But 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.
02:13:48.000We do not have clinical trials to support that protocol.
02:13:53.000All we have is clinical experience, but it's becoming larger and wider.
02:13:59.000Again, 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.
02:14:09.000But remember that pyramid I talked about before?
02:14:11.000When you talk about treatment of long COVID, you're at the lower levels of the pyramid, right?
02:14:15.000I don't have big trials or lots of even small clinical trials.
02:14:20.000So I think one thing that is conspicuous is many things lead back to spike protein, right?
02:14:32.000It does a lot of damage to a lot of different systems, as Pierre can tell you.
02:14:38.000The 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.
02:14:53.000Now, 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.
02:15:11.000And 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.
02:15:24.000But 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.
02:15:36.000And the subunit that they have used is based on that spike protein.
02:15:49.000And 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.
02:16:03.000And there is a possibility that that would prevent it from being toxic.
02:16:07.000But they didn't design it to be non-toxic.
02:16:09.000They locked it so that the immune system could see it.
02:16:13.000And the problem is that this vaccine or these vaccines have already failed at several different levels.
02:16:20.000The way the vaccine is supposed to work, it is supposed to be injected into you.
02:16:23.000At the injection site, it is supposed to have the mRNAs or the DNA enter the cells, trigger the production of spike protein.
02:16:31.000The spike protein is supposed to move to the surface of the cell and it is supposed to stay there.
02:16:36.000It 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?
02:16:42.000Now, 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.
02:16:52.000Maybe some of them do, but many of them seem to float around the body.
02:16:55.000So we have this molecule, which is based on a COVID molecule or a SARS-CoV-2 molecule that is cytotoxic.
02:17:20.000It makes sense that there's been an error here, right?
02:17:37.000COVID 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.
02:17:52.000And 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.
02:18:00.000But it's all telling us a kind of remarkable story.
02:18:04.000And, 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?
02:18:18.000I think the answer would be obvious, right?
02:18:20.000You 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.
02:18:28.000Because it sure seems logical that the behavior would come from that calculation.
02:18:34.000Now let me ask you this about the spike protein.
02:18:36.000This 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?
02:19:28.000But in any case, it's been demonstrated in these...
02:19:35.000Are you answering the question, Brett, of how do we know the spike proteins circulate?
02:19:40.000Well, so A, I believe we know that the manufacturers ran a test that was basically, whether intentional or not, built to fail, right?
02:19:52.000Apparently 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.
02:20:08.000You can basically see which parts of the animal are lit up.
02:20:11.000But if you do that by sectioning the tissues, so you're looking at the tissues, it's a very sensitive assay.
02:20:17.000If 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.
02:20:22.000And so it's not surprising that you would see it concentrated at the injection site.
02:20:27.000So, in any case, in the demonstration phase, we had a test that wasn't capable of seeing smaller amounts that circulate around the body.
02:20:36.000What 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?
02:21:02.000But what we're seeing now is I think people are misunderstanding whether it's virus or protein.
02:21:09.000And 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.
02:21:18.000Well, we see a couple different things.
02:21:20.000We see spike proteins, but we also see this lipid nanoparticle coat material.
02:21:26.000So 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.
02:21:36.000And this coding is now floating around the body.
02:21:39.000It has conspicuously shown up in some places where you really wouldn't want to see a signal like ovaries.
02:22:44.000I try to focus on ivermectin because, you know, I think the ivermectin is such an important part of all of this.
02:22:51.000And I think it would answer and solve a lot of the concerns around the vaccines.
02:22:55.000And we consider it as a bridge to vaccination.
02:23:01.000It'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.
02:23:27.000I wouldn't be anywhere talking about ivermectin if the data didn't support that, nor would my group.
02:23:33.000Which 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.
02:23:40.000We should say we were scheduled to do this a few weeks from now, but we realized, like, okay, this is something that's...
02:23:46.000it's heating up and there's a narrative, and this narrative is gonna get squashed if they wind up pulling your channel.
02:23:53.000And, like, as far as we know, they don't have any influence right now over Spotify.
02:24:18.000Once 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,
02:24:37.000Once 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.
02:24:49.000This is part of the problem with censorship.
02:24:52.000Because we've seen already it was incorrect, at least in terms of being completely disputed, the lab leak theater.
02:25:00.000It's not been disproven, and in fact...
02:25:03.000People were getting censored and removed from social media platforms and banned for suggesting this in the past.
02:25:11.000Now you can just openly do it and you can openly discuss it.
02:25:15.000So I think the thing to point to is this.
02:25:20.000Any 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?
02:25:30.000If 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?
02:25:38.000You have to curate that discussion and eliminate that.
02:25:41.000But that's not the position that YouTube is in.
02:25:44.000YouTube is dealing with a platform that covers us all.
02:25:47.000And yeah, there's gonna be a lot of garbage circulated on that platform, to be sure.
02:25:51.000That is the nature of human dialogue, right?
02:25:54.000If you do it on paper, it'll be on paper.
02:25:56.000If you do it on video, it'll be on YouTube.
02:26:18.000So 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.
02:26:27.000You're not going to upgrade the conversation.
02:26:29.000And 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.
02:26:38.000Now, I could be wrong about that, right?
02:26:54.000I could be wrong about things here, but the only way we're going to figure out...
02:26:59.000Whether 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.
02:27:07.000And 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.
02:27:20.000And YouTube needs to understand that it is taking responsibility for that.
02:27:24.000I 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.
02:27:36.000Yeah, I think that was before the podcast, but yeah.
02:27:44.000And 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.
02:27:54.000And 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,
02:28:13.000And so I agree that – and I don't want to debate what is appropriate to censor – What isn't?
02:28:19.000But I just can't figure out why a healthy debate of science and of medicine by credible physicians using data...
02:28:27.000And you're basically saying to the average person in this country that you can't think for yourself.
02:28:32.000We 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.
02:28:43.000And so you're removing anyone's ability.
02:28:46.000You're basically saying, we need to think for you because you're going to hurt yourself.
02:28:49.000From medicines, from medical misinformation, you want to put that on the same shelf as calls for violence and insurrection.
02:28:56.000Like, by the way, even before this happened, there's plenty of nonsense on the internet around But this is a different thing, right?
02:29:04.000Because of the fact that it's a pandemic, everybody is very urgent in their actions.
02:29:08.000So the excuse is they have to act quickly to stop this stuff.
02:29:13.000The spread of disinformation can happen very rapidly.
02:29:22.000Normally 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.
02:29:28.000And 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.
02:29:44.000And 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.
02:29:58.000Actually, 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.
02:30:40.000Whether it's Hunter Biden's laptop or lab leak.
02:30:44.000But I just want to finish what you said.
02:30:46.000I 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.
02:30:57.000We could talk about the theoretical objections to the censorship in which there are many, especially history.
02:31:03.000I think we threw out our history books as we went into the pandemic.
02:31:06.000But just looking at Ivermectin, where's the incalculable loss of life?
02:31:13.000And 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.
02:31:33.000So if the U.S. had adopted ivermectin, That would have had an immense global impact.
02:31:40.000And so this particular instance, this issue of ivermectin and their censorship, I just got to say they got it wrong.
02:31:48.000And it's almost hard for me to talk about what the implications of that was.
02:32:13.000I see them crashing on the ventilators.
02:32:16.000You know, especially, it's this thing about the early treatment, which you picked up on, Joe.
02:32:19.000Like, if you treat them early, they don't go to the hospital.
02:32:22.000They 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.
02:32:31.000Even with ivermectin, I have seen it work, but most of the time I'm seeing them in advanced forms of disease.
02:32:37.000You see these patients, they're trapped in the hospital on high-flow oxygen support devices for weeks.
02:32:43.000And there's all sorts of other insanity with the visiting policies.
02:32:58.000Are there other things that are used in conjunction with ivermectin that are common like IV vitamins or anything along those lines?
02:33:05.000So 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...
02:33:19.000Severe lung injury as well as emerging data in COVID. So we use high-dose IV vitamin C. So our protocols...
02:33:26.000So when you say high-dose, how many milligrams are you talking about?
02:33:58.000You said IV. Yeah, so oral is limited.
02:34:00.000You can't get very high concentrations.
02:34:02.000But IV, you can achieve high super physiologic concentrations.
02:34:08.000And we know that has really beneficial effects.
02:34:11.000We have studies that show we have our own practice.
02:34:13.000So if you look at our protocols, The sicker you are, when you get to the hospital, and this disease is really complex.
02:34:20.000It has a number of different inflammatory and what we call pathophysiologic pathways.
02:34:25.000And so we use a whole host of medicines.
02:34:27.000Our 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.
02:34:38.000So ivermectin, We use an antidepressant called fluvoxamine, which actually has very profound anti-inflammatory properties, which is kind of a cool story, too.
02:34:49.000That 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.
02:35:04.000He's struggled to get that into the wider community.
02:35:07.000I 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.
02:35:20.000So YouTube somehow feels qualified to shut these people down.
02:35:26.000Joe, when you talk about all the other stuff, so we use a whole bunch of stuff.
02:35:29.000And 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.
02:35:49.000And the patients were going at very low rates, were getting sick.
02:35:53.000And now, patients with chronic mental illness, especially institutionalized, generally not known for their physical health or good nutritional habits.
02:36:01.000I mean, they oftentimes have an epidemic of smoking, tobacco addiction, obesity.
02:36:06.000I mean, there's a lot of things that can travel with mental illness.
02:36:09.000Yet, they were doing better than the nurses and doctors.
02:36:16.000And they started to look at all the variables that might differ.
02:36:18.000And they noticed that depressed people was highly protective.
02:36:23.000That if you had a diagnosis of depression, your chances of going to the hospital and dying was much, much less.
02:36:28.000And really what that was, it was a proxy for the antidepressant that they were on.
02:36:32.000That's sort of what kind of engendered the investigations.
02:36:35.000And 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.
02:36:45.000They work on, you know, a few different mechanisms.
02:36:47.000And so anyway, long answer to say that we use combination therapy protocol.
02:36:53.000It's critical that you use a combination of therapies.
02:36:56.000And the sicker you are, the more that we're going to use.
02:36:58.000And so I invite your listeners to look at our protocols.
02:37:02.000So 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.
02:37:19.000Public health, unfortunately, has to deal with the game theory of people, right?
02:37:23.000So 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.
02:37:45.000So that makes sense, logically speaking.
02:37:48.000In 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.
02:38:02.000And at some points, they may even lie in order to get people to behave in a certain way.
02:38:07.000Now, I don't support this, but I do recognize that it's an actual problem.
02:38:11.000How 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?
02:38:26.000But 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.
02:38:44.000And they are using it to shut down the scientific discussion of what we ought to do.
02:38:48.000And I swear it looks like capture is what has gotten a hold of this process.
02:38:53.000So 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,
02:39:35.000So 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.
02:39:48.000And so when you ask, like, have I debated anyone openly?
02:39:51.000What's interesting is I'm ready anytime.
02:40:34.000Their only tool, their only fight is to say, don't trust the evidence.
02:40:38.000And 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.
02:40:53.000The guy who I debated last week, you can watch and be the judge.
02:40:59.000I mean, he just kept nattering on the same old talking points about these little trials.
02:41:06.000But 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...
02:41:19.000He just kept saying, you know, those are...
02:41:21.000Oh, 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.
02:41:32.000And 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,
02:41:55.000In fact, we have now double-blind randomized control trials showing that the time to viral clearance is greatly shortened with ivermectin.
02:42:04.000Just a week ago, an Israeli group, a very prominent university, showed a trial that viral cultures cleared quicker.
02:42:13.000And 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.
02:42:29.000The 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.
02:43:00.000The WHO has really done very poorly in a number of global emergencies, and this one's no different.
02:43:06.000But 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.
02:43:25.000If you find evidence of a dose-response, which is to say, higher the dose, higher the response, right?
02:43:32.000Dose-response relationship, that's like an unassailable pillar of efficacy.
02:43:38.000The existing evidence at the time of that guideline, we know because their researcher was out there in public lecturing on it.
02:43:45.000He was showing that single day versus multi-day, you had much faster eradication of the virus.
02:43:52.000So viral clearance had a dose response.
02:43:55.000In that document, They say we looked at dose response amongst these five outcomes and we found none.
02:44:03.000Guess which outcome they didn't mention?
02:44:12.000They deliberately left out scientific evidence to show efficacy of a drug because they didn't want that recommended.
02:44:21.000And 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.
02:44:33.000So, 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.
02:45:48.000And it's not to say that real arguments don't occur, right?
02:45:51.000We 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.
02:46:03.000But the presumption would have to be that it is.
02:46:06.000And the circumstantial evidence suggests so.
02:46:09.000So, in any case, there are arguments to be made.
02:46:12.000Occasionally you get one back, but most of what you get back appears to be obstructionist.
02:46:16.000And one of the hallmarks of obstructionist arguments is that they don't update.
02:46:19.000When you properly challenge them, they just move on to the next argument, right?
02:46:23.000You don't get an acknowledgement that actually you were right about that.
02:46:26.000So, I mean, I'm seeing that across the board.
02:46:30.000I'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.
02:46:49.000I 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.
02:46:57.000You're seeing this really almost unassailable data and the behaviors are bizarre.
02:47:02.000Like 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.
02:47:18.000And that I am incorrect in my conclusions.
02:49:32.000And 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.
02:49:48.000Now it's real scientists getting censored and there's no evidence whatsoever that they're incorrect.
02:49:54.000That'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.
02:50:11.000That ability is being, it seems like, purposely removed from us.
02:50:31.000But what is motivating us is that there is a lot of There's a lot of risk to human beings out there.
02:50:39.000Just 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...
02:51:17.000Yeah, and I appreciate the way you summarized that, Joe.
02:51:20.000And, 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.
02:51:31.000But, 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,
02:51:48.000they're going to keep getting what's happening, which is uncontrollable spread, crisis situations.
02:51:54.000And 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.
02:52:05.000Uttar Pradesh already did it months ago.
02:52:21.000A number of other states also broke free.
02:52:24.000And 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.
02:52:41.000Now they're trying to organize them based on the evidence in a number of countries of the world.
02:52:46.000And the other thing is we've seen these incredible successes.
02:53:04.000She's making a joke, but literally there was no more cases and the hospitals were empty.
02:53:10.000South 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.
02:53:17.000They 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.
02:53:30.000There are successes against what we clearly know is just incorrect and harmful advice from, unfortunately, those leaders that we look to for good guidance.
02:53:47.000Thank you, gentlemen, for coming in here and doing this, and thank you for your tireless work on exposing this and letting people know.
02:53:54.000And 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.