My Conversation with Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Chris Martenson
Charlie sits down in-studio with two of the leading and most influential voices in the medical and scientific fields fighting for fact-based early and alternate treatments of COVID-19. Dr. Pierre Kory is a pulmonary and critical care specialist and he's the president of Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC Alliance) as well as the co-author of MATH+ Prophylaxis Treatment Protocols for COVID-19. His protocols have been used around world and are credited with saving countless lives. Dr. Chris Martenson is a pathology and toxicology expert who was a scientist and former corporate finance officer for Pfizer. Dr. Martenson is the CEO of PeakProsperity.com. Both are part of the strategy advisory council for The Unity Project UnityProjectOnline.com Nothing is off limits, and nothing is out of bounds in this long-form discussion that challenges the dominant media and institutional narratives. Please share this episode with your friends, family members and anyone who may be experiencing sickness from COVID. Email us your thoughts at Freedom@CharlieKirk.com Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
No Advertisers This Episode00:07:00
Hey everybody, happy Saturday.
No advertisers on this episode.
Do you want to support our show?
We're building a new studio.
We're expanding our operation in the new year.
It's charliekirk.com slash support.
Text this episode to your friends, especially our liberal ones, and ask them to listen to it.
It might be a lot of fun because it's very factual, and I think it'll open a lot of eyes.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country.
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
All right.
Here we go.
We are here with two special guests, Dr. Martinson and Dr. Corey.
Thank you guys for joining our show.
Great.
Thanks for having us.
Good to be here.
So let's just kind of have you guys introduce yourselves.
Dr. Corey, you first.
Okay.
Yeah.
So I'm a lung and ICU specialist.
Spent my whole career in academia teaching.
So I was known as an educator.
I used to run a training program for doctors in my specialty to do ICU and lung medicine.
And in COVID, you know, I like to say that I was a pulmonary and critical care physician at a time when the world got hit with the pulmonary and critical care pandemic.
Right.
So, and I think I showed up.
You know, I showed up.
Me and my colleagues that we now formed a group called the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.
And these are some of my close colleagues.
We came together and all we've tried to do is figure out how best to treat this disease.
So we put together protocols.
We've researched the ends of the earth about anything that works.
And we put together really effective protocols.
And what we've been trying to do is try to give folks agency and give providers, physicians, and people, you know, knowledge on how to treat this.
And I'm really proud of that work.
You know, our organization and the protocols have really made it around the world.
And it's made a big difference.
And, you know, I'm really excited to be a part of it.
So I'm glad to be here to talk about it today.
It's saved millions of lives and it's protected liberty.
The suppression of early treatments, I believe, has been directly correlated to civilizational changes.
If you have early treatments, then a lot of these other things that we've seen wouldn't have happened.
And as bad as America feels, it's actually, there's a lot of countries in the Western world that are far behind us.
We'll get into that.
Dr. Martinson.
Well, hey, thanks for having me here.
It's good to be here.
And I think I'm here because of the COVID coverage I did.
And that started, I guess, PhD in pathology from Duke University.
That means two years of medical school.
And then they put on the white coats.
And I went off and did surgical pathology, histology, stuff like that, autopsies, things like that.
So diseases, disease states, pretty far back in my background.
Was a research scientist for a while.
Also went and got an MBA and was in corporate finance for a while.
So that's my background.
Last 10 years, I've just been out talking to the world about what's going on in the world.
And when COVID came along, that was my calling, I guess.
And I put out a series of videos daily for six months, just every single day.
And then two videos a week after that, big meaty ones, like 40 minutes of like science, you know.
And that's how I met this guy because I think you ran across one of my videos.
You're like, who's this guy?
Yeah, we could talk about that.
I think it's a cool little story.
So, you know, I'm sometimes associated overly so, but it's okay with Ivermectin because that is a centerpiece of a lot of our protocols.
But, you know, our group, we put together protocols starting in March of 2020.
Our group was the first one in the world to really make a loud call for corticosteroids to be used in the hospital phase.
And we did that at a time when all national and international health agencies were absolutely against it.
In fact, every single national and international health agency said, do not use corticosteroids in this disease.
And we were shouting to do it.
I don't know if you know this, Charlie, but I testified in the Senate back in May of 2020 about corticosteroids, not on ivermectin.
Ivermectin came much later.
So in the course of that, when we discovered that corticosteroids were critical, then we started adding other elements.
And then right around October, November of 2020, Paul Marrick, who's one of the founders of the group, you know, we were reviewing all of these trials on a lot of different substances that were being tested, and everything was coming back negative.
Like tosalizumab was failing and convalescent plasma and a whole bunch of other compounds.
And all of a sudden, ivermectin was showing a signal that was so consistent, reproducible from different pockets of the globe, different little centers, big centers.
And, you know, Paul started to talk about it.
And then I started to write this big review paper, which we'll talk about what happened to that later.
But at that time, we heard of this guy, Chris Martins, and people were like sharing videos.
And there's this guy like saying the same thing we are.
I was like, who is this guy?
And I thought he was Ned Flanders at first.
He just presented so well and innocently.
And I was just like, this guy nobody knows what he's talking about.
And right since that time, I think we reached out and very quickly we got together.
And, you know, we've been sharing a lot of information ever since.
So he's a great resource.
What were your videos on?
So it was January 23rd.
The 22nd, I started to get really nervous because I'd been tracking for about a week this virus that was going on in China.
And then 2020, right?
And then it was that night of, I think, January 22nd, Wuhan got ringed off.
And I know that China does not willingly shut down a manufacturing center like Wuhan.
So I said, oh, this is much more serious than I thought.
So I put out an alert and I said, hey, we've got this huge problem going on.
Within five days, I called it a pandemic using the WHO's own guidelines.
And a few days after that, my wiki page got taken down because I was apparently saying stuff I wasn't supposed to.
But I was just literally following the pandemic guidelines that the WHO had sent out.
And I was said it was a pandemic.
So I alerted the people who follow me, stock up on toilet paper.
I said, get masks, get hand sanitizer, and do things like that because I could see what was coming.
It was very obvious.
And obviously they tried to smear you for being early.
Yes, yes, I was way early on that.
It's been a very interesting phenomenon.
The people that were early and the people that have been early on every one of these things always get smeared.
It's a very interesting thing, especially the people that were hawkish on the virus early on.
It was the latecomers that were hawkish that somehow get to be treated really well.
So there's a lot of different things I want to talk about with you guys.
And I have so much respect for both of you.
Let me just start with this.
Medical Dogma and Political Arguments00:03:04
You're both doctors.
You worked for Pfizer.
I'd love to ask you about that later.
What's your general take on the medical field's embrace of just kind of unquestioned dogma?
Yeah.
So it's, I started to see some of this.
I saw some of these dynamics happening before COVID, but what's happened in COVID is unprecedented.
What the kind of whole medical system has done, the way it's reacted, has been not only a terrible failure, but the system that it created explains that, right?
The system that you, how it's designed, is the results you get.
And so, this top-down totalitarian approach, where they literally restrict not only the ability, the autonomy of physicians to try new medicines, to use different medicines that have maybe different levels of evidence base, to even openly discuss some of the things they're using.
The incentive payments coming out of the government to only use certain medications.
And the whole thing is just the way it coalesced into this really very totalitarian state.
What are these incentive payments?
What do you mean?
So, if you look at the NIH treatment guidelines, which is generally what every hospital in the country follows, comes out of the NIH, and they put down what they think should be used.
And so, there are drugs like remdesivir, right, is on there.
And then, a lot of what I call the IBS and abs, so baracitinib and tosilizumab and sotruvumab and casavirumab.
I can't even keep up with all the abs, Chris.
But all of them are actually high-cost, large-dollar items, and that largely represents our entire therapeutic approach, with the exception of dexamethasone at a small dose.
And there are written lintel legislation that every hospital, when they use those medicines, like remdesivir, they get 20% add-on payment to their bill.
I mean, there's a massive financial incentive built into the system to ensure these medicines are being used.
And how absurd and terrifying that fact becomes is because remdesivir is the centerpiece of their hospital treatment.
If anyone has an objective look at the data on remdesivir, it does not work.
Even the WHO does not recommend it.
They've repeatedly not recommended even recently.
Yet in this country, it's the standard of care.
It's $3,000 a dose.
Hurts kidneys, too, right?
It does.
Deliver kidneys, something right?
Absolutely.
So, if you look at the trials that were not run by pharmaceutical companies, the ones that were done by kind of independent research institutions, all of those show either no effect or a trend to harm.
There's a signal that you will do worse if you get remdesivir.
The pharmaceutical company trials look like it's a good drug, and they did some shenanigans with those trials.
And so, I believe you have actually a drug that has corrupt evidence behind it, and it's made it the standard of care.
And we actually pay hospitals extra to use it.
Intravenous Vitamin C Debates00:05:31
Dr. Martinson, one of the great frustrations for me, kind of just a regular citizen looking at this, caring a lot about, obviously, politics and the philosophical underpinnings, has been that I was naive enough to believe that in a scientific community, that would be the one place where objective measurement and data would prevail over dogma.
I was wrong.
In fact, it was the exact opposite.
Now that I look at the last two years, there are political arguments I get into where both sides are completely dogmatic, where I can find more reasonable middle ground than between two doctors that might disagree.
How do I make sense of that?
I don't know.
I'm going to quote the great comedian Lily Tomlin and say, you know, as cynical as I am, I can't quite keep up.
I was pretty cynical coming into this, and then I saw what happened, and I couldn't believe what was happening.
I was watching people who are very intelligent, very well-trained, say things that are complete nonsense.
So, I love science, and I love the scientific method.
And when the data changes, I change my mind, and those are the people I value and respect.
They share that quality.
I watch people double down and triple down on losing positions that are indefensible, that are costing lives, and all of a sudden I couldn't make sense of it anymore because it's not in logical territory anymore.
We have to go into some weird psychological territory to understand.
Just from a temperament, maybe you don't have an answer, neither of you have an answer to this.
I would think that scientists or doctors would be the least committed to kind of just some abstract phrase or soundbite or talking point.
I guess that's been an eye-opener for you as someone who's dedicated your life to science.
Has it been a learning lesson in some sense of just the state of Western science or world science?
Either way.
Yeah.
I mean, I just want to re-emphasize what Chris.
So I always struggled in medicine in my career.
I saw these implicit biases that could not be overcome with data.
So that's not a new thing.
So for instance, I was well known in my specialty for a few areas of expertise prior to COVID.
So I'm one of the world pioneers in a field called point of care ultrasound, where we literally use ultrasound probes instead of the old stethoscope.
So I wrote a textbook.
It's seven languages, second edition.
So I'm pretty well known for that field, as well as research in and around the use of high doses of intravenous ascorbic acid, which is vitamin C. You're speaking my.
By the way, don't go into a health system talking about how a vitamin works.
You know, like you try to convince people that there's actually an intravenous vitamin works.
Believe me, you're going to run into implicit data.
How high dose we diet?
75,000, 100,000.
No, no.
So the way we were using it, we probably use it.
What we know now, we probably should be using higher doses, but it's in particular in one model, which is septic shock, which is an area I'm an expert at.
So I'm an ICU doctor.
Septic shock is really when the infection completely ravages the body.
You can't even hold on to your blood pressure anymore.
The vessels are leaky and you can develop organ failures and it has a high mortality rate.
We found that if you give intravenous ascorbic acid early, it's really time sensitive.
So you have to give it within the first six hours of hitting the emergency room doors.
Those patients who get high doses were 1.5 grams every six hours.
So six grams a day.
Now, there are Naturopass and others who use 25 grams for a viral syndrome.
So we're not using.
Yeah, I was going to say, you're one of those celebrities commonly get, you know, maybe you're one of them, Charlie.
So I do NAD.
I do all that stuff.
Okay, all right, good, good.
Whatever the FDA doesn't approve.
So I like it that he's, you know, I'm an ICU doctor and he's like, yeah, you and your 1.5 grams every six hours.
You know, we were just starting out and that was, that was a dose that was kind of arbitrarily chosen.
And we found that it works, but it's very time sensitive.
One of the really interesting areas that we're interested in exploring is, is it that if you give it later, you just have to give higher doses?
And so we don't have good trials for that.
But I'll tell you, going back to the bias question, I could not convince my partner.
So I also, part of my bona fides, right, is I used to be the chief of the critical care service at the University of Wisconsin, as well as the director of what's called their Trauma and Life Support Center, which is their main medical surgical ICU.
So I had a position of clinical leadership.
I had about 17 what are called intensivists under me or with me.
And when I came out with my research and my practice on IV vitamin C, I would say about four of them sort of were like interesting, started using it, put it into their practice.
And I was roundly attacked by the rest.
And no matter how much data came out, they fought me on it.
And then, and you're going to find the same thing in COVID, is what happened was a whole slew of trials were done on IV ascorbic acid, and they all failed to show benefit.
All failed to show benefit.
And that's one of the real big problems in science is each and every one of those trials gave the therapy so far into septic shock that they weren't showing the mortality benefits that we knew from the early, from when you give it early.
And so, but they don't sweat the small stuff.
They see trial after trial and big journal after big journal.
And then they call like Corey and Marek.
So I have to talk about Paul Marrick because he's really the pioneer in this in this therapy.
We were all discredited and sort of attacked and dismissed for this.
Virus Mutations and Vaccine Tech00:08:44
Well, that's super interesting for me because what you're saying is that there was a pattern or there was a harbinger of immediate dismissal of differing opinion well before COVID in the scientific community.
And by the way, that's not that unusual of an example, or it's actually pretty applicable to COVID because vitamin D booster shots, if given to the whole population, very well might have helped people if the level was over 50.
I haven't seen any public health awarenesses or kind of around that.
So I want to get into kind of a specific question that Dr. Martinson, I think you might be able to speculate and help us explore together.
Is Omicron the real vaccine that we've been waiting for?
I would say yes.
It's such an interesting, interesting thing.
So if you had given me a sheet of paper and said, write down everything you want, I would have written down exactly what Omicron is, maybe with even slightly milder effects, but it's mild, hyper-transmissive, has all the great features of the prior versions, right?
Variants.
It's got alpha, beta, gamma, delta.
It's got the D614G mutation, the 501y.
It's got all of them.
It's got all the greatest hits, right?
Which means that when you have it and you get antibodies against it, you have antibodies against all those prior variants.
And it's shown to have sterilizing immunity against Delta, at least.
And it looks like early data, all the prior ones as well.
So you catch it.
Now, here's the best part.
When you get a vaccine or this new treatment we have, it goes into your deltoid muscle, right?
They squirt that in there.
And then your body has to rally around an antigen that's in a muscle.
That's not the normal way your body gets exposed to things.
Nature said you get exposed through your pharyngeal area or your gut.
And so if you do get that vaccine, you know, we have an oral polio vaccine, right?
There's other ones that do squirt up the nose.
It's a great place because your body knows what to do when it sees it up there, right?
And it mounts a very vigorous, full-spectrum immunological response.
So not only is this Omicron awesome in that way, but it only really preferentially inhabits your nasopharyngeal.
It doesn't go to the lungs and it replicates like crazy up here and it spreads like wildfire.
So honestly, if you had told me somebody created this as a white hat operation to create an aerial airborne vaccine, I would give them the Nobel Prize.
Yeah.
So I want to make sure I understood that correctly.
So you're saying it's possible that a group of scientists maybe made this as an antidote or a mass, very mild inoculation strategy?
Can I get wonky for just one second?
So there's two big parts of the virus.
There's the envelope and all the envelope proteins, and then the spike protein everybody's heard about.
The spike protein, when you look at its genetic makeup, it actually, its nearest progenitor, you have to chase all the way back to about April 2020.
It hasn't gone through any of the changes.
There's two types of changes that the code can go through.
One's called the synonymous change where you flip something, but it doesn't change the structure at all of the amino acids.
Another one is non-synonymous and you get these mutations.
So you can look at that mutation structure, just like if you went to 23andMe and said, do I have any cousins in town, right?
And you might be able to figure that out through the genetic structure.
So when we look at Omicron, its spike protein comes to us from April 2020.
And that's as rare as if we did 23andMe on your staff and we found out one of the boys out there was the son of George Washington directly.
It's bizarre.
Like you'd have some questions.
It did not come from Delta.
It came from far earlier on the family tree, the genealogy, so to speak, of these viruses.
It literally came off of a branch of a virus from 2020, which is a long time ago.
And how could it be residing somewhere and then just appear now and just rip through populations?
Unclear.
I like his theory.
The white hat lab leak theory, I think, is a really interesting thing.
It could have been some well-meaning scientists that have been developing this for quite some time.
Is that possible?
It's possible.
So let's go back to the movie Contagion, right?
In that movie, what are they looking for?
Patient zero.
You want patient zero.
You know why you want patient zero?
Because that tells you where it came from.
So if we had patient zero, you know, hey, they lived with a lot of mice, or we can trace it back to that original mutation.
So that's the awesome thing you want to find.
All we know is that patient zero was four diplomats from an unknown country that went to Botswana and that's it.
And the trail goes cold.
Nobody's interested.
Nobody's asking.
That's a tell at the poker table all unsewn because we should be fascinated with who's patient zero for Omicron?
Where did this come from?
Well, four diplomats from a country is all we know.
And so the fact that we're not interested, I think, is fascinating.
Yeah, that's anomalous behavior in action number 732 in this pandemic.
Is that what that is?
Yeah, Chris.
Yep.
It's going to memory hole soon enough.
Yeah, we're talking about it.
We're already dealing with small odds.
Yeah, and then we're only further kind of making it more impossible.
Well, that's fascinating.
And so what you've seen at Omicron is that this might be the end of the variants.
This could be the end of the tree.
This could be it.
It could be.
So what we see is that usually within three to four weeks of Omicron coming into a region, it muscles out all the other variants.
Like they're all gone.
Delta gets muscled out.
Delta muscled out all the earlier ones.
So it's just it takes care of them.
The only thing that would be weird is if we got another variant on top of this.
So it's always possible that Omicron itself could mutate into something not pleasant.
And on that front, I'm very worried about, you know, we have this Merck drug, Molnupirivir, that they want to put in there.
It's got a weird mechanism of action.
And its job specifically is to create mutations in viruses.
If you give it at a high enough dose, it creates enough mutations, none of the virus survives.
If the dose is wrong or it's tailing off in the serum and somebody's still replicating, it's just creating more mutants.
It's its job, actually.
So the treatment that Merck Pfizer is a partnership is just no, no, they're different.
They're separate.
But they each have a drug, though, that are coming out.
Yeah, totally separate mechanism of action.
They're both orally given.
Yeah, they're both going to be oral.
He was referring to the Merck one, which is called Molnu Piravir.
That it's actually, it's designed to create mutations.
Mutations.
Hopefully a lethal number of mutagenic.
It's a mutagenic drug.
Well, that could be catastrophic.
I think we should have had a little more humility on this.
We have decades of experience of a safety record with that drug.
And so I'm sure it's pretty safe if we launch it into a pandemic right now, right?
Actually, classic.
Does sarcasm work here, Charlie?
We're experts in it.
I was about to say, so, based on what you're telling me, Fauci in two years will take credit for the Omicron variant, that he was actually funding it in a lab in Cape Town.
Yep.
And he should be thanked for that.
Is that what I'm hearing you correctly?
Anything's possible.
So it's possible.
So, I mean, if we want to speculate, here's the speculation I have: I am 99.99% sure that the original SARS-2 came out of a lab, right?
There's a lot of genetic information for that.
It's probable that they were doing all sorts of research in that lab at the same time, not just creating the accidental SARS-2 if that was an accidental release, but they were probably working on a lot of other things, including this thing, right?
Probably.
They probably were working on, because we know the white hat story they have of self is that they were working on vaccines and they were actually looking to create airborne vaccines for bats that they wanted to create so they could pre-inoculate bat populations so that things wouldn't come out of the bat population into humans.
That's the story.
So we, good chance they were working on vaccine technology there and this would sort of fall under that possibly.
I find it to be the most incredibly compelling basis for an action novel that a group of scientists could potentially be working amidst a pandemic to release a variant that could actually solve the pandemic.
How deadly is Omicron?
Legitimately, outside of what the media says.
So the published data and the let's leave U.S. to the side because U.S. is really in trouble with information.
I want to get to that.
We're information warfare.
It's very hard to trust what's really happening.
I have some ground level data that I just got out of some colleagues in one major medical center.
And so that kind of has been making me think.
But if you look at South Africa, it was not deadly.
While it ripped through that population, the hospitals were emptying.
I don't even know if there's, there was, I think, maybe a couple of attributed deaths to Omicron, but it's not even clear if it's directly from or like what we say is COVID on the side.
You know, they had some other problem and they tested positive.
There's a study from Denmark also showing the same thing.
Information Warfare on Treatments00:07:28
Generally mild.
People don't go to the hospital.
People don't die.
Now, come to the U.S.
We are in the midst of just a wildfire of Omicron here, right?
I think yesterday it was three quarters of a million positive tests, which is probably much less than the amount of infections that were diagnosed on that day, right?
Not everyone's getting tested at this point.
I mean, what's the point, right?
If your brother, sister, mother have COVID, you know, why do you need to get a test?
So, you know, with all of these infections, you know, hospitalizations and purportedly deaths are on the rise.
So I don't think in this country it's necessarily mild for everyone.
I think it's mild for most, but what I'm seeing with Omicron here is there's a spectrum.
I'm hearing lots, I'm hearing reports of large clusters of either young or mildly symptomatic or even asymptomatic infections, right?
They don't reach out to me.
I'm really busy right now treating Omicron, but I'm not hearing from those kind of folks.
Then there's people who reach out to me.
None of them are getting severely ill or going to the hospital, but they have what I call significant symptoms.
So they can get really painful sore throats, sometimes high fevers, lots of fatigue, you know, what we call myalges, you know, muscle aches and whatnot, lots of congestion.
Not a lot of loss of taste and smell with Omicron.
I'm not really hearing that.
And they can recover, especially with early treatment.
Our early treatments are working really well.
I tend to use right now.
So Chris and I were talking earlier.
The Delta that came around in November, December, that was the wickedest COVID I've had to treat so far.
So as an outpatient, our protocols, we have first line, second line, and third line medications, and they're all in combination.
First line is ivermectin.
We also use an antidepressant as well as hydroxychloroquine.
Prozac.
Yeah, Prozac, exactly.
Fluoxetine is the one I prefer.
And that's what I would call first line.
And in November, December, Delta, that last wave of Delta, it was becoming harder and harder to treat.
Not one medicine was working.
I had to use two, three, and sometimes four, five, and six medicines.
I had some patients on six to seven medicines, including corticosteroid as an outpatient.
Prednisone or pretenizone, yeah, or methylpredinisolone, very similar, which I was starting to use A5 or six to prevent that lung phase.
So the reason why I bring that up is I was throwing the kitchen sink at that last wave of Delta.
My patients are all grateful.
They all made it through.
But it was becoming, yeah, they all made it through.
It's been usually a few dozen, I would say, that I got through that wave.
I'm doing like hundreds of other things.
So the only people I treat are like friends, family, friends of friends of family.
And it's really people who are like have some degree of closeness or separation to me.
So now in Omicron, I'm finding that I'm generally able to get by with first line only.
So hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and fluoxetine.
I kind of start all everybody on all three because I wasn't sure if I'm not seeing old Delta.
And also, I am now confused as to are we seeing Omicron deaths here?
It's not clear to me because it could be old deltas that are dying.
But I will tell you, so I'll tell you a related anecdote of today.
Talked to a colleague of mine at a major medical center, and I said, What's it really like there?
Are the ICUs full of COVIDs?
And they actually were at this institution.
There were multiple ICUs, enough patients filling up those ICU beds with COVID that they had to cancel elective surgeries.
If you want to know anything about the business of medicine, elective surgeries is where all the profit centers are, right?
And so for them to cancel elective surgeries at a major academic medical institution, that's a significant burden on the hospital.
So if you know that, and then as Chris and I were talking, almost everything's Omicron now.
I think some Americans are actually getting hit pretty hard with Omicron.
I mean, we are, you know, if you look at South Africa, right, that occurred in their summer.
They have more sunlight there, hopefully more vitamin D.
They had more natural immunity.
As a health status, I don't think they suffer from the obesity that the United States does.
So I think, you know, you're seeing here we're in a low vitamin D season right now.
You know, we have a lot more obesity, more comorbidities.
And so I don't think Omicron is mild for everyone.
Luckily, it's mild for enough, where I think it can serve as this vaccine, you know, a natural vaccine, but it's still tricky.
Well, it was Rochelle Walinski, even today, I think, said it's 91% less deadly.
Yes.
Right?
I don't know how much.
But the numbers are so high.
Because the numbers are so high.
Yeah, numbers are.
It's still going to stress and you're still going to see deaths.
But yes, could you imagine if Omicron was deadly as Delta?
I don't think that would be a movie.
That would be the horror movie.
I like your action movie idea of the white lab, you know, the white lab.
I already got the treatment being worked on.
Yeah, but there you go.
That's why Andrew keeps running back and forth.
But also, 91%, we're not even factoring in early treatment intervention.
That's why all of this is so correct.
Please, you know, I have to tell you, I mean, I'm sure we'll talk about vaccines, but one of my standard statements is we have to stop talking about unvaccinated and vaccinated.
It's called untreated and treated.
That's exactly what we need to think about.
And the vaccinated need treatment, the unvaccinated need treatment.
And actually, what's really scary is that there's data showing that the vaccinated are actually faring worse here.
They're getting it more frequently, that's for sure.
Well, what is that data?
So there's data.
Well, so for the, I don't have really good citable data for the vaccinated are getting it worse, but I will tell you, they're definitely getting it more.
The getting it worse is more clinical experience and exchanging with a large network of early treatment physicians who their general gut sense.
And when a clinician has a gut-spidey sense, that's how we live.
So like when they say, you know, I think I'm seeing a little bit worse disease in the vaccinated, that to me is compelling.
Now, it's not, again, definitive data, but the more frequent data, we're seeing that out of Germany, out of Alberta, Denmark, even, they showed that much higher rates of the vaccinated were getting COVID.
So it has a negative efficacy at this point.
For Omicron, for sure.
Yeah, for Omicron.
I'm sorry.
Yes.
Well, and it's the framing of the treatments versus the untreated is the most important framing.
And I'm confused about something.
And maybe you guys can help me.
And a cynical answer will suffice.
Great.
By the way, why do I get hundreds of emails from people saying, Charlie, I don't know what to do because I have COVID.
My doctor told me to go home.
And if it gets bad enough, go to the hospital.
And in what civilization is that acceptable?
It's not.
It's really not.
Not at this stage.
In fact, we could rewind this too.
I think it hasn't been acceptable since about maybe March or April of 2020.
And in this moment, if somebody says that's their doctor, I say, get another doctor.
You must because they are just not current on what's possible here at all.
There's not enough for that other doctor, though.
And that's the problem.
That's another, you know, we talked about those biases that I already saw.
And now I'm seeing it.
It's so ferocious, like Chris was saying, like the data on the vaccine showing that the safety, the efficacy data is failing.
And literally, you're having doctors who are quoting newspapers.
Toxicology Data Manipulation00:15:28
They're practicing medicine out of newspapers, right?
Because when Wolensky and Fauci and every newspaper article says safe and effective, they're just spouting this stuff.
On the early court justices, even.
Yeah, Supreme Court just, oh, wow.
She was never informed.
Wow.
That was a phenomenal display of complete programming.
You know, you know, it's a, you know, Plato would call it a noble lie.
Yeah.
Yes.
Noble eyes are.
Yeah, I have trouble getting that word out, actually, to noble eyes, because it's so, if it was noble, it was for like a hot minute.
And it's a horror show.
The disagreement Aristotle had is noble according to whom.
Yes.
And for what.
Yes.
That's very true.
And so this thing about, so if you don't mind, Charlie, I just want to trace down why this has happened, why you're getting those calls.
Like, I'm sick.
I hear that these medicines are effective.
Nobody will provide them to me.
So the way I would sum that up is what you are seeing is the terrible consequences of a decades-long war, which is ramped up in COVID, of the entire pharmaceutical industry attacking what are called repurposed drugs, off-patent, low-profit, safe, generic medicines.
If you have a disease model, especially a novel disease model, in which now a market opens up for therapeutics, and that entire pharmaceutical industry has literally the potential gains of about hundreds of billions, probably if you include the vaccines in those markets.
And they've done this for years in lots of disease.
It's well known and described in oncology and cardiology.
But here in infectious disease, unfortunately for the pharmaceutical industry, is that doctors discovered that these older, repurposed drugs had antiviral properties.
They were ridiculously slate, widely available, really cheap, and they did a really good job against this disease.
They have fierce powers at influencing and destroying the evidence of efficacy around older medicines.
And I can detail you sort of how they waged that war, but the simplest is as follows.
You cannot believe anything that I say about this if you don't at least understand that the agencies are fully captured by the pharmaceutical industry.
None of this would happen if they weren't fully under the control and influence of the pharmaceutical industry.
In fact, if you look at any action or policy around a therapeutic or a vaccine in this pandemic, whatever it's written, whatever comes out each day, ask yourself, if I was a pharmaceutical company, how would I write that policy and why would I make this decision?
And your answer would be that's exactly what a pharmaceutical company would write.
And it's happening day after day after day.
Okay, we just talked about Omicron is mild.
It's ripping through the population.
The existing vaccines aren't even built through it.
It's breaking through vaccines.
It has negative efficacy through vaccines.
So what do I have to wake up to the other day?
Which is the FDA approving boosters for 12 to 17 year olds.
So divorced from scientific principles, so clearly corrupt, so clearly with the sole intent of increasing the market of arms available to get a vaccine, that it's, I can't say it's no longer shocking because the brazenness and the records of absurdity are being set on a daily basis.
They keep going.
It's so rapacious and relentless.
They're literally, it's an assault on our lives and the entire public health, not only of this country, but it's across the world.
And so I, you know, there are narco-states, right?
States which are largely controlled and operated by, you know, drug lords.
I believe that the United States is now a pharma state.
I think it's literally run and operated by pharmaceutical companies.
They have long had Anthony Fauci as the spokesperson.
He has done their business, bidding for 40 years, well described in Bobby Kennedy's book, extremely well detailed, highly referenced, showing that action after action.
And by the way, let's take ivermectin as an example.
So this non-approval of ivermectin, this attack against ivermectin, look back to the AIDS epidemic with a drug called Bactram, which was what they used for the deadly pneumonia that was killing all the AIDS patients back in the 80s.
Lots of doctors, frontline doctors treating these AIDS patients.
They knew from oncology that cancer patients who got that pneumonia responded really well to the old drug called Bactram.
And so what happened?
They kept, the AIDS activists kept going to Fauci, kept going to the NIH.
Please approve this drug.
People are dying everywhere.
We know it works from the cancer data.
Would not approve.
Would not approve.
And it's estimated back then that that non-approval over those years in the 80s, at least about maybe 59,000 AIDS patients died unnecessarily and prematurely for lack of treatment.
So the idea that these policies don't have these terrible downstream effects has been recognized for decades.
But here, the way they fought this one is the first thing they do, it's called disinformation.
It's actually, I keep citing the paper.
It's a group called the Union for Concerned Scientists.
They wrote this article a few years ago called the Disinformation Playbook.
I would invite anyone to Google it.
And it talks about the tactics that corporations will use when science is inconvenient to their interests.
And these tactics were actually perfected and invented by the tobacco industry, which had a really long run of lots of success at suppressing inconvenient data for their product, right?
And there's many examples of it happening ever since.
But the disinformation that they've used around ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
So first of all, 2020 was the war on the repurposed drug hydroxychloroquine.
They were able to bury that.
They were able to get it non-approved, non-recommended.
And the actions that they took are so sinister as to be almost indescribable.
But I would invite your listeners or viewers to read Bobby's Kenny's book, that chapter one, they literally designed studies to fail.
They put fraudulent papers in all the medical journals, and they tried as best they could to not do early treatment trials.
They were literally testing it in the hospital when anyone would know you don't use an antiviral 10 days into disease.
Okay, so that's hydroxychloroquine.
So they took that one down on safety, right?
So even my own doctor at one point said, oh, we all know that that'll create heart issues because of the QTC prolongation.
So I went back and I looked and the WHO had done this big review of all these different anti-malarial drugs and hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine were a class of them.
They looked at, they looked back through 50 years of data and they reported in 2017, zero deaths could have been actually ascribed from heart failure due to either chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, which is safer.
Zero.
No tersade to point, nothing, right?
So that was the data for 50 years.
And then all of a sudden.
Dangerous drug.
It's a dangerous drug.
After a 50-year track record, suddenly dangerous.
So that's the lupus patients, right?
Yeah, exactly.
And so, you know, it's, you know, that first year, so we have colleagues, so like Dr. Peter McCullough, people know, he's always spoken out.
He was probably the early treatment pioneer.
He is one of the early treatment pioneers in this country.
Him and his colleagues who were treating early back in 2020, they knew it worked.
Myself and my group, we were so buried in hospital work.
We were trying to figure out how to treat the hospital phase of the disease.
It was only when we discovered ivermectin as an earlier day that we started to get a lot more involved in the early treatment aspect.
But hydroxychloroquine by doctors, frontline physicians, has been known to be highly effective many places around the world.
It's in guidelines in many countries, and doctors across the world are using it.
And I would be remiss if I didn't add that, interestingly, as one of the known experts on ivermectin, I'm finding in Omicron, hydroxychloroquine is actually equal to or probably better than ivermectin.
I'm getting better, more robust responses from hydroctectin.
I use them in combination, so it's sometimes hard to parse the two differences.
But I have had now enough patients tell me that after they got their hydroxychloroquine, after having been started on ivermectin, they could feel an improvement much more rapidly after starting hydroxychloroquine.
So that story and the sinister actions they took are very well documented.
I wasn't living them.
I didn't have a front row seat to them.
I've had a front row seat to the attacks on the repurposed drug ivermectin.
They've distorted the science.
They've essentially all of the medical journals, the major ones, will not publish a positive ivermectin trial.
They only will publish negative ones.
I know that because I can see what's being published.
I've talked to a lot of the investigators.
They cannot get the journals to look at their trials.
They get rejected.
They don't get sent out for the ruse.
So they've controlled the journals.
In the media, you've seen what the media does to ivermectin, right?
It's one of the most heinous PR campaigns in history.
But it's literally a concerted and coordinated and highly expert attack on a PR to demonize that medicine.
But they couldn't do it on safety.
So my subspecialty at Duke was toxicology.
So that's, I actually went to toxicology, but it's not a department.
So pathology is a department.
I study toxicology, which is drug interactions, pharmacodynamics and kinetics, and what happens.
So this brilliant toxicologist worldwide, Jacques Ducote, he goes through 500 papers on ivermectin, looks everywhere he possibly can, and concludes this is one of the safest drugs you could possibly find.
It's ridiculously safe.
So they couldn't take it out in safety.
So they went down this crazy thing of it being a horse dewormer, right?
When obviously we use it for scabies, we use it for uncostoriasis and all sorts of things, right?
So all of a sudden, it's just a horse dewormer to the point where I guess it was just yesterday on Jimmy Kimmel, they had anti-vax Barbie and she's drinking horse dewormer, you know, or something, horse paste.
And it was amazing how effective that was because it's very effective.
Because even the FDA, even the FDA itself said, you know, stop y'all.
They ridiculed it.
And to show you another action to show that we do live in a state controlled by the pharmaceutical industry, this is what happened in August of this year during the big delta wave in the summer, is that the prescriptions, we have this data, the prescriptions for ivermectin were hitting 90,000 a week, well over 20x of baseline.
And so when you saw that, it peaked.
They were starting to say 90,000 a week in like this middle of to the late August.
And that's when those prescriptions hit there.
That's when suddenly you saw this coordinated PR campaign.
And this is how it went.
First, there was reports in the media that were quickly debunked, but not debunked quickly enough to not spread across the world, right?
And you saw one of the absurd, and by the way, hats off in a bizarre sense to whatever PR executive came up with that headline, which is, you know, the ERs are overflowing with ivermectin overdase, right?
So that gunshot victims can't get care.
I mean, even I clicked on that.
I mean, you couldn't resist clicking.
He was not, he didn't work for the hospital.
He did an interview from home, made it up, but not the lie went 10 times around the world before the truth.
And then they started, you know, and this was the action that shows that the agencies are captured.
So that's when the CDC, so when the prescriptions hit so high, the CDC came out and put a bulletin.
And this is that proximate step to what you just described.
When the CDC sent out a bulletin in late August saying that calls to poison centers had increased.
Yeah, because people were being forced to take probably the animal forms.
And so like, maybe they had buyers' remorse.
So they were calling, like, I just took some of this.
Am I okay?
Who knows what they were?
That was also later debunked.
The actual rise in calls was minimal, minimal.
But they put out a threatening letter to all the state departments.
It shows you the awesome power of these federal agencies, right?
They put out a memo.
Every state department of health, every state department of health sends it to every licensed physician in that state.
So essentially, you have the CDC sending a memo which appears in the inbox of every licensed physician in the country.
And it's not kind to ivermectin.
It says ridiculous things that are either half-truths, mistruths, or just clear manipulation tactics.
For instance, they say repeatedly in all of their communications: the FDA has not approved this for ivermectin.
If you know anything about the FDA, they were never going to approve it for, I mean, for COVID, because it's already approved.
Off-label prescribing is not only legal, but historically, it's actually even been encouraged by the FDA.
And so, just so you know, that influence over the doctors, and most doctors are not critically thinking about this, they're not open-minded.
They actually have so much implicit faith and trust into the good guidance of these agencies that when they see someone like me and my group as highly credentialed and published as we are, you know, we have somewhere somewhere around 1,500 to 2,000 peer-reviewed publications amongst our group.
All of us are well-known in our specialty.
I mean, I thought we had unassailable credentials, but they won't listen to us because the agencies say it's a horse deworm.
Now, let's get really dark about this.
I got a text last night from a good friend of mine, a good friend of his.
His wife is really struggling.
They're in Las Vegas, and the emergency was the prescription can't be filled.
The pharmacists are refusing.
Do you know of any in Las Vegas?
And so, I had to scramble to try and help, you know, but it's when have pharmacists ever decided that you can't have a drug?
Well, listen, that fight with the, so I have a sub stack I've been writing, and I wrote one on a Saturday night fight at the pharmacy, and I basically detailed, you read it.
So, brilliant.
I detailed one particular, and by the way, that's been happening to me forever.
And, you know, we talked about this a little bit before we came on, but it's literally, I wouldn't say an underground railroad, but we basically like, I have to find safe haven pharmacies, and generally they're compounding pharmacies where the and you have to find you know, sympathetic pharmacists that are willing to fill because they know that the system's corrupt or they know that the evidence is there.
It's easier to get fentanyl in America than ivermectin.
I retweeted your tweet today, and I put in like maybe four more thoughts about how corrupt that is.
It's worthy of reflection, yeah.
And so I was going to ask you guys about it, and you brought it up, but I want to kind of zero in on it, which is the pharmacist issue.
That's a whole different component, right?
But it's safe.
So, that memo that went to the state department, the departments of health, that went to all the physicians, that was lockstep with the pharmacy thing.
It went to all boards of pharmacy, all pharmacy boards sent it to all of their pharmacists.
So it's literally mass manipulation.
It's really just propaganda.
So the forces of pharma, when you have these agencies captured, if you want the nation to stop using ivermectin, I mean, literally, it takes a memo that's sent electronically to all the departments of health.
Pharmacy Memo Controversies00:14:51
And all of the departments of health will fall suit.
They didn't factor for one variable, though.
Okay.
Tractor supply?
Joe Rogan.
That's true.
So there are some counter, and I would argue our organization is one of the few that is trying to put up a fight.
I mean, you guys have done an amazing job.
I just mentioned the Rogan thing because he really was a glitch in the Matrix.
He comes out, they change the coloration of his video that he puts on Instagram.
And he says, quote, through the kitchen sink at it, including ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, I was doing bad, I'm doing great.
Joe triples, quadruples down and goes through the entire kind of gauntlet of it.
And they weren't expecting that.
That whole kind of new media.
Now, I find it fascinating, though, because you mentioned the tobacco example.
Yeah.
I can conceivably see 1975, five major newspapers, 20 major radio stations, three major television stations.
Okay, I could control that.
I'm tobacco out of Western Kentucky, whatever, Marlboro, wherever they're headquartered, you know, where all the tobacco farms are.
I could hire enough lobbyists to choke point that.
What's been shocking is how effective they've been to choke point where everyone has a supercomputer in their right-hand pocket.
Well, the way I understand that, and this is probably, I'm going to go a little bit outside my lane as a physician, but I'm a close student of all things COVID and what's going on in the world right now.
But the way I understand that, because I have the same question, how can they exert such homogenous and widespread global powers over information, you know, in all major media in many, many different countries?
Not total, because there's been outbreaks.
There are actually countries out there that are doing wonderfully with some of these repurposes.
I'm going to ask you about that.
Yeah.
We can talk about that.
But the way I understand it, and Chris is probably a bigger student than I am, but I'm going to talk about the consolidation of financial power, right?
So if you look at the three largest multi-trillion dollar investment funds, right?
They come down to the three, which is BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard.
They essentially own control, influential or outright controlling stakes in every entity that we're talking about, every corporate entity that is involved in COVID.
So the entire pharmaceutical industry, they have controlling or influential stakes in all of major media.
And so when you wonder how they can exert such widespread and ferocious control, I mean, right down to YouTube, like YouTube community guidelines, it's so unsubtle.
The third bullet point is you are not allowed to say anything nice about hydroxyl.
You cannot talk about the effectiveness of hydroxyl.
Literally, what would a pharmaceutical company do if they were to write those policies?
That's what they would write, right?
So pharmaceutical companies are writing media company community guidelines.
They're telling the media companies, you put that in your guidelines.
We don't want the masses of humanity discussing the efficacy of these repurposed drugs.
That's how insane we are.
That's how horrible this is.
Well, it's, yeah, I've been on the front lines of this fight, too.
So I couldn't get my arms around it, though, because it was so powerful and so comprehensive.
So here were my scratchy record moments.
There's this mayor of Puerto Feliz, Brazil.
Yeah.
Right.
And he's early on.
He's a doctor, but he happens to be mayor.
And he starts figuring out hydroxychloroquine and also ivermectin.
And so he starts treating people like that.
And next thing you know, all the surrounding counties, people are flocking because he has this huge survival rate.
And then he gets elected with 98% of the vote.
Because it turns out not having your subjects die is popular.
So I'm waiting for this to go off like a flashbulb in politicians' minds all over the place.
And it didn't, right?
How are they so powerful that Belarus knuckled under and Italy and Spain and the UK?
Only Sweden is the only country I'm aware of that really just in Europe that just went its own way on this whole thing and they've got great results to show for it.
But that power is extraordinary.
And so is it really just money?
I have questions about that.
I think there's other that mass formation.
There's other things that have been triggered.
It's those biases.
It's the lack of listening to data anymore.
And it's also misinformation where, you know, as much as we've been students and we've lived this on the front lines and we've been deeply studying all things COVID, I do want to put, you know, call attention to the average citizen out there and how badly I feel for them in terms of they're starving for good information, if not literally dying for lack of good information.
You know, they're going to hospitals with literally corrupt protocols being offered.
The medical system has completely failed.
And the only positive thing I'll say about it is I think it's failed so spectacularly that it's ripped open exactly what underlies it, which is this profit motive.
Now, people can ascribe other motives too.
I like just to stick with profits because I'm most comfortable there.
It's most easy to understand.
And it's sort of the oldest trick in the book.
But this horrific profit motive that's so baked in and embedded into the way our health system works and especially how it's responded to this disease.
It's been about vaccinating as much and selling as much medicines as we can.
Massive, massive, untold of profits prior to this.
I think it's more, you go there, Chris, because I just want to stick in my little lane here because then it gets really spooky.
Well, it raises for me the idea that COVID didn't create this.
It merely exposed what was already corrupt and rotten.
Yeah.
Right.
So maybe this is sort of fourth-turning institutional failure moment, right?
But, you know, this is where we're at.
We're seeing the SEC comprehensively fail, the CDC, the FDA, the FE, the Fed, et cetera.
I mean, like, I'm hard-pressed as an American to say which institutions do I trust at this point, but this exposed, to your earliest question.
The FLCCC.
I'm sorry, I just had to put that in there, Chris.
As an organization, yes, but soon to be an institution.
We should be an institution soon.
Bureaucracies exist first to protect their Leviathan.
That's the only incentive they have, right?
And that's where when Fauci's email came out on Friday evening, January 31st, he's emailing Hugh Auchencloss.
The most important data point is what bureaucrat works at one o'clock in the morning, only if they're trying to cover something else.
It's the only reason a bureaucrat would work.
And so you kind of have these kind of self-perpetuating machines in all sorts of different sectors that cover for them, cover for one and cover for the other.
So I think it is deeper than money.
I think it's partially power.
Also, this has given a lot of previously irrelevant people meaning and purpose, notoriety, celebrity.
And I hate to say it, but it feels very similar to the Lockheed Martins and the Northrop Grummans that really wanted to see war for a couple decades.
The same sort of pattern of behavior, the same sort of lies in front of the United Nations that were told we have this much weapons of mass destruction.
I know that's not in the lane we're talking about.
Dude, it's very similar.
I agree.
It's a medical industry.
It's a complete lie.
It's just business by any other name.
So you mentioned something that was shocking to me when I first learned it.
I get IV therapy once a week, as I mentioned.
And the guy administering the IV used to work at one of the hospitals.
So I just started to pick his brain one day.
I said, so tell me, at what point do you guys administer the vitamin D booster shot for COVID patients?
See how naive.
You should stop reading, Charlie.
Stop being so up on the science here because it's not scientific what's happening.
He said, We do not have vitamin D at our hospital.
I said, Okay, what is your treatment?
This guy's frontline, ICU COVID.
The front of the lines in an elderly community, West Valley.
So, you know, you have a lot of people that need treatment and they have low D levels, as you well know.
Of course.
They're cooped up all day.
He says, We administer them, we check their oxygen level.
Nice.
And if it's below a certain, we get in a certain one, we go on oxygen machine, then ventilator.
At most, we'll do remdesivir.
And he said, whatever the protocol guidelines are.
But he said, Charlie, most of these nurses, they really have no idea what they're doing, or it's just about kind of management at best, not intervention.
Right.
And I checked this morning, NIH guidelines, treatments still say there's not enough information for or against vitamin D. They're neutral on it.
When there's tons of data on vitamin D, randomized controlled trials, epidemiological data, observational prospective, you name it.
Wait, wait, Chris, is that because they're waiting for the results of that very large multi-center double-blind randomized control trial that they funded in the beginning?
And that's about to come to completion.
Is that what they're waiting for?
You have a time machine, right?
Because I think that's they're funding that in so much.
So basically, the CDC has not taken a position on sunlight.
Yes, exactly.
Exactly.
Yes.
True.
And that's, you know, the things that when I started to really scratch, I literally, when I started to see some of the actions that were failing at science from the beginning, I actually ascribed it to stupidity.
I was just like, that's really stupid.
Don't they know X?
Like, fill in the blanks.
So, for instance, when I heard that literally, as a national policy in March of 2020, they were restricting the use of hydroxychloroquine to hospitalized patients only.
I saw it to myself.
I scratched my head.
I said, wait, it's being used purportedly for its antiviral properties.
The virus is active.
Any antiviral should be given within first hours to days of symptoms.
They're restricting it to the phase where it won't work.
And I was like, that's really stupid.
Like, who's making these policies?
I literally, and that was, that was as generous as I got is that they were stupid, right?
They actually were.
Now, it's going back to my point.
That was not stupid.
I was absolutely willful to try to bury any knowledge or learning of efficacy.
And then vitamin D, right?
Trial and study and study and study after, and has been shown for decades.
A couple of things.
Number one, the U.S. government knows what proportion are vitamin D deficient in this country.
It's a massive proportion, anywhere from 65 to 90% in 2016.
You have, you know, the nursing homes were getting ravaged in the spring of 2020.
And we should talk about why they're not now.
If you read my sub stack at the end, and I've got interesting data, that go ahead.
That's a safe haven, seemingly.
Nursing homes now a safe haven.
And I'll give you my theory why.
But, you know, the vitamin D, it was so clear these obscene proportions of nursing home residents that were dying, obviously elderly and comorbidly, but vitamin D had to play a role.
The decades of knowledge that the entire country, good portions of the country, especially low-income inner city populations, and something as benign as vitamin D, like, how about just check a vitamin D level?
And, you know, like, can't that would be like just a prudent, sound, pragmatic practice.
Like, hey, doctors of America, why don't you check vitamin D levels as we fly through this pandemic?
And that way you can identify those division and replete.
Precautionary principle, solid medicine, reasonable, kind of unassailable, right?
But nothing.
And in fact, even the crazy thing is, Anthony Fauci, in an interview, as you may know, he admitted he takes vitamin D.
I think who was that with?
It was that Starlet, right?
So he was starstruck.
Oh, it wasn't that he lost his mind.
He actually told the truth.
Except for Lawrence's vlog.
But you want to go back.
So I'll just make that quick point.
So we have an analyst that works with us, covers a lot of the epidemiologic data going around the world and different programs and success stories of ivermectin.
One of the things that he picked out is that he was looking at what happened after, you know, when I gave testimony in the Senate, it went viral, right?
So I was kind of really angry.
I actually got insulted by my former party senator at the beginning of it.
And I kind of.
Tammy Baldwin?
No, it was Peters, I think.
Oh, from Michigan?
Yes.
Yeah, I think it was Peters.
Yeah, that's from Michigan.
He was the ranking member.
I thought you meant from Wisconsin.
I'm sorry.
Yeah, no, no, he was the ranking member of that committee that was testifying.
And, you know, so it went viral.
And, you know, we learned afterwards that not only was there a huge upsurge in interest in ivermectin, because there's this doctor screaming about this drug that's working, right?
So people like got nothing else to treat it.
Might as well look into it.
And I think a lot of people, when they looked into it, found it effective.
Doctors started using it.
We started hearing more and more, I guess, anecdotes, but doctors just immediately started to use it and they were seeing just phenomenal effects.
Okay.
So it became very popular.
And then we started hearing reports of nursing homes.
So there was one famous study that came out of France from very early on where there was a scabies outbreak in a nursing home.
And a standard protocol for a nursing home, if there's a scabies outbreak, is everybody takes ivermectin, all the patients and all the staff.
And they noticed that in that nursing home that kind of serendipitously had a scabies outbreak, I think it was early March of 2020, nobody died and very few went to the hospital.
Meanwhile, all around them in nursing homes, large proportions were getting sick and going.
And they said, gee, I wonder if it's the ivermectin that everybody wants to do.
And it was just a month after that in Toronto, they had the same thing, but it was a floor.
It was just a floor and like a multi-story.
Even a better study, if you want to design a study, let's just give this floor ivermectin.
You almost as if to say we had a cruise ship out in the middle of the Pacific and we could be able to tell how infectious the disease was, but we never had such opportunities early on to match the ladies.
But so just to finish this aspect, which I found fascinating, because the analyst just came up with this data recently, a few weeks ago, and I was shocked.
But if you look up into the time of the testimony when the word got out about ivermectin, and I think people started looking at my paper, because my paper, I detail some of this data that we're talking about.
The proportion of all U.S. deaths from COVID that were in nursing homes was around 30%.
They were contributing 30% of all U.S. deaths.
And right around mid-January, suddenly the proportion of deaths that are coming from nursing homes plummeted to around 5%.
And they've been like that ever since.
At the same time, we had reports from nursing home directors.
I think the nursing homes figured it out.
And so directors, they started treating everyone with ivermectin upon controlling outbreaks, preventing hospitalization.
And no one's explained that why.
Missing Vaccine Safety Data00:16:46
And so when you talk about this pharmacy thing about how your friends or family are telling you they can't get pharmacy, well, maybe they should become a nursing home resident because nursing homes tend to have their own pharmacies.
They don't have to go to Walgreens counter and deal with some smug, arrogant pharmacist who knows not what he's talking about or she or she most recently is talking about.
They can just get access to it in the nursing home.
So I consider nursing homes almost a safe haven from COVID because you can get access to cheap, repurposed medications without dealing with these manipulated, mind-manipulated blockades at the pharmacies.
I have a good friend who is a residential care facility operator, and he just got a hold of all this data and just went exactly the direction you're talking about.
The kicker is going back to this profit thing.
Man, I'm so tired of talking about profits.
But is it in the best interest of a nursing home to keep their patients in-house or does it work for them to go to the hospital?
I know you've been bashing profits, of which I agree when it comes to the pharmaceutical companies because their incentive is to addict you, but it's the opposite incentive for the nursing home, isn't it?
They didn't want to wait around for the mutagenic Molnu Piravir or the Spaxlova.
They were like, yeah, let's use something now because we just lost 30% of our patients in the first few months of this.
And it's pays us every month there.
So, I mean, you see how these profit motives are influenced by just incredible behaviors.
And so, you know, and then going back to the, you know, I had, you know, Chris has to do, Chris is a guide to a lot of people who reach out to him.
I'm a physician.
I have the power of prescribing.
And so, but I'm constantly having to navigate.
So now, you know, a lot of us have, you know, lists of pharmacies that ship, ship overnight in different states.
We have state-by-state lists.
And so, you know, we're literally having to do this like blockade, navigate through a blockade of restricting access to life-saving medicines.
Yeah, for me personally, people know that we know people that can get them ivermectin.
And again, I'm not a doctor, but I'm also not an idiot.
That's an important thing to mention.
And I tell people, okay, look, if you really need it, we can make it.
Why don't you try melatonin, azithromycin, you know, baby aspirin, D-zinc, good night's rest, you know, IV therapy, maybe some ozone.
If you really need ivermectin in 48 hours, thankfully, it hasn't, you know, gone beyond that.
But it is fascinating to see, though, in the last couple of months.
And now I want to get into the vaccine conversation because I'm really curious.
How many fully vaccinated people are freaking out?
And they're asking for treatments.
They feel like they were lied to.
So let me ask you a question about the vaccine, and either of you could take this.
Do you think the vaccine has done more harm than good in perpetuating the virus?
Forget the adverse events.
We could talk about that.
Well, I would say if you look at 2020 compared to 2021, the cases were higher, the deaths were higher.
And the differences between those two years was the introduction of a vaccine.
And what you're talking about is the all-cause mortality, right?
Right.
So I was just talking about crude cases and deaths, just that alone.
So that would be point one.
COVID.
Are you talking COVID?
I'm just talking about COVID cases, COVID deaths were higher.
Because top line deaths are interesting.
Yeah, because the all-cause that's the more important thing.
That's the next layer that I'll let him talk.
I'm super interested in.
Yeah, finish the question.
So just looking at how the pandemic was in 2020, in 2021, you cannot argue that it was better.
Okay.
Yet every paper across the land screened and vilified the unvaccinated for not getting with the program and for actually fueling a worsening of the pandemic when there were no vaccines in 2020.
So suddenly, when everybody was unvaccinated, their unvaccinated status was not something to be vilified.
When only a minority were unvaccinated in 2021, they had to be vilified.
And so just by the fact that it was worse in 2020, now you could say, okay, maybe there was, you know, an unfortunate variant that made things worse in 2021.
Well, you could also have to ask the question, was that the vaccine?
Right.
So there's nobody can argue that things got better.
Now, when you want to go how bad things got, we can get into that because I think, you know, here's what I want to say about vaccines before anything else is that The policies and lies told, let's not even talk about the data on safety, efficacy, protection, but the aberrant behaviors around these vaccine policies should give pause.
One of the most screaming ones was this natural immunity, this willful overlooking of natural immunity, which shocked anyone who has half a brain in medicine, knows anything.
Depression.
I'll go further.
Yeah.
They were suppressing natural immunity.
Right.
You mean suppressing the idea that natural immunity was protective.
Right.
And why would a captured health agency want to vaccinate the naturally immune?
Is it to sell more vaccines?
I mean, we have the data on this.
Even as of last week, the CDC was still talking about natural immunity.
They have this ridiculous Kentucky study.
It has like 293 patients where, and it was just a retrospective thing where they romped through a database.
Methodologically, it's a nightmare.
We had a gold standard study a month prior to that that came out of Israel that looked through a million eight people and came up with 800,000 case, 863,000 case-matched studies to look at.
And they said, wow, this stuff is 27 times protective and da-da-da-da-da.
So we had the gold standard study.
We had it.
And the CDC went out and funded a really methodologically shoddy study, put it up on their website and pointed to it over and over again with help from the media, with help from there's an epidemiologist named epidemiologist named Paul Alexander.
I think you may know of his work.
And, you know, that's one of his many increasing areas of expertise.
But I think he's compiled 140 studies showing the profound and enduring protection of natural immunity.
So, but even when we didn't have the 140 studies, they were racing around wanting to vaccinate people.
Like literally who there were doctors in this country who, when an unvaccinated patient got COVID and then they recovered, the doctors would be like, you need to get vaccinated.
Like the world has gone completely mad.
So they're vaccinating natural immunity.
And I remember at the beginning, I was like, well, why wouldn't they just have you check antibodies before the vaccine?
And if you had a positive antibody, that would be indicative of exposure.
And that way you could get a pass on the vaccine.
They came up with a policy.
The FDA actually said, do not check antibodies before vaccine.
So I mean, I started to get really scared here.
Like now, you know, restricting hydroxylchloric went to the hospital, ignoring natural immunity.
And then all of the toxicity data, which we'll talk about.
And then I got to see all the media mentions and literally health officials in this country repeatedly saying like a mantra, almost like the mantra of horse dewormer, but the two words, safe and effective, safe and effective, over and over, every single article.
Article after article.
As the deaths were climbing to 10, 15, 20,000 in an underreported database, you still saw major media articles saying not one death has ever been proven associated with the vaccines.
Of course, they didn't look into it.
That's the two-step shuffle they do, right?
Don't collect the data and then say we don't have the data.
And so, you know, I'm just seeing, I'm seeing lack of logic.
I'm seeing lies.
I'm seeing essentially fraud.
I'm seeing no credible.
And then you're seeing censoring, right?
So then we hit this fever pitch.
So it's not only propaganda, but then it's censoring.
So they start to see, you know, because some of us who started to follow the toxicity data in the VARS database, and I would argue Chris is one of the first.
I mean, he talked to me, we were hanging out in early January or actually maybe, yeah, early January, I remember, Chris, we had a discussion and you and what we call your tribe, a lot of your followers who follow your work and read your work, you know, were really alarmed.
Like we'd never seen the spike in events, adverse events, as well as deaths.
And that continued to increase.
And yet there is no, if you start to discuss it, what do they do?
You're instantly labeled an anti-vaxxer.
Even scientists who were vaccinated, like Malone, who is a vaccinologist, is air vexed.
He invented the technology.
Exactly.
So anytime, or a guy like Steve Kirsch, who's an engineer, who's been, he's just been phenomenal.
I mean, his work, I mean, he's not a physician, but he's a very smart guy.
He's an interpreter.
He's a data guy.
He's an engineer.
And he knew that the government's response to early treatment was failing.
They were not using available drugs.
And he funded trials into the antidepressant fluvoxamine.
And so one of his early organizations was the COVID Early Treatment Fund, which is kind of similar to the FLCCC.
We were more coming up with protocols.
He was more funding research, but we were very aligned as organizations.
And then he got on to the vaccine safety.
And now he's an expert in vaccine safety.
And he's constantly disseminating information.
And he's not an anti-vaxxer.
He is vaccinated.
His family's vaccinated.
But he got alarmed that everyone in his circle, he started to see like literally one degree separation from major vaccine injuries.
And he thought that it rose above statistical noise and that where there's smoke, there must be fire.
And then what he uncovered is just that a devastating amount of data.
And yet you can't talk about it.
It's censored in the media.
And then you saw the last thing I want to say is a paper.
I think one of the first paper, I can't even remember the timeline again anymore, Chris, but you know that one paper where they finally showed like number needed to treat to save from COVID and then number needed to harm.
And it was literally based on highly underreported data.
It was showing that you were more likely, you're essentially more likely to harm someone from the vaccine than help them.
So if you ask like how this vaccine's been going, that data was retracted within days.
Well, and they retracted that.
They came up with a three to two.
They said, you're going to kill three to save two.
And then the CDC said, oh, you can't do that because you're using VARES data and that stuff sucks.
Right.
Now, to understand the VARES data, there was this DTP was a vaccine back in the day and they had a lot batch problem and it killed kids.
And so they said, okay, two things.
It caused a lot of liability for the manufacturers.
They said, okay, a couple things.
First, we're going to shield them from liability, but we're going to put this VARES system in place to catch early signals should they ever arise.
So that's the VAER system is supposed to catch early signals.
That's its job.
And then they come out and say, well, there's a signal there, but you can't tell anything from it, but they don't actually study any of it.
Right?
I know people who've been vaccine injured, filed the VARES report.
Nobody calls them.
Nobody cares.
They try and get it followed up.
Nobody's interested.
And most nurses don't even know what the heck VARES is.
And it's clunky and it takes 40 minutes to fill it out.
It's hard to fill it out.
It's not easy.
Many people have come forward and said, I don't even, I wasn't trained on how to use it.
I've never used it.
You go into an emergency room in most places across the country and you'll say, hey, my 12-year-old is paralyzed from the waist down.
50% chance that they'll say, was he just vaccinated?
They know.
They'll say it.
The people on the front lines almost instantaneously will say it.
I could say that from firsthand experience.
Well, and now we have this all these hospital staffing issues, and they're trying to pretend like it's because of the unvaccinated, but the truth is there are a lot of unvaccinated frontline healthcare workers.
I get contacted all the time by PAs, nurses, doctors who say, I can't take this because I've seen the impact of this in my emergency room.
So I want to read something from you guys, for you guys.
I need to find the statistic, and I'll have you answer it while I'm finding it because it's really important.
And we've had a couple people email it to us, and they don't know how to respond.
And it's from the New York Times, and it's a chart.
And it shows unvaccinated people die at this rate, and vaccinated people die at this rate.
Essentially, saying unvaccinated people are XYZ more likely to die of the virus than unvaccinated people.
You've heard this before.
I'll get the exact numbers.
How do you respond to that?
Well, what I would respond is you would have to trust the U.S. data to believe that that's a valid conclusion.
And there's no evidence that you should trust it.
First of all, they're not sharing that data.
We do not get granular data state by state or hospital data.
Chris, like you had mentioned, I think the only state that made the mistake of actually openly sharing their public health data was Oklahoma at one point.
So you got to put the U.S. to the side.
And I've already given examples of lies and a lot of malfeasance, right?
So again, what would a vaccine company want you to believe?
They would want you to believe that the efficacy of this vaccine is so high, it'll prevent you from dying from COVID.
And they would only want to talk about COVID.
They wouldn't want to talk about all-cause mortality.
If you look outside this country to other countries that do openly share on sometimes a week-by-week basis, the proportions of people in the hospital that are vaccinated in the ICUs, that's not the conclusion that that public health data shows.
That public health data actually shows that there's a higher proportion of vaccinated in the hospital in those areas.
And so the discord, why Americans don't, you know, why Americans somehow get so protected from COVID vaccines when others don't, that's the question that should be asked.
Why is that graph in the New York Times when it doesn't comport with any other country that's sharing that data?
Yeah, so this, I mean, this is not a satisfying answer, but literally every time I've dug into U.S. data, it's just a nightmare.
It's wrong.
It's methodologically flawed.
It's collected badly.
The truth is, we haven't been collecting good data all the way through, whether it was vitamin D serum level, so we could have detected that signal early on, or now the vaccine data, there is no interest in collecting that data, none about what's going on.
And so another anomaly, my memory is being jogged now.
So remember way back when, when suddenly this rule came out of one of the captured agencies that don't test vaccinated patients anymore?
Remember that, Chris?
When they decided, like, the vaccines were so protective.
Don't waste the test on them.
Why would you test someone with clear symptoms of COVID?
Is this the test that just a month ago, the CDC said, oh, it doesn't work.
Let's just slide that out of here.
Oh, yeah, there's that one too.
But literally, you know, when you see a policy like that, so wait, we're not going to test vaccinated.
So two answers.
One, because there's no point because they're so fully protected.
Or the only other possible explanation for a policy like that is you don't want to know.
So you don't want to collect that data.
So let me answer this.
This is somewhat anecdotal, but it's good data.
So they said so far there's like around 800 children have died from COVID, right?
So somebody sent me the data and they said, well, in the Wonder system, I can pull down 137 records where I can see the records for the children that died.
So this is 17 and under.
Two 17-year-olds died of fentanyl overdoses.
They were recorded as COVID deaths and they were recorded as unvaccinated.
So they went down as unvaccinated COVID deaths, but they fentanyl overdosed.
There were children born with cords wrapped around their neck, stillbirths.
They came out as COVID deaths.
They had an in utero COVID death, which they recorded because mom died of something else and she was anyway.
Out of all 137 cases, they were congenital malformations.
There were all sorts of like really serious underlying things that unfortunately happened.
And 100% of them recorded as COVID deaths and 100% of them were a side of COVID at best, but possibly fraudulent reporting at worst.
We don't know whether or not George Floyd was counted as a COVID death.
And that's not a joke.
He was tested positive for COVID.
So you see that.
Obviously, he didn't die from COVID.
No, the dying with versus dying of, but now we're seeing the great rewind of Unwind of the Narrative, right?
Vauci came out to lecture the nation on the difference for children of being in the hospital with versus because of.
Now he's coming out and doing that.
You want to know a fun fact?
This is a little bit off topic, but you brought it up.
India Eradication Claims Explained00:16:05
But in the middle of this war that I've been fighting for COVID, you know, I'm well known in my specialty, and I sometimes do legal case reviews.
I do expert testimonies on malpractice cases.
And I actually was the expert witness for George Floyd's civil case.
In the middle of all this, I still remember the day I got the call.
A firm wanted to talk to me.
They wanted to make sure I could keep this confidential.
And I was hired and I did a 12-page report where I had to, I actually had to describe in excruciating detail every physiologic event and the chain of it that was happening in those videos.
And I had to debunk all of these dumb arguments that he didn't die a result of essentially asphyxiation.
And you brought, I don't know, you brought it up and you brought back a memory, but it was one of the many devastating things that I've had to see and witness and live through in this.
No, I only mention it because you know that there were articles that came out that showed that he was COVID positive.
Right.
And they were, yeah.
I'm just saying that would be a dying.
No, I agree with you.
I agree with you.
And I think your point was well made.
Yeah.
For sure.
It's memorable for people.
You see how he died?
And like, yeah.
I'm just saying it was clearly gone down as a COVID thing.
It was the most high-profile death of 2020.
No question.
And so that just, it just goes to show how that could potentially be blurred.
So I want to ask you a question.
You said some countries are doing well.
Yeah.
So, I mean, there are success stories across the globe.
And again, I mean, I want to try to be positive.
I can't.
I can't.
You can't live through this literal takeover by a global pharmaceutical industry.
There's not a lot of positive I can say.
But here's the, I'm going to give a positive part and then I'm going to tell you the nefarious part.
So the most shining example of an unmitigated success is a state in northern India called Uttar Pradesh.
Right.
So people have heard that.
So I've heard, can I interrupt?
I don't mean to.
I've had fact checkers, scientists, experts, Facebook, you know, 23-year-old spoiled brats who just graduated from UC Berkeley tell me that's a conspiracy theory.
It's not true.
It's a third world country.
We can't treat it.
Okay.
We can't treat it, take it seriously.
But please tell me.
And I just want to say that's fair.
That's fair.
So what I would invite all those people to say is, okay, then please provide me the explanation for why publicly available, widely commended and recognized data that in that state, they essentially eradicated COVID.
Okay.
So if it's a conspiracy that it's ivermectin, give me what else it could have been.
Vaccines?
No, absolutely not.
At the time when they were recording these ridiculously low positivity rates, such that they couldn't find active cases in most of the state, the rates were so.
70 million people, by the way.
This is not Cincinnati.
Between 5 and 16% were vaccines.
So vaccines, X.
I mean, you could go down what we call the differential.
I think it's a control state right next door in Kerala, right?
And which purposely outlawed the use of ivermectin and they had curves like that.
But if you look at Uttar Pradesh, I do have to talk about it because I think it is one of history's greatest public health achievements.
And in a different time, in a different world that wasn't so controlled and corrupt, that would have been front page news around the world.
And because what they achieved is nothing short of remarkable.
What they did is they used a force of 70,000-plus healthcare workers that they sent across the state, 97,000 villages.
They had rapid antigen testing, and they did tight contact tracing, quarantining, and early treatment and prophylaxis.
And those components are all described.
And, well, it depends what you read because sometimes it's some of the components are buried.
But that's a complex conspiracy theory you have in there.
So here's my question about this.
And I'm by no means an expert.
Why is it then they didn't spread it to other states?
Because that's only about 27% of the population in India.
It's about a billion people in India, more or less.
And why hasn't Modi done a better job of telling the story internationally?
Yeah, the likely answer to that is: well, let me finish by saying this.
At the end result of that effort, phenomenal effort, and really the mainstay, the core that they did, because a lot of people have been doing quarantine and contact tracing and all of that.
But really, they treated everyone early with ivermectin and they gave household members ivermectin and all the healthcare workers were on ivermectin.
And we have the documents from showing that that's actually what was in the kits and what they were doing.
And around late August to September of 2021, they had a period where they did two and a half million tests with only 200 positives, which is a 0.007% positivity rate, which is effectively zero.
They had 67 out of 75 districts in the state without one active case.
That would be like the U.S. having like 40 states without an active case of COVID.
So what they achieved in a state where they did massive testing is almost like it should give you like almost tingles down your arms because it's such a phenomenal public health achievement.
Here's the thing.
You ask, like, why isn't it across the state?
So why didn't go to Delhi or Bangalore?
I don't know that I'm going to answer why.
I'm just going to give you two other data points.
When the health ministry leaders were sharing that data and the data was becoming public, the two major newspapers in India, one was called India Today, and I think the other one's Hindustan Times.
They covered it with a big headline, The Success of Uttar Pradesh.
And in that article, they talked about what a great job they did and how the WHO had complimented them for their efforts and the contact tracing and quarantining.
There was one word that was not present in either article.
Ivermectin.
Ivermectin.
The WHO even wrote a little bulletin that they put up on one of their websites commending the success of Uttar Pradesh.
Ivermectin was not mentioned.
There's one bare little mention of a treatment kit that they also distributed treatment kits.
So even the WHO in one of their bulletins said that they distributed treatment kits.
Anyone who's reading even modestly carefully would be like, oh, treatment kit.
Well, I wonder what's in that kit.
I mentioned it because, you know, we've been on this on this Uttar Pradesh kick for four or five months now when it first got, you know, publicized.
And I've been, I keep on learning and I keep on getting more cynical, unfortunately, just in this one space.
I think, all right, this is it.
270 million people.
Can't ignore that.
You know, one of the poorest countries on the planet.
Yep.
They have estimated in Uttar Pradesh 40 to 50 million people without toilets, let alone IV therapy, right?
They don't have toilets.
You would think this would probably be the place that the world leaders say, okay, maybe we can learn something.
The opposite.
No, because it's all part of the same play, right?
It's suppressing information of efficacy.
So the fact that those major newspapers, you know, any journalist worth their salt would have mentioned, and it's so willfully removed from the report.
And also, and India is also quite corrupt.
So they invented it.
I'm not pointing fingers because we live in the United States.
But here's the other thing.
I could do like a quick rundown of other Uttar Pradesh type programs.
So Mexico City, winter of 2020, same thing.
A band of, I would call them renegade public health officials, which I, they're from what's called the IMSS, which is sort of like the Mexico Social Security System group, which other governs a lot of their healthcare system.
They decided that because Mexico is so badly hit at that time, they instituted 250 mobile testing centers to the hardest hit areas and they put out around 54,000 treatment kits and they collected the data on hospitalization.
And any which way they did it, if they compared it before the program to after or during the program, who got the kit and who didn't, you saw anywhere from 65 to 75% reduction in the rate of hospitalization.
I mean, a phenomenal result.
They essentially emptied the hospitals over months.
That's Mexico City.
Two other states in Argentina, La Misiones and La Pampa, same thing.
Smaller programs, carefully collected data, even on side effect data, because they used actually pretty high doses in those programs.
Very safe, highly effective.
One state had 88% reduction in death when they used ivermectin.
And I could go on and on.
The last thing that I want to tell you about is our colleagues in Brazil just put up on a preprint server about a week ago, and we covered it in one of my organization's weekly webinars.
But it's the largest study on ivermectin to date.
And it's a ridiculously carefully done study because it happened in a city of Brazil called Itajay, which is of German descent.
They pride themselves on technologically, they're completely automated as far as their health informatics.
They have very good computer systems.
And they did a program where they offered the city's inhabitants the opportunity to take ivermectin.
This is back in June of 2020 to December.
And of the 188,000 that showed up to be enrolled in the program, about 130,000 decided to take the medicine two days at the beginning of the month, two days in the middle of the month.
And they followed, they were able to look at all of this data, and all of the data is complete because they had it so that the data collection instruments had to be fully filled out.
So there's no missing data.
So it's remarkable what they achieved.
And what they showed was a massive reduction in the chance of getting COVID, even larger reduction in the chance of going to the hospital with COVID, and even larger reduction in the chance of dying with COVID-somewhere around between 60 and 70% reductions in hospitalization and death.
Dose response.
Yes.
Oh, that's the other beautiful thing.
We got a dose response.
But hold on.
The one thing I want to say is when I talk about that trial, you're talking about 180,000 full records of patients who did and didn't take ivermectin.
No, that's the other thing is everybody on ivermectin were fat or sick or older.
They had more diabetes, more cardiovascular disease.
They were heavier and they were older.
And even if you don't match for severity, they outperformed the younger, healthier group that didn't take it.
So it was a phenomenal result.
The other thing that's so bizarre is that although they had this prevention program, they weren't treating the patients with ivermectin.
Once they got sick, they went into this bizarre supportive care only strategy, which a lot of this country was doing at that time, which is don't treat this thing, just do supportive care and wait for the randomized control trials.
And so they weren't even treating with ivermectin.
So I would argue that that study in Itajay is the minimum of what ivermectin is capable of because they weren't even using it in treatment.
They were just using it in prevention.
And as Chris just pointed out, when they look at those who were taking the medicines, they were actually able to log like who was picking up the pills, how much they took.
So who was that they compared non-users to sometimes users to regular users?
And like Chris, a dose response is a phenomenal finding in science, especially when you're studying the therapeutic.
It's another pillar of evidence that something works.
And they saw the same thing that the more regularly you used it, the better your outcomes were.
And it was clearly statistically significantly different from the irregular users to the regular users.
You want to know the downside to all this, though?
Yeah.
Good friend of mine is an ER doc and he was on ivermectin prophylaxis for a while and then he said, you know what?
Now that Omicron's here, he just, he wants it over with.
He'd like to get it.
And he's been trying.
I've taken off his face shield.
He's telling people to cough on him.
He's like, literally, he's like been trying hard.
He's like, when is this stuff going to wear off?
But now, I don't want to, I don't want to, I don't, you know, I want to be open and honest and say I evolve with the data.
So that was the data of, you know, Alpha, I guess, because that was actually before Gamma in Brazil.
And it showed phenomenal protection.
You know, we move with the data.
That's what we always claim to do.
I'm not sure how protective ivermectin is from getting the disease anymore because Omicron is just so wicked.
I think there's a lot of breakthroughs.
I've seen a lot of breakthroughs.
So its prevention and also the way Omicron enters the cell and infects the cell is a little bit different than the prior variant.
So it's probably not performing as well as in that study.
However, the same principles apply.
Even those who got COVID when they were on prevention, the breakthroughs, they just went to the hospital and died less.
So it still would ensure an easier course and a kinder course.
So Rochelle Walensky said unvaccinated people are 20 times more likely to get the virus, 17 times more likely to be hospitalized, and 10 times more likely to die.
Lies.
You say they're lies?
Lies.
Or old data.
At best, old data.
I mean, the data right now on Omicron, Chris, we're seeing way more, the cases are higher in the vaccinated in a number of countries.
Well, the cases are.
So the data here in this country is really, really bad.
So let me tie up a loose end because I want to go back to the past.
Richest country ever, and we have the worst data.
No, I have third world envy all this year.
Uttar Pradesh.
I'm like, literally, I mean, that would be a great place to go.
Have you seen our internet?
Oh, my God.
Isn't it funny?
It's because of our wealth.
Actually, it's probably bad.
Right.
So let's, I want to connect this dot back.
So I think it makes sense for certain individuals to get even these vaccines.
I'm not a fan of these vaccines, but it can make sense on a certain risk-adjusted basis.
You're above 75 and you've got certain morbidities.
It could make sense.
It gets a little gray down below.
Listen, that's between you and your doctor, your own risk profile.
But if you're a public health official, if you're Rochelle Walensky, if you're a Fauci, if you're one of these people, you're going to get scored on one metric and one metric only, which is all cause mortality.
That's what I wanted to ask you.
We got to go there because if they were doing their jobs right, we would have seen fewer deaths in 2021 than we saw in 2020.
So what do I mean by public health?
Public health is the totality of all your efforts.
I'm going to lock you down.
I'm going to make you wear masks.
I'm going to take away your right to earn a living.
I'm going to shut your small business down.
I'm going to do these things in the interest of public health.
And the way I get scored is on balance, morbidity, how sick people are, and mortality.
Those should be lower because I'm doing a good job.
Well, in 2021, we saw all cause mortality higher.
Not just higher, but it's higher in these age groups that make me sick to my stomach.
12 to 44-year-olds, they had 45% higher all-cause mortality in 2021.
That's horrifying.
Charlie, did you see the life insurance data from last week?
So this was the thing where, like, I actually think, so this Walensky statement that you just said, you know, I like how Chris has said, you know what?
Let me be kind, and it's hard for me to be kind.
Let's just say that she's correct in that you're going to fare worse from COVID if you're unvaccinated.
The point is Chris making is if you only, that's what they want you to do.
They only want you to focus on the supposed beneficial impacts on, because I don't trust the data either, but let's give it to her.
Let's say, fine, your chances of dying from COVID-19.
But what are your chances of dying from everything?
So, if the vaccines are actually a public health benefit, those that are vaccinated are going to fare better in terms of health and longevity.
The data in 2021 actually shows in a number of papers that all-cause mortality has increased in the vaccinated.
They're not dying from COVID necessarily more, but they're dying from other causes.
And what are those other causes?
Insurance Industry Standard of Care00:12:05
And the most alarming was a life insurance executive was interviewed at a paper, an online paper in Indiana called Center Square, I think.
That's it.
Yep.
Yeah, Center Square.
And this life insurance company said they put out in a report, and I guess someone did a follow-up article, but basically, for 18 to 64-year-olds, this is a $100 billion life insurance company that they saw a 40% increase, which is four times what they would consider like a large catastrophic event.
They saw a 40% increase in all-cause mortality.
And it could not be explained by COVID deaths because the claims.
This is seismic.
They said this is like what, five standard deviations off five standard deviations.
They would know.
Oh, that's all they do.
That's all they do.
They have data there.
And they know their numbers and they know their statistics and they know their graphs.
I have not heard this.
And here's the kicker.
So it was such an alarming report because finally, now you're not because that's why I don't want to talk about that data from the CDC.
You want to talk about the data where it matters.
And why would a life insurance company want to talk about alarming data?
The fact that they're paying out way more, 40% more claims than they've typically had.
But to be fair, the CEO, he genuflected at the vaccine altar and said, so we're going to raise rates in areas with high unvaccination rates, right?
Oh, it did.
I didn't catch that.
Yeah, he did.
Oh, but he didn't parse the data out and say we can show this.
But wait, here's the kicker, though, Chris.
I don't know if you know this.
The regime would clamp down.
A really excellent journalist who's done a lot of work around early treatment.
She was big following the Ivermectin story for a long time.
Her name's Mary Beth Pfeiffer.
And she writes for a substack called Rescue.
And she actually wrote to this life insurance company to follow up on this article.
She said, I'm an investigative journalist, and I found this very interesting report.
And she followed up.
And they actually replied, not only with more data, but rather quickly.
And she actually contacted me.
She said, I can't believe this.
Like in her investigative journalism, usually when she does follow-ups on stories, they're not like, Glad you asked.
Here's more data.
And literally, she said, Look at this.
And what they sent was a graph from the CDC, which showed three lines.
It was the all-cause mortality in 1864-year-olds.
It was a green line, which was 2019, and it was like this.
Then there was a black line, which was 2021, where it had a rise and then a little bit of a fall towards the end.
And then, or I'm sorry, that was 2019.
And then 2021, you saw a little rise.
And then at quarter two, exactly a quarter two of 2021, you start to see a rise.
And it's risen ever since quarter two of 2021.
And that's what hit 40% higher in all those groups.
And it can't be explained by COVID.
Most of the deaths were not claimed as COVID.
And as a similar rise with those deaths, is they were reporting record claims of disabilities that they've never seen before.
So they're literally a life insurance company is now reporting record life insurance payouts as well as disability.
So, if you ask about whether this is a benefit to the public, if you ask your friendly life insurance company, they would say something's funny here.
There's something driving.
And that's the German data, too.
They did correlation between vaccine status and all-cars mortality and found a high correlation.
It was pretty high.
So, it's positive.
And the conclusion from that is, listen, whatever the so we know that I think the last date I heard was something horrifying, like 100,000 people died from opiate overdoses.
100,000 plus.
That's correct.
Yeah.
Drug overdoses.
Yeah.
Highest number ever.
So on balance, whatever we're doing as a nation, it's a fail.
It's just big fat F, right?
And that's what we should be down on.
So you raised a really important point: this over focus.
Rochelle might be right if we focus down, but they've been trying to keep our gaze just down on this one thing around.
And the easiest way I review this is: okay, 20 times more likely to get it, 17 times more likely, 10 times more likely to die.
Show me two people vaccinated, unvaccinated with high intervention, early treatment.
Yeah, and then show me those vaccines.
Thank you.
We don't know about that.
Yeah, that's where this whole thing just, you lose me immediately.
That's why even I make this mistake of constantly talking about unvaccinated, vaccinated, when it's like, really, it's about untreated and treated.
The data that I just showed you from around the world, all of those early treatments.
Should have been the original Pfizer trial, right?
So first, they give us relative risk reduction rather than absolute risk reduction, but they should have said, here's your placebo should have been in early treatment people compared to the vaccine.
And if you can beat that, I think you got something.
Let me read this really quick.
Similar topic, but I want to make sure I get the numbers right.
CDC has stated 6% of all COVID cases died only from COVID with no comorbidities.
Dr. Scott Atlas on Tucker has said the other night that two-thirds of all COVID deaths had at least six comorbidities.
Six.
We now know from a document from Project Veritas that Major Joe Murphy and the DARPA document, page four, wrote that ivermectin works throughout all phases of the illness because it both inhibits virplication and modulates the immune responses, things that you've been talking about.
This document was hidden in a secret folder.
Does that make either of you think that they've known that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine works this entire time from the top levels?
And are we witnessing a cover-up?
Well, we know that hydroxychloroquine was actually in an NIH paper around original SARS.
So classic SARS comes out in 2002 and 3.
By 2005, there was a paper out from NIH researchers saying hydroxychloroquine is an effective potent inhibitor of this, at least in an in vitro setting and also a mouse model, I believe.
So they knew that.
They knew that early on.
And if you look at the, so I call this repurposed drug war.
So this PR campaign on ivermectin, the war on ivermectin in 2021, if you know, the fact that they waged that war in 2020 through these fraudulent research studies, fraudulent papers, mentions, you know, the YouTube, you couldn't talk about it anymore.
That can be explained by the fact.
In fact, it's best explained by the fact they knew it worked.
They knew it worked.
It was even worse, though.
The reason I read that word for word, and I try not to do that is.
That's why they want to keep the market open for the Molnu Pierrovir and the Pax Sloven, which just came rushing out in the fall, right?
Press releases started coming out.
You started to see newspaper menu.
Stock prices increase.
Oh, yeah.
And so they want that to be the standard of care.
And, you know, the other thing I want to say, Charlie, is that, you know, for those of us, and like you, you know, that naivete comment that Chris made before, like, I cannot, I cannot be cynical enough.
I mean, every time I'm more cynical, I find I'm still being naive about stuff.
But if you wonder, could they, would they really do that?
Would they really suppress evidence of efficacy of a cheap, widely available drug when, you know, hundreds of thousands of Americans are dying?
What about that together trial, though?
What about that?
Yeah.
Right?
So they, first off, they run this fraudulent trial in Surgisphere and it goes in the Lancet and it turns out it's complete bunk, right?
It's just absolute fraud.
And then they put together the Together trial, supposed to be the gold standard.
They run it in the UK, and these doctors decide that they're going to dose people with hydroxychloroquine.
So A, they give it to them in hospital, so it's late, as we've discussed, right?
You want to give that early, not when they're on ventilators.
And they gave them, Charlie, they gave them 2,400 milligrams of hydroxychloroquine.
It's that low, high, right at the level of toxicity.
And then 800 milligrams daily thereafter.
So they were giving whole grams of this stuff to already very sick people and then said, oh, look, they're dying.
And then literally they use that to fuel this horrific reluctance and aversion to using hydroxychloroquine.
But that war, that war that they wage, when you ask yourself, how rapacious could a company in an industry be by allowing hundreds of thousands of Americans to die when there was actually an effective treatment that they could have recommended?
It's nothing new, doctor.
Right.
That's what I was about to say next.
Exactly what you just said: is that you look at the track record, not track record, criminal record of the pharmaceutical industry.
They have done this repeatedly.
They do not care about the loss of life.
You look at drugs like Avandia, 60,000 people died of heart attacks.
The drugs like Viox and Bextra, and like you just mentioned, we are still in the throes of an opioid epidemic with over 200 or I don't even know.
Did you guys say 100,000 this year?
100,000 last year.
In one year.
One year.
So the numbers of the opioid epidemic.
And a lot of those are probably counted as COVID deaths.
And I'm not being facetious.
Even might be right.
I mean, who knows?
But so the rapaciousness of that industry, the patient and their welfare has never been a factor.
Profit, and I shouldn't say never, because last century's pharmaceutical companies actually were capable of doing some pretty cool stuff.
You know, like what Mark did with ivermectin back in the day.
They literally offered it to the world for free and they transformed the health status of large portions of the world.
I think that was cool.
That was, yeah, right.
I think Bayer did a good job with that.
Exactly.
So it helps with COVID too.
No question.
And so, but nowadays, you know, the last 20 years, if you look at the last 20 civil settlements that have been paid out by the pharmaceutical industry, it's 13 billion in civil penalties and 6 billion in criminal penalties.
That does not include the Sacklers because that hasn't been adjudicated yet.
I wrote it down, but what I said, it's been happening.
It's outside of just the pharmaceutical industry.
There have always been people that have rationalized death for profit.
I mean, from Roundup is a great example, right?
I mean, they knew their product was hurting women that were gardening and they were inhaling this chemical that would cause brain tumors and those settlements are ongoing.
Tobacco, another great example, kind of one that is the third rail, but alcohol.
The alcohol industry kills a lot of people every single year.
And people say, well, it's, you know, people, you know, use it.
It's their own agency.
They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on alcohol-based propaganda every single year to try to normalize it and to try to get it into movies and music and so on and so forth.
So, yeah, it is, it shouldn't shock people is what we're trying to get at, though, is that this idea of kind of hurting people for profit.
Can people be that dark?
Yeah, they're that dark all the time.
I encourage people to look at the investigative book this one guy did in the Sackler family.
I can't remember his name.
He's unbelievably brilliant.
And yeah, I mean, Sacklers knew what they were doing.
They flooded the market with opioids and oxycontin, right?
Oxycotin, right?
And I always ask people because they say, well, the pharmacists, they're always kind of a check and balance.
Say, how many pharmacists decided not to write the scripts of OxyContin?
How many intervened on ivermectin?
Well, they suddenly got a lot of you're going to like this.
So, there's an attorney general in Louisiana.
So, that actually, oh, you know him.
Okay, so he had the most brilliant quote.
So, I want to use that quote.
But, you know, at that time where the CDC did that corruption action and tried to scare all the state departments of health and pharmacy boards, the Louisiana Pharmacy Board did the same and put out some threatening post page on their website telling the pharmacist to shy away and don't fill prescriptions.
And he went after them.
He said, you guys are practicing medicine without a license.
And he wrote a very sharp reported opinion.
And in one of his arguments, he said, he said, you're telling me that pharmacists just found a conscience after handing out opiates like M ⁇ Ms for the last decade?
Pharmaceutical Criminal Actions00:12:05
With presidential money.
Absolutely.
Just come in by the truckload.
We'll give them whatever they want.
Okay, I want to ask a couple other questions kind of around some of these topics.
We're going to jump around a little bit.
And I have some notes of some things that you guys mentioned that I wanted to follow up on.
And feel free to take it on things that you want to make sure you mention.
Here's one in particular, though, that is really important, which is, do you guys see any evidence at all whatsoever?
And I want to start with you, Dr. Mortensen, which is around or link between infertility and the vaccine or any sort of disturbing trends in that regard.
Absolutely.
So one of the things, so I got two YouTube strikes.
One was when I ran his Senate testimony.
And so that got taken down.
I got a YouTube strike for that.
And the second one was when I pointed out that the yellow card system in the UK had shown 30,000 women had reported reproductive cycle issues, right?
Their menstrual cycles were thrown off.
They were having ultra-heavy bleeding, clotting, cramping, all kinds of stuff.
And there's 30,000 reports.
And so what I noted was I went back to the Pfizer safety data, which they had put out as part of their application.
And I said, of all the side effects they possibly list, which is part of informed consent, they didn't even mention something that was striking so many women, you couldn't have missed it.
So I pointed that out, and then I got a strike for that because I was, you know, medical misinformation.
Now it's getting more widely known and women are writing about it.
There was a big reason article that I think broke that open a little bit.
But now it's whenever I post that and I say, hey, look, here's this thing.
Women's reproductive cycles are messed up.
By definition, that's a fertility issue.
When you put that up, women just start pouring in with their personal anecdotes around this.
And it's just, it's a thing, right?
And it's huge.
One of the, I was listening to a talk by an expert in obstetrics and gynecology.
And one of her statements always kind of stuck with me.
She said that, you know, a normal menstrual cycle is literally one of the signals of health of a woman.
And so when you have abnormalities in the menstrual cycles, I mean, it's indicative of a real disturbance to their health.
And so I find that data alarming.
The miscarriage data that's actually in one of the original trials was alarming.
Have we seen a net increase in miscarriages nationwide?
Have we had Dr. McCullough alluded to that?
Do we not know?
Because then it kind of goes back to a theme.
We don't trust the United States data.
Thanks for shopping, right?
I've had multiple reports from small areas, like it's not small, but like city hospitals where they go, oh my gosh, we had eight stillbursts within a window when we should have a half of one on average, right?
So we're seeing large increases, but nobody is gathering that data.
Yeah, you think that would be probably a pretty interesting or urgent thing for public health officials, right?
Steve Kirsch has gotten into that.
He's talked to, and again, you have to understand that the environment that we're in.
So when you ask about this data, you know, you'll have like an LND, a labor and delivery nurse, right?
Who reports?
I think it was one of the Canadian hospitals.
They had 13 stillbirths apparently in a 24-hour period when the normal rate for that hospital was stillbirths.
Yeah, that's what was reported.
But that's like sub-Saharan African.
That's the thing.
And they said the normal rate was, I think, maybe once a month they had a stillbirth.
And stillbirths are quite rare events.
And so you hear these trickles of very, very alarming data.
And you would think if we're in a normal time, that data would be investigated, pursued, and disseminated.
Well, it's the opposite.
So I'm going to read you an article if that's okay.
And I don't mean to be on my phone here, but I just want to make sure I, you know, get this correct, which is this new article came out today.
I saw it on Google News, which is that COVID-19, new study shows risk of severe illness and stillbirths for unvaccinated pregnant women.
So they say to prevent stillbirths, this according to Forbes CBS News, isn't it interesting?
And you mentioned this earlier, Doctor, how they're able to kind of get it to every single type of news outlet very quickly.
It's almost like there was an Operation Mockingbird that was stood up in the 1960s and 70s.
So they want you to get vaccinated to prevent a stillbirth.
So here's the interesting thing.
So we have the data, we have the control sample.
We call it 2020.
We didn't have vaccines.
If stillbirths were popping as a consequence of being COVID-infected, we would have seen it in that data strongly.
And it didn't start showing up until recently.
And now they're saying it must be because you're unvaccinated.
Now, there's no data for that.
It's unsubstantiated.
It's medical misinformation without the data to back it up.
It's propaganda, is what it is at this stage.
We don't have the data.
So another article I could read to you, Dr. Steve has to try to get it.
I'd love to show you the paper.
So this is what's so troubling.
So we're in a discussion with some colleagues, and we're trying to share with them this really alarming all-cause mortality data.
So there's this one really compelling paper that's on a pre-print server.
So it's not peer-reviewed in a major journal, which shows alarming all-cause mortality for all aged deciles from a big European database as well as the U.S. database.
Okay.
And in sharing that with a colleague, they sent me back eight papers published in peer-reviewed journals, which show the opposite.
And we know any adverse vaccine analyses are not going to get published.
And so, you know, if you want to believe in the implicit faith and lack of control over the medical journals, then what's appearing in the memo are factual, up-to-date, and true.
We know that women are complaining about this.
Huge chat groups that we're forming on social media around women sharing their experiences after vaccination.
I've heard of it in my circle.
Even in the FLCCC, we have had a daughter and a niece of people who work within this, both who lost babies after vaccination.
And so we know it's out there, know the data's out there, but either it's not being collected, no one's doing the research on it, or it's not being published.
We have countless emails on our show of these stories.
And the fertility, so Steve Kirk just did a recent sub stack on, I don't know if you saw this, Chris, on in vitro fertilization clinics.
It's the gold rush of the century.
If you're in vitro, you're making more money than ever.
But they're having problems there.
They're seeing a lot more failures than they've ever had.
Because they're 50,000 bucks a pop.
Let me ask a question, though.
There's been some speculation that the vaccinated can harm the unvaccinated.
Is that true?
They could shed potentially harmful.
Help me out here.
Something vaporized.
This is speculation.
For example, some people say that Women that are vaccinated can harm pregnant women that are unvaccinated.
Is that too far out there?
Is that potentially substantiated?
I've heard lots of stories about that, but I have a lot of them down.
I have compelling anecdotes of that.
Same.
I definitely have compelling anecdotes, but of other people getting weird.
I also want to be responsible that, like, what law, you know, and that's the problem with some of the questions you're just asking now, Charlie.
Like, we're not getting past compelling and large numbers of anecdotes.
And, you know, one of the things I want to remind ourselves: you know, one anecdote is one anecdote, right?
500 anecdotes are 500 anecdotes.
So this is not an anecdote.
This is data.
Okay.
At our event, America Fest, we had, let me think, 8,200 seats in the room.
And every seat was filled.
And I asked the room, I said, how many people here personally know somebody that had a serious adverse event to the vaccine?
And nearly every single hand goes up.
Wow.
So that's not an anecdote.
That's a sample size of people from all 50 states.
Yep.
And this country.
If it was truly safe, and if you ask the question the way you did, which is very surprising.
You're very serious that you know personally of a serious adverse event or side effect from the vaccine.
And I've run that same poll in my own.
I've got a fairly large following and the same thing.
More people report knowing somebody within one degree of separation who's not.
The Pfizer lobby will say that's confirmation bias.
You want to find that.
Yeah.
They can say that all day long.
So the military says, you know, once is an accident, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action.
Back to your point, you know, once is simple, like, you know, fog of war.
Twice was incompetence, but every single time we see that the decisions that are made are to suppress the data that we need in order to determine that the vaccines have maybe a safety signal.
Every single time they've suppressed early treatments, every single time we're at enemy action at this point, that's what we just have to face up to: is that we have a system that is geared through whatever set of incentives to harm you if it makes them money.
So now I want to complete this conversation in the minutes we have remaining about what could potentially be done to hold some of these people accountable, which I'm going to ask a couple of questions around that.
And then kind of where we're at, some positives you're seeing, some momentum, and how people can actually take action.
So I want to end the conversation, hopefully, in an uplifting note, because we've been bountifully cynical today.
Have crimes against humanity taken place?
And is the Nuremberg kind of topic of conversation, is that even something we should talk about or is that unrealistic?
Well, what I said before, and what I've said in our discussion here, Charlie, right, is looking back at the history of the pharmaceutical industry and the tens, if not hundreds of thousands that have died through the criminal actions that they've taken to suppress toxicity data around prior therapeutics.
I don't know when you draw the line and say it's a crime against humanity or a crime against public health, but if you look at the sheer scale of human lives lost by those same actions that they've done.
So what Chris just said is if you look at the entire way the system is operated, it's in suppressing evidence of early treatments for generic drugs and at all costs, trying to convince everyone and everything of the safety and efficacy of rather toxic vaccines.
And so when you look at those two actions and the massive amounts of life lost, disability that we talked about, life insurance claims, what are we up now?
Last time I checked, it was 800,000 plus American lives lost.
We're probably nearing 900.
And depending how you count them, that's fair.
That's fair.
But I've also been in hospitals for a year and a half.
I've seen units full of patients on ventilators, all with the same disease.
I mean, I've seen like horrific impacts.
I've lost a lot of patients to this disease.
And they all died from the lack of early treatment, lack of knowledge, lack of access to early treatment.
We know from the areas around the world that have used early treatment, you don't go to the hospital and die to near the extent that if you didn't.
And so is that a crime against humanity?
How could it be anything but?
It's that what you just said, the normal way to operate business.
They don't care.
They don't care.
So if crime's been committed, yeah, absolutely.
I don't know what threshold they cross to get to the crimes against humanity stage, but the good news in this.
So Charlie, these have been great questions.
This is a very refreshing conversation to have.
And we should have been having these conversations right from the beginning.
And it's telling that we're having it here.
And these aren't happening at the center.
So what I've learned, which is very positive, is that when I figured out what early treatments were working, it was because I was following people like Pierre.
I was following people at the edge.
The CDC is literally the last place I go to for guidance now.
Political Conversation Ownership00:02:05
The last place.
In fact, I might do the exact opposite of whatever they come up with just out of like habit because that might be a good starting point, right?
So we've learned in this whole process who were the moral giants and the intellectual giants of our times.
We got to figure that out.
We also learned the opposite, who are moral cowards, who are intellectual frauds, and there are a lot of them.
So we got to figure that out.
So I got to learn who I can trust.
That's great.
So for your listeners, this whole thing, they're trying to demonize it, doing your own research.
Well, yeah, you should.
You should decide for yourself what's best for you.
And you can read a paper as well as I can and say vitamin D is the bomb.
You better have good vitamin D levels.
People can take ownership of that.
Don't wait.
Don't wait for the CDC to tell you or your doctor.
Figure it out.
Right.
So I see this movement towards personal responsibility, people getting back to what I consider fundamental truths again, which is what really matters is our freedom matters.
Yeah.
Right?
There's a big march going on on the 23rd and Sunday.
Yeah, tell us about that.
How could people get involved?
And peaceful march, of course.
Peace, absolutely peaceful.
Peaceful, peaceful.
So it's going to go from Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial.
It starts at, I believe, 11 o'clock or 10:30 in the morning.
People gather at the monument on Sunday, the 23rd.
Of January.
Of January.
Is there a website where people can get the information?
Yes, Defeat the Mandates DC.
All one phrase there, defeatthemandates DC.com.
And you can sign up there, leave a name, figure out the schedule, all of that, look at the speakers, a lot of great speakers.
And so there'll be a one-mile walk up the mall and then a bunch of people speaking there.
And it's really all about, to me, it's about saying enough.
Enough is enough.
It's not just the mandates for me.
It's much bigger than that.
We need our country back.
We need to get back on right principles again.
I want people who are ethical to be back in power again.
These are things that this is the country I care about.
So, Dr. Corey, you said something interesting.
I don't know if you've talked about this openly or not, or if you're comfortable.
You said your former party, so I inferred you were once a Democrat.
Defeat Mandates Rally Details00:10:35
Is that right?
Yeah, listen, I'm a New Yorker.
I was living in Wisconsin.
I'm curious, though, because I mean, that's the part I voted with.
I mean, I'm not in any party now.
And I'm not trying to pin you down.
What I'm interested, though, is that it seems as if, for whatever reason, the right has been more of a place for this kind of conversation than the left.
What's your take on that?
Yeah, so I've always been mystified by that.
So here's the thing.
So as I'm not fully on the right, right?
I have differences in philosophy.
But here's the thing.
The right has been more naturally sort of aligned against government, especially when there's a liberal government in power, right?
And they want limited government, more freedom, right?
And so if you're against government and governmental overreach and you're not going to trust the government and you're going to call BS or you're going to push back on anything the government has, if you've done that consistently in this pandemic, you've been correct.
That is a correct stance almost consistently top to bottom.
So because of that natural predilection of the right to have that stance and have that position towards the government, they've gotten it correct.
Yeah, the only thing that confuses me, and we talked about this earlier with the Wonderful Unity Project, the natural inclination of the liberals I grew up with was anti-corporate.
Yes.
That's that.
So that's the one where he's like, what they're actually the Black Panthers.
They literally are trusting pharmaceutical companies.
Like the left is trusting pharmaceutical companies.
I mean, that's the part where it would literally.
But my friend Paul Merrick says the world has gone mad.
And like, that's just one of the examples.
The world has gone mad.
So you're as confused as I am.
Oh, yeah.
I don't even know what to do.
Okay.
So now I want to kind of end this with some momentum.
I do have some questions from our listeners.
We got thousands of emails from our listeners because they think so highly both of you, which is a specific follow-up from something we talked about.
Charlie, I live in Boston.
I need to get ivermectin and I can't.
What do they do?
Okay.
The short answer would be your likelihood of finding a friendly pharmacist is probably in this order.
Number one, you can Google compounding pharmacy near me.
I can tell you that not every compounding pharmacy is ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine friendly, but most are.
The next I would choose is an independent pharmacist, so not a retail chain.
I think the independent pharmacists are also more likely to think independently.
They can't even get a doctor to write this.
Yeah, what about the doctor part?
Oh, the doctor part.
I thought you were talking about pharmacy.
Well, both.
Maybe America Frontline.
Doctor part.
So America's Frontline, not just one, but our website, we have.
What is the URL?
So we have flcc.net.
So a couple of things I want to say about that.
So let's just keep ivermectin aside for a second because at our website, we have combination therapy protocols where we actually have a number of agents that have shown efficacy and they're over the counter.
So for quite a number of things that are in our protocols, you don't need a doctor for.
For the big guns, like with Omicron, like I'm really liking hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, fluoxetine, you're going to need a doctor for that.
We have lists of telehealth providers around the country who have shown that they do early treatment and many of them use our protocols.
And so you can always find someone there.
At the rate of 750,000 tests, purported positive tests a day.
I don't think we have enough of those doctors to treat everyone.
And that's the really sad part.
I want to end positively, but those would be a couple of resources that you can.
Maybe go more rural than urban.
Is there any difference to that?
I would think so.
I would think probably more rural.
I hate to overly politicize that.
No, I think that states tend to be a little bit more open-minded.
Well, I'll tell you that that divide has been shown in many other countries.
So in countries where ivermectin was widely used, there was a very sharp urban rural divide.
So in Peru, where all the ivory towers are, the city doctors know that the potion of the people that all the masses are using ivermectin, you know, out in the countryside, the ivory towers, like in Lima, there's a really nice study showing Lima, the death rates in Lima far exceeded the regions of Peru where they had mass ivermectin distribution.
So yeah.
And so that rural, I'm sure that applies here.
So sorry, please, Dr. Yeah, so there's actually a whole underground railroad around this.
And unfortunately, I know a lot of people who have turned to tractor supply, right?
They've gone out and actually taken animal grade.
I'm not recommending it, but they do it because they have no other option.
Canada, I know people, it doesn't even matter.
They can't go even animal grade.
Australia, they can't.
So the gela sativa seems to work, which is one of the things that's on the FLCCC protocol.
There are things people can do, but it is such a shame that people literally have to turn sometimes to something like that.
It's just awful.
The second part of the question we get a lot of questions about that weren't directed at you, but in general, because I become this funnel as we talk about this stuff, and I'm not equipped to always answer these questions.
Charlie, my father's in the hospital.
He's not doing well.
I'm trying to get drugs to him or whatever.
They're not giving him treatment.
Is there many options at that?
And then let me be provocative and blunt.
If someone starts to struggle, should they even go to the hospital at all?
All right, let me ask the first, let me answer the first part.
So the area where we've had as little success is once someone enters the doors of a hospital, if you're a COVID expert, so if you look at our protocols at flcc.net, we have what's called the Math Plus protocol.
That's our hospital protocol.
It has maybe a dozen medicines on there.
We use higher doses and multiple combinations, including a high dose of IV vitamin C.
I suggest to them to take Math Plus, show it to the doctor.
The likelihood that that affects a change in the clinical care of an individual patient in the hospital is somewhere between zero and 1%.
Doctors are just not open.
They will not do it.
They're all on protocols.
They don't vary.
And we're a bunch of Yahoos or something.
I don't know what's thought.
But again, there's an implicit faith and trust in the agencies and in our nation's exalted and highly successful treatment protocols for COVID.
Cynicism came through there, Charlie?
Beautiful.
All right.
Just wanted to make sure.
Okay.
Very clear.
So that first part of the answer is it's really hard to direct care.
I have personally, I've offered my cell phone to physicians if they want to call me.
I try to tell the families, please, I don't want to get a call when they do it under duress.
I will accept a call from a physician who's open-minded and willing to hear about my expertise.
I'm an ICU specialist.
And so we get a lot of calls for patients really advanced in disease and ICUs often.
Very hard to help them.
Like 20 days, right?
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, that's really hard.
Even if I was on, you know, I've been finding that once they've been undertreated that long.
So early treatment, no treatment.
Hospital, you get this anemic dose of a corticosteroid with remdesivir, which is either not working or harmful.
And then you might get one of the IBs or abs, and then suddenly you're in florid, you know, severe critical illness in the ICU.
Even when I miss morale, you're not seeing loved ones, right?
All that impacts.
Everything is there.
And your loved ones can't even advocate as they normally would.
They can't come to the bedside.
They can't do that.
And they might intubate you.
They might forget to check on you.
All of that.
So, I mean, right to your question, two years ago, I would have gone to the hospital as a first resort, and now it's my personal last resort.
And I'll tell you why.
My local hospitals still have remdesivir standard of care.
So if I go there with a low oxygen stat, I'm going to get put on remdesivir.
Am I wrong to say that the only thing the hospital might be able to offer is an oxygen machine?
Is that correct?
No, I mean, they'll offer more.
I mean, I just think that the medicines are just unimaginative, fraudulent, so remdesivir is fraudulent.
I will tell you that I believe that dexamethasone is fraudulent in the following way.
The dose in which they're using it is artificially low.
What's the number?
It's the chemical.
So it's called dexamethasone.
It's a corticosteroid.
So it's a strong...
It's not prednisone, though.
No, but it's similar.
It's in the same class.
The drug that is being used right now is called dexamethasone.
It's very similar to prednisone.
It's just a different formulation.
But you're okay with prednisone or no?
I'm very okay with it.
What I'm not okay with is the horrific underdosing.
People are dying.
Underdosing.
Underdose.
Yeah.
So what happened was when I told you before that we came out and we told the world, I testified in the Senate, you have to use corticosteroids in the hospital phase of the disease.
I got attacked, roundly accused of, you know, whatever, malpractice or misinformation until a large randomized control trial came out proving that it was life-saving and it became the standard of care worldwide.
But they tried to make it not work.
Yes.
They gave homeopathic doses.
That's the thing.
So they used a very low dose.
It was a very large trial.
So they did find a mortality benefit.
But we now have eight to ten trials since.
Each and every case, when you use the different corticosteroid methopredonisolone, better concentration in lungs, and at higher doses, every time you use a higher dose, you see the mortality rates drop and drop.
Yet they're still stuck on six of dex across the country.
People are dying of undertreatment.
And if I could add one last thing, I hope this isn't a self-promotion, but these things that we talk about, especially on the steroids, I've been writing a sub stack and I'm going into really, you can subscribe for free, but I go into real depth about how these things are happening.
And particularly, I wrote two very deeply researched posts on this corticosteroid issue.
But to your other question, should you go to the hospital?
I mean, I can't tell you not to go.
I think it just comes back to the first answer, which is you want to try to get access to early treatment.
If you do get shorter breath, I would ask that you find a doctor who's willing to use an appropriate dose of steroid.
Even as outpatients, they're using six of dex.
It's just insufficient.
We know this is a steroid responsive disease and there's a dose dependency to it and you need to use higher doses.
And I'll tell you my personal opinion, and I can understand exactly why you have to say that, which is I would not advise for anyone in my circle to go to a hospital.
Avoiding Hospitals for Oxygen00:11:15
I wouldn't trust it at all whatsoever.
I bought an oxygen machine, a good one, not a ventilator, but an oxygen machine that could give supplemental oxygen.
And I've seen too many stories of people I know personally that are doing okay.
They go to the hospital and who knows what happens next and they die.
And I know for certain that they're not getting any of this treatment.
In fact, they're getting the dexamethasone and they're getting remdesivir.
And we have 55 emails of people that believe remdesivir killed their loved one.
I don't know if that's true or not.
You're saying it's fraudulent.
It very well might be.
It's inexpensive.
I think it's $1,500 a shot.
It didn't behave well in Ebola.
So that segues to another question, which is, you're Anthony Fauci.
All right.
Outside of the corruption, the graft, the evil, awful perspective of the world.
How many people should have died from this?
I know that's a speculative.
I know it's unfair, but you could get in a ballpark.
Both of you are, let's say you're both Anthony Fauci.
And you have that multi-trillion dollar megaphone, which is what he had, right?
He was able to control a civilization and still does for over two years.
How many people die of this thing?
A lot, lot, lot less.
Because what we would have done, anybody, almost like in a military exercise, right?
You're going to make decisions based on risks and benefits.
We knew so many things about the disease.
We knew early.
We knew the steroids worked early.
We knew the critical role of vitamin D.
We knew these repurposed cheap and safe drugs.
We knew the safety profiles were so unparalleled that let's say it only had minimal efficacy.
The idea that you would cause harm by deploying it widely in what you call the fog of war, right?
When this thing came out, those are the things that you have to do to keep people alive.
And if we had deployed those, so, you know, it's not just Fauci.
I think he, you know, the fact that he's led the bio, you know, bio-medical industrial complex for 40 years is a problem.
And the reason why he's had that position is because he's, you know, his actions are totally in lockstep with pharma.
But let's say you replace the guy at the top.
There's still a rotten structure underneath, right?
And it's really driven, what I think, by the revolving door.
I agree.
And that's all right.
But our audience is well.
But going back to the question is.
Yeah, I think 500,000 fewer people would have died.
And so I'm Anthony Fauci.
I get out there early on because we have a clip of him in 2019 saying these exact words.
So I'm just going to tell you what he said in 2019 before this all happened.
Hey, the way you get past an infectious disease is you get plenty of rest.
You make sure you're not stressed out because you want your immune system as tuned up as possible.
Make sure your vitamin D levels are adequate.
Your vitamin C levels are good.
What we now know, based on the parsing of the data, you also want to make sure you have appropriate levels of serum, zinc, and selenium.
These are just basic over-the-counter things that we now know work really, really well.
I think if we'd done that, that's called prepare the terrain.
Even if I'm going to say I'm going to depend on a vaccine, what I want when I give the vaccine is I want your immune system to really robustly rise to the challenge.
So guess what?
We want the immune system in good shape.
So we know how to do those things.
Those weren't done, again, three times as enemy action.
They totally overlooked that stuff.
And by the way, that has a racial component because vitamin D is much lower in people with strong melanin in the skin.
It's right.
And the fact that, you know, they're like, oh, well, you know, Trump was this racist, but so is Biden, because neither of them actually, through their health agencies, went forward and said this is a really important issue.
We could have had a Marshall Plan around vitamin D levels and early treatments.
I like the Marshall Plan idea.
Well, this is what frustrates every mailbox.
I could go on about this, but we are the richest country ever.
We have more technology, more information than ever.
And the way we handled this will objectively be looked at from people 200 years from now.
And there will be entire classes, courses, and PhDs written on how a wealthy country allowed millions of people to die with all the drugs we have at our disposal, right?
The information.
And I believe this.
And, you know, obviously we comment a fair amount on politics.
And there's been plenty of political dynamics we don't like.
Some that you, I know you guys are vaccinating of children, masks on kids, school closures, bad things, right?
But all of it really kind of is the choke point.
And the choke point or the checkpoint, checkpoint, Charlie, what do you want to call it? Is early treatments.
You get early treatments.
There's no reason to ever shut down schools.
You get early treatments.
There's no reason to addict people to screens, right?
It really is the one that impacts all.
It is the cause set in motion.
I like your Marshall Plan because now you're reminding me when you ask the question.
This is my real answer because I've been saying this for months.
Like, my dream would be that every household in America in their cupboard would have hydroxychloroquine and/or ivermectin in the cupboard, ready to deploy, like you would have an Advil or a Tylenol or an aspirin, right?
In the cupboard for when the family falls ill.
Anyone in the family, immediately upon first symptoms, they'd have access to it.
You don't have to run around with pharmacists or anything.
Everybody would have a home treatment.
You're a pulmonary doctor.
Yeah.
How many lives do you think were saved from deep vein thrombrosis, aka blood plots, blood clots because of aspirin?
Well, it depends how many people are using aspirin when they get sick.
I got to tell you, that's not that common.
It's the same theme that we've been talking about.
It's on our last 30 or 40 years.
Oh, 32.
Oh, countless.
But that's the point, right, isn't it?
Is that not, that doesn't mean no one ever died of blood clots.
But aspirin was a net good.
Now, if you take too much aspirin, you bleed out.
What I'm getting at, though, is aspirin allowed millions of people to live their lives as a very reasonable blood thin.
It's a lot of cheap, right?
Safe, cheap, widespread, accessible.
I could only imagine in the 1970s, when did aspirin come online, right?
60s, 70s when Bayer introduced it widespread?
Earlier than that.
Oh, much earlier.
Yeah.
30s, maybe?
Yeah, I think so.
Okay.
In the 30s.
I could imagine it's not safe and effective.
There's nothing we could do against blood clots.
Right.
You know, not proven, unproven insufficient evidence.
Insufficient evidence.
I use that example because it's one where we wouldn't even think about it.
It's interesting, though.
If you go to the FDA type of aspirin, they've recently published articles saying that aspirin could have negative health effects.
It's true.
Well, you know what Niels Bohr said?
He said, science advances one funeral at a time.
Yeah.
Because you have these people who hold on.
Like I'm sure you know these people are dead set against vitamin C.
And that won't penetrate until those people are cleared out because they're going to hold on to that belief system.
So I want you for both of you to plug everything you want to plug, and then I have one final question.
So how could people follow you, support you?
So I've mentioned our website already.
So FLCCC.net for lots of information on our protocols.
You can, you know, early, late treatment.
I should also mention that we are just updating.
We have a long-haul treatment protocol, which is really helping a lot of people.
And we also use it for the vaccine injured.
So it's actually showing efficacy in vaccine syndrome.
So please visit our protocols and providers.
The other thing, if you want to learn more about the topics that I'm talking about, a lot of disinformation tactics that I've observed and become unfortunately expert in, my substack is Pierre Corey.
That's K-O-R-Y dot substack.com.
And our FLCCC also has a substack.
We all write on similar topics.
Yeah, and we both support the Unity Project, which you just interviewed before.
We plugged them, and what they're doing is very important.
Very important.
The March, the March, the March, peaceful, come down, keep the mandatesc.com.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And my website is Peak Prosperity.
A very large-scale.
Didn't say that slower.
Sorry?
Peak Prosperity.
PeakProsperity.com.
Yep.
It's a good URL.
Yeah, I've had it for a long time, and it has a couple of double entendre meetings.
So that's my website, large community there.
I circle around all sorts of issues.
COVID's one, but it's really looking at the unsustainable nature of our financial system in this country.
Well, I completely agree with that.
Oh, by the way, early treatments impact that.
Yeah.
No early treatments.
Why would you have to spend $7 trillion?
Yeah.
Right?
Exactly.
No early treatments.
Why lock down the country?
Early treatments bankrupted the country.
Yeah.
Or the lack thereof.
I'm sorry.
Lack.
That's an impression.
As you can tell, one of my hypotheses is that the early treatments was the lack thereof or the lack of willingness is the mailing ballots to all these different things.
Many things, those.
And don't forget, September 2019, we were having this massive repo crisis, and the Fed was looking for a reason to flood the system with money.
And bingo, this thing came out.
Boy, they found it.
Peakprosperity.com.
Yep.
Okay.
Last question is this.
I get this all the time.
What can a normal person do?
They could show up to the march.
They could do these things, empower our listeners a little bit.
The citizens that want their medical freedom, what can they do?
I mean, I think if they know a pharmacist, they know a physician, I think the doctors need to speak up for them and with them.
I think doctors, they need to start being able to push back at the systems which have oppressed them.
So I'm speaking very physician-centric.
And also, I just have to tell you, I don't have a great answer for exactly how to affect that change in an immediate way.
I'm going to fall back and say, I think it's like any grassroots movement in history.
The voices, the people who are kind of like, I don't want to say waking up, but they become more aware of how spectacular the systems have failed, how it's completely broken.
I think those numbers are going to increase.
And at some point, if you get enough numbers and you get enough people supporting us, whether it's at a march or just speaking to family members, speaking to physicians, so let your physicians hear what you think.
You know, I don't want to put that trite thing about write your congressman and all that.
I don't really think that works, but I don't know.
I just think that, you know, we became somewhat great.
We're a group of physicians and researchers and clinicians.
And I don't know, we got thrust into this kind of like a grassroots public advocacy role.
And the amount of support and the ground soils for what we've seen and the amount that people have been appreciative, not only in this country and around the world, I just want to say I want to keep doing what we're doing.
And if others could do similar to what we're doing, I think we'll get to a good place.
Well said.
I have a slightly broader view.
I think it's time for people to become very resilient.
I see you.
Anti-fragile.
I see troubled times coming.
And it's on an economic front.
We have energy issues.
We've got a variety of issues.
And so this is a time for people to reclaim their own power and become resilient, self-responsible.
I parse out resilience across multiple forms of capital.
Having money is a good form of capital.
It's one.
There's seven others.
Having good, deep social capital, really important.
Who do you know?
How well do you know them?
Your living capital, the health of your own body, right?
Having good, rich soils around your house.
These are the sorts of things that I'm, that's my work in the world.
I try and convince people that maybe things are a little unsustainable.
And once they see it, they take that red pill.
They go, oh.
And honestly, people already know.
So then how do you become resilient?
And here's the best part.
This means I think we get, we wake up and I think we get back to what really matters and people start discovering again what really matters.
Because what's tragic, these things, I love this thing.
Seven Forms of Resilience Capital00:00:47
Our kids today are the most isolated, lonely, unhappy ever.
And I think we have to fix that.
And so that's what I care about.
Well, thank you guys so much.
I didn't even get to all my question, but this was a phenomenal conversation.
And I want to just make sure I mention this again.
flcc.net three C's.
FLCC.net.
FLCCC.net.
How about that?
Defeatthemandates.com, peakprosperity.com.
Thank you guys so much.
And thank you for what you're doing for medical freedom and for our country.
You guys are playing a huge role.
Thanks, Mr. Speaker.
You too, Charlie.
Absolute pleasure.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for listening.
Email us your thoughts, everybody.
Freedom at CharlieKirk.com.
And if you want to support our show, go to charliekirk.com/slash support.
Thank you so much for listening, everybody.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.