Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of mRNA Vaccine technology. Mr. Steve Kirsch is a serial entrepreneur who has been researching adverse reactions to COVID vaccines. Dr. Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist. Bret talks to Robert and Steve about the pandemic, treatment and the COVID vaccines. Steve's paper on COVID vaccine reactions: https://trialsitenews.com/should-you-get-vaccinated/ Steve's Twitter: @stkirsch COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund: https://www.tr...
I should say, in this case, I am Dr. Brett Weinstein, and that will become relevant based on what our topic is.
Let me say a little bit about who I am, and then I will introduce our two guests.
So, I am a PhD in biology.
My specialty is evolution.
I have some background in immunobiology.
And I'm going to be acting today in the role of professor sometimes, student other times, traffic cop, and translator.
That's my plan in order to get this very complex story simple enough that people can understand it because it is of the utmost importance.
All right.
Oh, one other thing I should say is that there is also a final role for me, which is that when I was a graduate student, I did some work on telomeres, senescence, and cancer, and accidentally unearthed a flaw in our drug safety system that, as far as I know, still exists, despite my effort to raise the alarm about it.
So anyway, this is not the first time I have encountered the drug safety issue, and it is a thorny and wicked problem, as some might say.
To my right, we have Robert Malone.
Robert Malone is an MD, PhD?
No, Master's.
Master's and MD.
He is also, and most significantly here, the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology from back as a graduate student, am I correct?
Yeah, and I'm also a licensed physician in Maryland.
A licensed physician in Maryland.
And to my left is Steve Kirsch, who is a serial entrepreneur.
And actually, you want to tell us about your role in COVID treatment research?
Sure.
I started the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, and we fund scientists throughout the world on looking at repurposed drugs for outpatient clinical trials, because using repurposed drugs is the fastest, safest, and lowest cost way to end the pandemic.
All right, excellent.
So, I must say that this is a difficult topic for us to address.
We all, I believe, are agreed that something very serious is afoot and the public is largely unaware that they have been placed into a kind of danger.
And we also know that there's a great deal of stigma directed at those who would explore these dangers.
I know that I personally feel a certain amount of jeopardy over talking about these things publicly, but I also feel a moral obligation to do so in light of the fact that I believe in my heart of hearts that a great many lives are at stake.
There's just simply no question that come hell or high water this must be discussed.
I would imagine you gentlemen feel similarly?
Yeah, I'm particularly concerned by all the censorship because it's making so that we cannot have a rational discussion.
Cannot have a rational discussion.
I think it's a very, a very fair way to put it.
I should also point out that our viewers will have noticed that we are sitting here unmasked, and I should point out that actually we are, in an interesting sense, a model of something that I believe is not on the public radar.
So, if I'm correct, you, Robert, have had COVID.
I've had COVID, and I've been fully vaccinated with Moderna.
All right.
Steve, you have been vaccinated.
Fully vaccinated with Moderna.
All right.
I am unvaccinated, but I am on prophylactic ivermectin, and the data actually, shocking as this will be to some people, the data suggests that prophylactic ivermectin is something like 100% effective at preventing people from contracting COVID when taken properly.
So, aside from the risk that possibly the ivermectin I got wasn't real, and I have every reason to think it was, it certainly appears to be the genuine article, I believe that what we have here is a demonstration of a kind of composite herd immunity, where through three different routes, COVID, vaccine, and ivermectin, we are protected, and you are doubly protected.
So I would just say that for anybody who's enthusiastic about the vaccines, if you're unconvinced by what we have to say about the hazard of them, one thing to consider is that the way to get society to herd immunity and therefore drive COVID-19 to extinction, which ought to be our goal, the way to do it is to get people into this category one way or the other, whether that's through prophylaxis, whether it's through a vaccine, or whether it's because they've had COVID already.
One could argue that if everybody just took Ivermectin for a month, worldwide, we would end the pandemic.
Some will find the title that I have given this episode perplexing.
I would ask them to stick with the episode through the end, and I will explain why I titled it as I did.
I really believe that actually, We have the capacity at any moment we decide to utilize it to end the pandemic and that it is well within reach should we choose to see what is in front of us.
But we will get there later on.
It's kind of like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz that she always had the ability to go back to Kansas.
We've always had the ability to end this pandemic.
It's just a question of whether we want to use it or not.
Well, actually, I'm going to push back slightly on you, Steve.
I was actually going to inquire from my friends who are closest to this, but I didn't get to it before the podcast.
But I believe we probably have had the ability to end the pandemic at any point in the last six months that we chose to.
I'm not sure it goes all the way back because I'm not sure we would have known what to do.
Yes, we've had the drugs available and then the know-how we developed late last year.
Right.
Okay, so if you'll let me, my pushback as a molecular virologist and physician and outbreak specialist, I think that herd immunity is a noble cause and objective.
But if you look worldwide, I think that we kind of have to plan that we're unlikely to achieve it.
So I applaud the logic.
I think the probability is really high.
There's no way pragmatically we're going to get there and we're going to be stuck with this virus in various forms.
Alright, well here's the thing.
We're not going to get bogged down here because it's not the central reason for our conversation.
I do want to have that conversation with you at some point because I believe what I'm doing is I'm probably butchering the term herd immunity by arguing that somebody who's on prophylactic ivermectin is within the herd.
But in any case, I believe that it is possible based on at least the Argentina study, which suggests essentially 100% effectiveness of ivermectin. - Yeah, I totally agree with you. - We're good, we're quibbling It's off-scope.
What you're saying is that from a practical point of view, but my point is that if we were able to, just like we're trying to get everybody to take the vaccine, If we had put that into getting everybody to take ivermectin and fluvoxamine for a month, and if we could accomplish that, then COVID would be wiped out.
We could do it, and actually any municipality that could regulate its borders could clear the disease if it could accomplish that goal, I believe.
And it's just a question of, you know, practically speaking, we agree with you, Robert.
Practically speaking, it's hard to pull off.
I'm saying that theoretically, if we could get agreement Because we have... Well, how about this?
Let's table this.
I will give you my plan at the end of this.
And my claim is that actually there is a way to do this.
We just have to think a bit outside the box.
Okay.
But let me just say that, Steve, I became aware of you after reading your article on Trial Site News in which this is actually kind of a living article in which you've been updating it as information has come to light.
And I must say this article I'm always troubled by the loss of the useful term red pill by people who have borrowed it for various purposes that I don't think are legitimate.
But this article functions as a red pill.
You read this and either something's wrong with you, Steve, and you've completely misportrayed the data and there's no problem and something's up with you, or if the data is anything like what you present, then the interpretation is Quite clear and absolutely startling.
So I will just say I believe that what you've what you've pointed to is accurate and alarming is an understatement.
I would invite people to look at it for themselves.
I would invite people to show it to others and most importantly I would invite them To pay very close attention to what is said in response.
You will get a lot of pushback when you show this article to people, but that pushback is not substantive in my experience.
It's emotional.
Crickets.
Well, you either get crickets or you get some kind of squid ink phenomenon where a bunch of ink shows up and suddenly the person you're talking to is nowhere to be seen.
I think the term for a lot of the blowback is gaslighting.
Well, that hasn't happened yet, I think.
I mean, the feedback that I've gotten is they'll look at it for about 30 seconds and say, I don't believe this, and it's the cognitive dissonance.
You know, it's the people who took the blue pill and are living in the matrix, and everything is good, and this is This can't possibly be true.
And they immediately write it off.
But they can't cite anything that is wrong with it.
They can't argue any of the points.
And they'll delve into ad hominem attacks and say, oh, well, this was written by an engineer.
He doesn't know anything.
And to me, that's a victory.
Because it says that everything I've written they can't argue with.
So the only thing left to attack is to try to attack the person when you can't attack the arguments.
And that's what people do.
And I would just say that, you know, looking at a complex puzzle like this, one needs some kind of tools.
Undoubtedly, in what you've written, there are things that aren't going to turn out to be right.
Undoubtedly.
You've just written so broadly that, you know, with this being such a large live issue, undoubtedly there are errors.
But the point is, even if you read this thing and you say, what if what he's saying is 50% right, right?
It's still so alarming that effectively the response would have to be the same.
Something has gone wrong, we are in danger, and we are not behaving rationally.
And you can detect where we are not behaving rationally in numerous places that I hope we will get to.
But do you want to outline the basics, like the bullet point, you know, the top 10 bullet points that people ought to be aware of that you're calling attention to in your article?
It's so hard because it's just this unbelievable story.
Right.
And let me just tell you how it got started.
However it works.
Okay, sure.
So it got started when my carpet cleaner came and he was wearing a mask and I said, hey, we're all vaccinated, you can take it off.
And he said, you know, I just got the Pfizer vaccine and I had a heart attack two minutes later.
And so he spent the night in the hospital.
And he says, you know, he's kind of recovering from it.
And I said, How are you?
How are you doing now?
And he said, you know, still, you know, feeling bad about it.
And he mentioned also that his wife, also her hand, she, you know, hold a glass like this, and her hand would be shaking like this, and the water would be coming out, and she was perfect before.
So I have two people, we have very few people in my house because of COVID.
So the fish guy, the carpet cleaner, and the house cleaner, right?
And so to have not just one person, but him and his wife, I mean, that's like, that is like lightning striking twice.
In the same place.
And so if it was really a safe vaccine, then what I just saw was impossible.
So that's kind of what triggered me off on this.
And then I had been on this Canadian physician's call with Dr. Byram Brittle.
And he showed this chart and he said, normally when you vaccinate someone, the vaccine goes in the shoulder and it stays in the shoulder area.
And what happens is the antibodies are generated and they attack this antigen in the shoulder and it wipes it out and we're good.
But what Byron Brittle did is he did a FOIA request to the Japanese government to look at the biodistribution data.
And what he discovered is that it doesn't stay in the shoulder where we all thought it should stay.
It goes throughout your entire body.
It goes to your brain, to your heart.
So that's two problems.
One problem is it isn't where it's supposed to be ideally.
Where we thought it was for all the previous vaccines.
And the other problem, and this is your area of expertise, is that what these vaccines do is they encode spike protein alone so that the immune system will learn to recognize spike protein and will catch it quickly when one is confronted with COVID.
But the spike protein itself, we now know, is very dangerous.
It's cytotoxic.
Is that a fair description?
More than fair, and I alerted the FDA about this risk months and months and months ago.
And we had a discussion about it.
And to be fair, the FDA did not think that the S1 subunit and the spike protein was toxic.
And so, they knew, the FDA knew about the biodistribution.
And one of the scary things is that the biodistribution like peaks in your ovaries.
So, just to nail the point home, they did know.
They did know.
I did send them the manuscripts, and their determination was... It's a harmless spike protein.
That they didn't think that that was sufficient documentation of the risk that spike was biologically active.
Right.
They did not believe the spike was biologically active.
That was the big mistake.
We now know the spike protein is very dangerous.
Very dangerous.
We also know, so if it was very dangerous, but it did what the brochure on these vaccines says it should do, which is lodge in the membrane of the cells that are doing the transcribing, it would be a lot less destructive, right?
I think that's fair.
And you're right.
It's not just the documentation about the vaccine.
It's the prior literature that was put out by the people that developed it, that developed these clones.
So they were aware That there was a risk of a spike being biologically active and having adverse events if it did not stay stuck to the cells that were transfected that got the RNA and made it.
And they used a genetic engineering method of putting a transmembrane domain on it to ensure that it stayed anchored and stayed put.
And they did limited non-clinical studies to say Looks like it stays stuck.
We engineered it to stay stuck.
They did.
And they published that.
Here's the thing.
Special engineered.
Okay, is that that's generally not good enough in a non-clinical data package.
So before we get a product released to use in humans, in the normal situation where we're not in a rush, We have some really rigorous tests that have to be done on animals.
Revealing that spike gets cleaved off of expressed cells and becomes free is something that absolutely should have been known and understood well before this ever got put into humans.
I'll just leave it at that.
That's the smoking gun.
Just make one thing clear.
You said it very clearly, but lots of people who aren't familiar with this aren't going to get it, okay?
So the RNA gets into the cell.
It is translated by the ribosome into a protein.
In this case, it's the spike protein, which is the best target on the coronavirus.
We could debate that.
Go ahead.
But it's at least a very good one.
Yeah, it's a good target.
Nobody argues with that.
And if the antibodies grab onto it, the most likely thing to happen is that they will block it from doing what it does that facilitates the entry into the cell.
So if everything works the way the brochure says, it's a good target.
After about five days though, the antibodies have to be... So the whole reason to use an adenoviral vector, an mRNA, is not just to generate antibodies.
And a lot of the data and a lot of us that are deep in this data think that the way that they're really providing the protection is by cellular cytotoxicity.
So you're getting CTLs against it.
And that's the reason to use this gene therapy based technology is not just to generate neutralizing antibodies, but to generate cytotoxic de-lymphocytes.
Okay, you and I are about to go down the rabbit hole because this is biologically fascinating, which I want to avoid doing, but you just said the reason to use the adenovirus vector, which is with the DNA vaccines, not the RNA vaccines, which is what we were talking about.
I would call it, it's not a DNA vaccine, it's an advector vaccine.
Right.
It's the use of the... A recombinant virus, which happens to be a DNA virus.
Yeah.
But it's the same basic idea.
It's gene therapy technology applied to vaccines.
Okay.
It's the same technology and everything downstream of the translation of the spike protein is the same.
Spike protein?
Yeah.
Is the same.
And by the way, we have no problems at all with mRNA vaccines.
Right.
It's just this particular vaccine because of the spike protein and because it breaks, it cleaves off the cell and it goes throughout your body and your brain, your heart, anywhere that you can have these symptoms that are so varied.
Whether it's a 16-year-old who can't talk or see 48 hours after injection or someone who's, you know, handshakes or someone who's, you know, my carpet cleaner, Tim, He's, like, disabled now.
He's lost $30,000 in terms of his costs, and he's going in for an epidural because he's in such pain.
And so these side effects, the victims of this vaccine, they're not being able to tell their story at the press.
Because, you know, Tim says, I try to tell my story, and the press ignores him.
And we have these groups that Aren't able to get attention.
Aren't able to get attention.
A large group of people who believe that they have suffered negative consequences was removed from Facebook.
So there's very clearly an effort.
200,000 users just wiped off the planet.
Right.
If this is a perfectly safe vaccine.
So the censoring has been going on for well over a year.
It's well documented.
It's unequivocal.
And my argument is that by implementing censoring What we're doing is making it so that signals can't be detected.
People's voices can't be heard.
And I'm of the opinion that we have to have free and open discussion, and we have to have full disclosure of risks.
And when you censor that, you cannot have that.
It changes everybody's mindset into believing it's safe and effective.
And when you have that, you don't report these adverse events as being associated with it because you eliminate it.
You don't want to be the fly in the ointment of a great vaccine.
No, you don't think it's possible, right?
So when a doctor sees a miscarriage, And says, I've never seen a baby like this in my entire career where it's so bloody and the brain is split in half and so forth.
She's never seen anything like it.
And the woman was vaccinated a month ago and she's 25 weeks pregnant.
When you have that sort of thing, the doctor says, well, it can't be the vaccine because the vaccine is safe.
And so they say, well, it must be a genetic defect, and they report it as a genetic defect, and they don't even report it into the virus system.
So we never see any of these safety signals because everybody is trained to think that it's safe, it couldn't have been the vaccine.
Yeah, so that's this groupthink problem, and I think it is a real problem.
Here's what they're going to say, and I want to Work out how this functions, right?
I can take your story.
Hey, I, Steve, talked to a couple people who came through my house in various capacities and heard an alarmingly large number of stories that were very frightening.
Now, Everybody at this table will agree that could be anecdotal.
It's totally anecdotal.
It's not even anecdotal.
It could be the result of sampling error.
Oh, absolutely.
And so the point is, how do you detect if something like that isn't sampling error?
You find out what other people are saying.
Yes, you can look for confirmation.
And at the same time that you were having your experience, I was having a slightly different experience.
I was talking to every single person that I interact with, which is definitely not a random sample of people.
On the other hand, we're talking about the woman who cuts my hair, my doctor, right?
I was talking to everybody I encountered and I was asking them, my dentist, I asked them, what was your experience?
Did you get vaccinated?
Yes.
What was your experience?
And the number of people who had a frightening story was alarmingly large.
In fact, I believe it is the case that the only people who didn't have some anomalous reaction Were my parents and Heather's mom, which may be because older people have these things less, that may be sampling error?
I don't know.
But the point is there were stories that didn't sound like any vaccine I've ever heard of.
People who had weeks of fire-like pain in their arm, headaches that would not go away, fevers, So I'm a regulatory professional and I do talk to the FDA and I have good friends there in senior positions.
They were aware back when we were doing randomized clinical trials that these adverse events were occurring.
Many of them were oddly delayed.
And atypical for a vaccine trial.
This is totally new technology and that kind of gets at the core is I think one of our problems here is the assumption That this is like every other vaccine we've ever seen.
And it's not.
It's very different technology.
Right.
And so these weird symptoms.
It's almost like the syringe.
We have mistaken the syringe as delivery vehicle for some sort of a proxy for how to feel about these vaccines.
Now, Heather and I on this program, when we heard how the vaccines worked, and that they had been accelerated through this process, our sense was, you're going to deliver a brand new technology with respect to deploying it in humans, and it's going to interact with the immune system, and you're going to speed it through this process.
We did not know that it had skipped the animal trials that might have alerted us to something really dangerous.
Yeah, they didn't even test the vaccine itself in the animal trials.
So I received this data package that Steve's referred to that the Canadians acquired by FOIA within about 24 hours when it went live.
And I reviewed it on behalf of Trial Site News on request.
And I was really alarmed, frankly, by what I saw.
It was very unusual.
And so I had an even more senior and experienced regulatory affairs professional review it.
And he picked out more things, like the absence of the reprotox.
Spell that out.
Reproductive toxicology package that normally would be in the genotoxicity.
So genotoxicity is Toxicity to the genes of the test system.
In this case it's the Ames test largely.
So that's kind of level one for genotoxicity analysis.
And these are imperfect assays.
They're not, you know, if there's one truism in Research and non-clinical research.
We all say mice lie, monkeys mislead, and humans are the only things that really prove whether or not something is safe and effective is for humans.
But we have to do something before we authorize, approve for a material to be initially tested in humans.
So what the alarming thing was for me, Was that what had been done, at least in that package.
And I'm told, I spoke to Peter Marks, the director of CBER about this and about my concerns.
And he told me that the Pfizer has submitted a new data package in the just last couple of weeks and they're currently evaluating it.
So I think we have to take those data with a little bit of a grain of salt because they may have been updated and we don't know what's in there.
So was this in non-human primates?
Because there's a big... No, it was, it was done, you know, it was done in rodents.
Yeah, but rodents don't have the same affinities for ACE2.
So we're down in the weeds.
But the point is that we should do it right.
Agreed.
I just wanted to say, agreed.
And through all of this, I think we can all agree, Tony Fauci can agree, that corners were cut in the interests of the emergency.
And when you do that, these are processes to ensure safety that have evolved over decades.
They took a risk.
They took a risk and they lost, basically.
So, we are going to come back to this.
I know you have a background in bioethics.
I would point out that, alright, corners were cut, let us all agree that we were in an emergency situation.
I would have done the same, you know, if I weren't trying to do the same thing.
But the FDA, I ran across an animation, I believe it was the FDA, and the specific purpose of this animation is to say the process was accelerated.
But no corners were cut.
In fact, the metaphor they use is basically a road, right, in which they have straightened out the curves and basically, you know, it was a reduction in paperwork.
So it's a cartoon.
It is very literally a cartoon.
Yeah, so we learned from the disclosures that that was a misrepresentation.
So, but it's not just a misrepresentation, because the point is what is being allotted here is informed consent.
Basically, everybody who's getting these vaccines is part of an experiment that we are running That is actually wildly over generous of me to say, because for it to be an experiment, we would have to systematically collect data on what happened to them.
To every patient.
And in fact, our systematic system isn't so systematic.
No, it's all voluntary reports.
Voluntary reporting with stigma attached to... If you report something, they're going to say, no, no, no, they'll convince you that it's not.
So I just wanted to say that I didn't just rely on my carpet cleaner story.
Right.
Oh, no, no.
You pursued it.
Oh, yeah!
That was just the, uh-oh, my antenna went up.
And then, when every place I went, every single place, I talked to doctors.
I said, oh, you've got 900 patients.
How many of them have, you know, what's the adverse event rate, the serious adverse event rate?
And so, doctors have a view, and I talked to paramedics.
They've got a view.
And every, I did a survey on Nextdoor and found, you know, 3% had persistent troubling systems that haven't gone away.
So every single thing that I looked to verify, it was flashing red.
So you're coming at it from the street level, and that has validity.
And the FDA doesn't look at it that way.
They look at it as- Well, let me just- Hang on, hang on.
One second.
The VAERS system, which is the very voluntary- This is Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
Yeah.
Okay.
Nobody knows about that.
They're all told to report into v-safe.
They get these text messages that only last for a few weeks or so.
But nobody knows about this VAERS system.
And people aren't reporting in.
In fact, when doctors report in- They are told, you know, don't report this, this wasn't... I mean, we've had reports reversed from doctors without their consent, without the doctor's consent.
First of all, I don't want us to work too hard, okay?
There is something that goes on when we get into this space where the standards that are set for what constitutes evidence are absurd in the context of science and the way science actually functions.
What you did is perfectly defensible.
Had you concluded simply from three people in your sphere that there was a problem, that wouldn't have been.
Oh, no.
Yeah, absolutely not.
That was an observation.
It was an observation.
It created a hypothesis.
Exactly.
The hypothesis is there's a problem with these vaccines, and if I look farther, that signal's not going to disappear.
It's going to continue out as far as I look.
And when I looked at the Verus database, and I see, like, it's flatlined for all the, you know, 30 years that Verus has been around, and then it just spikes up.
I mean, it's like a hockey stick.
And then it's like, how do you explain that?
Maybe we should bring up that graphic.
Sure.
So while you're doing that.
Yeah.
And the assumption, by the way, has to be for something like this is you have to assume that it's the vaccine because that's the conservative thing.
No, you're going the wrong way.
Go.
Yep.
That was the biodistribution.
Here's this graph, and when I saw this graph, I said, look, that needs to be explained.
And the default is, when you do a clinical trial, is you have to ascribe it to the suspect should be the vaccine, because this is what's being tested, and then you need to To show that, oh, no, no, no, this was due to some other thing.
Okay.
And nobody's explained that.
That's the thing.
And nobody's even asking that question.
That's the thing.
How many people have died?
You're playing by the scientific rules, right?
Your point is, I observed something, I hypothesized something.
What's the hypothesis?
And then the prediction is manifest.
Right.
Right.
And then the question is, all right, maybe there's some other hypothesis.
Exactly.
That predicts the same thing.
But if so, what is it?
But nobody's come up with it.
Exactly.
Right.
So they're using the rules of the game against science.
Now, here is the graph that you were referring to.
Right?
These are the death reports in the VAERS system as of May 28, 2021.
And what you see is there's a certain amount of death following vaccine.
Some of those deaths will be just random chance.
Correct.
That's the random chance.
You have a certain number of people who have an anaphylactic reaction to something.
Or they just died.
grown in, right?
Or they just die.
But the point is we get vaccines, they have values.
There's a certain cost, a certain number of people die.
We're adults, we get it.
But then the question is what the hell happens with the COVID vaccines there?
Why is that signal so high?
And so what you see there, that number I know is not up to date.
The number- Oh, no, no, no.
They're way backlogged.
And also- Well, the current number is like 6,000, right?
Probably somewhere around there, but they've actually taken, nobody can explain why they've removed reports from the Verus system, because what we found is that the reports that were put in by people, and they disappear!
They disappear, and then again... So this is a conservative estimate, because what about those reports that they took out that we can't see?
It's conservative and we can't calibrate how conservative it is.
Correct.
That's a key point.
It's a key issue.
So can I kind of peck at that a little bit?
And I wanted to make sure that I was prepared before we had this discussion today.
So this morning I called some friends at FDA again and talked to them about the databases and the database analysis.
And I wanted to just check in and make sure that I wasn't misunderstanding or misrepresenting.
And they used words like, it's chaotic, it's disorganized, they are not analyzing the data efficiently, they're understaffed, they're overwhelmed.
Furthermore, all of these, whether it's v-safe or this VAERS database, which by the way, physicians are alerted and have been told for many years to use VAERS and many of them do.
VAERS is self-reported.
We don't have a good numerator, a good denominator.
In clinical research, We don't do this.
We get all the reports.
And if we're doing a structured clinical trial, we ensure that every single serious adverse event is carefully reported, carefully evaluated.
A physician has to make a judgment call as to whether it Is not or is possibly or is definitely associated with drug administration and the bias has to be anybody that if you think about this for just a nanosecond, okay, if our goal is to ensure safety.
The bias has to be to assume that there is some association and then take the time to track it down.
And therein lies the rub.
So we have... And the last point I wanted to make is that under... So I took the time to go back and reread the Emergency Use Authorization and the most recently updated EUA, that's the acronym, for COVID and the guidance from the FDA.
The FDA had the latitude to require that the vaccine sponsors, the developers, implement more rigorous data capture for safety.
And they elected not to.
So they had the statutory authorization to do that, and they made a conscious decision not to.
Let me understand what you're saying.
Are you talking about in order to get the EUA, or are you talking about following the release of the EUA?
I'm talking about post-authorization for EUA, FDA had the option to elect to require More or less rigor in how the data were captured normally under an EUA.
So again, you're talking about after the vaccines have been authorized to give to the public, data on what happens when it is administered to the public.
That's what you're saying.
Under an EUA, normally the way the statute was written, It's predominantly set up so that you no longer require written informed consent, but the sponsors are, this was the original intent, but the sponsors are still required to carefully capture safety and efficacy information under EUA.
You're still in an experimental product.
You've just waived some of the requirements.
You've just waived some of the requirements.
And the current version of the EUA authorization provides the FDA with the latitude to choose how rigorously that has to be done.
And in this case, I'm not aware that they implemented any requirements for the sponsors to capture those data.
It's kind of like a see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
It's almost like they didn't want to see it.
I don't want to imply intent.
I just want to stay with the facts.
Those are the facts.
I would say this is one of a number of anomalies.
Fair enough.
If you accept the narrative about why the EUA was granted, if you accept how we ended up here, then certain things would follow.
And when they don't, there's a reason to ask the question about why.
And so in this case, it seems like If you're going to release this under an EUA because it's an emergency and because we've got a real problem that basically requires us to take more risk than we otherwise take, then what you would want to know is, well, actually how big is the risk?
And the way you would find that out is as you gave the thing to people.
That's the whole logic of EUA is you're basically substituting real-time capture of key information For prospective capture of key information, okay?
But in order to do that, you've got to get the information, and it's got to be rigorous.
Right.
Now another thing, so there's a list of anomalies, and it would be great to collect them.
In fact, you may have collected them, but I would say when you've got an EUA, and that's the reason that you've licensed this vaccine, and you have no reason... It's not licensed.
You have authorized.
Authorized wide distribution of an experimental product.
Fair enough.
For experimentation on humans.
At the point that you have decided to do that, what you have done is you have said, it is worth taking more risk in this case because of X.
Just so.
You certainly would not give it to people who get no benefit.
If there's more risk, then the people who get no benefit really shouldn't be involved.
In other words, people who have COVID have no reason to take it.
Kids should not take it.
Kids shouldn't take it because they're actually fairly well protected against COVID.
So this gets to my point that I've made in a couple other podcasts.
Risk-benefit ratio sounds very science-y.
But it needs to be calculated for the short age range.
And it can be made science-y.
And the standard process which the ACIP, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the CDC, has in place and uses with every other vaccine is that there is a formal calculation about quality adjusted life years, which is the basis for the risk-benefit equation.
And they make a determination based on standard cohort brackets, okay?
Of which adolescence is one, pregnancy is another, infants is another, et cetera, okay?
The elderly, the immunocompromised are also special populations.
So usually the standard government practice is there's a formal evaluation.
of true risk benefit for each one of those cohorts, and it shifts.
And by the way, risk benefit shifts-- - Over time.
- As the incidence of the attack rate-- - Decreases.
- Of the pathogen changes.
Less COVID cases.
If there's no COVID, then there's no benefit to the vaccine, no reason to take the risk.
Right.
So I would also point out, though, that in this case, you know, again, I respect not wanting to assume or infer intent.
And I think that's wise because there are multiple ways you can get here.
But somehow, both the numerator and the denominator appear to have been gamed, right?
Because I would say they have been insufficiently documented so that what we have is almost worthless.
Well, let's put it this way.
The benefit calculation requires you to look at the full set of alternatives in order to understand whether the risk is worth taking.
I concur on that.
Yeah, so let's talk about, you know, what the alternative is, right?
Because that's been unfairly, you know, they basically have this evidence, and the NIH, and Cliff Lane, by the way, runs the NIH COVID treatment guidelines, and I have told Cliff,
In many times, that fluvoxamine, when it was confirmed in a large phase three trial, which is the standard of evidence, as I said, everybody's waiting for this large, really well-done phase three trial, and I told him about an interim result that was p-value of .05, meets the bar, proves that it really works, there is no doubt, no change, doesn't even respond.
When ivermectin, There was a report by Tess Lowry, an excellent report.
It was done three months ago.
She widely distributed to the WHO.
By the way, the WHO knows that fluvoxamine works too, and so does the Gates Foundation, but they're saying nothing to people.
And so, this information, and if anyone wants to challenge me on this, you know, if Gates Foundation wants to debate me on this, Bring it on.
If the WHO wants to debate me on this, bring it on.
And I will show that they knew, and they're not telling people.
Cliff Lane knew, and he's not changing the guidelines.
This information is being suppressed, and it's unfair.
But let's talk about the Ivermectin report.
Because Tess Lowry created this report, and these guys did nothing.
They sat back and said, well, Tess, it's not peer-reviewed.
Nobody's going to peer review it, so we don't have to do anything.
So Tess said, you know, these guys aren't doing anything with it, so I'm going to submit it to a journal.
And she got it peer reviewed, and it probably will be published tomorrow.
In which case, all these people that said, well, ivermectin doesn't work, and I believe in evidence-based medicine, and I would talk to the top officials in India, and then they would say, I believe in evidence-based medicine.
I said, here's all the evidence.
Here's the systematic review and meta-analysis that you need.
That's the highest level of evidence.
Look at the evidence.
And he says, and the response is, well, the WHO and the NIH don't say so.
I'm sorry, I'm not interested.
And the evidence is overwhelming.
There's no question.
And this is among the safest drugs that we have in our arsenal.
So that's on the Ivermectin story.
So that's on the ivermectin story.
Yep.
Okay.
That's the sticker for me.
And, and I just got another report of a physician in Africa who had championed ivermectin and then there was a regime change and now he's, she's being threatened with putting, being put in jail.
There's all this pushback about ivermectin.
You're talking about Zimbabwe?
Yeah.
No, no, they changed it.
But my point is, to underscore what you just said.
Is that at the doses that are being advocated that appear to be effective based on the data and I've been tracking the same data.
Those are known to be safe.
And so you have a drug which is available in the pharmacopoeia.
It's licensed.
Physicians in the United States at least in most countries have the right to prescribe from the existing pharmacopoeia even off-label for other purposes.
At safe levels and they're they're being.
There is active consequences of physicians prescribing this drug openly and speaking about it.
And pharmacies won't even fill the prescriptions.
And yet they're administering it as safe dose.
So if it's being administered as safe dose and it's even marginally effective, there's no harm.
Right.
That just doesn't make sense.
There's something called the precautionary principle.
This is really important, okay?
There's a precautionary principle of medicine.
And this is what they use for mask wearing.
Because masks, which are mandated, They actually, they didn't even have a double blind randomized controlled trial ever for mask wearing.
You did the mandate and then they did the, it couldn't be double blind because you know, you can't do that.
Right.
Has to be a randomized controlled trial.
So they ran, there's one trial in Denmark.
Guess what happened?
Failed!
It was not statistically significant difference whether you were wearing a mask or not.
There was a slight benefit, but it wasn't statistically significant.
So everybody would say, they'd always say, well, so we can't use it, you know, until it's proven, because I don't want to do an unproven thing.
And yet for masks, they say, oh, it's mandated.
And they do that on the precautionary principle.
The precautionary principle says that, you know, as long as there are no downsides, and there might be an upside, We do it because until we have better data.
And they're ignoring that for fluvoxamine and ivermectin because they want to push the vaccine so there's no alternative.
Yeah, they've reversed it on us.
So this is the third anomaly, right?
So the third anomaly here is that given a drug about which people claim the data is ambiguous, I don't believe it is.
No, it's not at all.
23 studies all positive.
It wouldn't tell you not to administer it given how safe it is.
So you got a bunch of anomalies that say they don't want to collect data on the hazard of the vaccines.
They're administering the vaccines to people who get no benefit in spite of the fact that there's clearly an elevated risk based on the accelerated profile.
And they don't want you to administer a drug that appears, at worst, to do no harm, and at best, potentially highly valuable.
And let me tell you the story of fluvoxamine, okay?
Because this really is... So, fluvoxamine came out, it was published in JAMA.
So, fluvoxamine It is an SSRI.
It's an SSRI.
And it penetrates the blood-brain barrier, which is great because people have this brain fog.
I've experienced it.
It's real.
Unlike ivermectin, flumoxamine goes all the way to the brain, and it calms the inflammation in the brain, and because it activates the sigma-run receptor, which Francis Collins has written extensively about as saying this is really important.
So we have this drug that Francis Collins says, yeah, I love the mechanism of inaction.
We actually tried it.
So in the trial, it had 100% effect in terms of no hospitalization for the 80 patients in that trial.
And then what happened is that JAMA said, do not use, doctors, do not use this.
This is just a hypothesis.
Despite the fact that everything leading up to that was all positive.
All of the observational studies, everybody was saying there's a huge signal here, so you run it in a randomized trial and confirm it, and JAMA says, that's not, just his hypothesis, don't use it.
So there's this guy, Dr. David Seftal, and I'm on his podcast talking about, hey, the fluvoxamine, the trial got published in JAMA, 100% effect size.
And so he says, ooh, he had an outbreak at the racetrack The next day after my podcast.
So he decided to ignore the advice from JAMA editors.
Howard Bauchner wrote that.
He said, don't use this until it's proven in a clinical trial, which violates the precautionary principle.
Okay.
So Seftal said, no, I'm going to use this because it could save lives.
And he gave it to 77 people opted to do that, including eight crossovers.
So eight people failed the no treatment group and said, hey, I want the drug.
And in fact, everybody after the first two weeks wanted the drug because they could see the difference, right?
They didn't have to look at P values.
They looked at one side where people who are like, you know, stuck in bed and mental fog, the other side, They took the fluvoxamine, and in three days, people were like back to normal, and they told Seftal, I want to get back to work, like there's nothing wrong.
Okay, so let's unpack that a little bit, okay?
Hang on, let me just finish the story because this is not the end of this.
Okay, so all 77 patients who got the fluvoxamine, and it was 50 milligrams twice a day, most of the people got that dose, which is one-third of the FDA dose.
They recovered, they didn't have any long-haul COVID symptoms after two weeks, and they'd never even developed any long-haul COVID symptoms.
So, this is what I call the miracle of the racetrack because the other matching group, they had a 12.5% hospitalization rate and one guy died.
So, When you look at the p-value of that symptom data, oh, so the long-haul COVID symptoms, zero in the treatment group, 60% in the no treatment group, and you do a Fisher exact test and calculate the p-value, 10 to the minus 14.
Okay, that's 10 orders of magnitude more significant than the vaccines.
So what that means is the chances that this worked by accident are effectively zero.
Zero.
Okay, but what should have happened is that NIH should have said, I want to send an investigator down.
I want to see if there was any bias.
I want to see if there were any confounders.
You know, this is like the miracle drug that we've been looking for.
They should have sent the entire staff down there.
They did nothing!
You want to respond to this?
I'd like to respond too.
This is one of many examples of where repurposed drug information is not being able to be processed and made available to the general public and to the scientific community because of journal editors.
No, no, no.
Look, both of these were published in peer-reviewed journals, top editor's choice in peer-reviewed journals.
So that's just a threat.
But here's the thing.
We know what they're going to say.
Yeah, the FDA said, well, it was quasi-randomized and people got to choose, but the sicker people chose to take the drug.
This is exactly what I was going to say.
The fact is, people do not understand how science works in a technical field like this.
There is bias in the test that you're talking about, but it happens to be conservative bias.
Exactly!
What it means is that what you saw is actually more aggressive.
Better than random.
And the FDA said, no, we're rejecting it because it was quasi-randomized.
So this, again, is anomalous behavior.
That's the point I was trying to make.
So if we're going to get sciency, we've got a lot of data points.
And they're way past forming a line, and they're hard to explain.
Oh, look, hey, I've got to tell you about my $2 million offer, Brad.
You can, after the podcast, you can check it out.
It's on Trialsite News.
There's an article.
I offered a million dollars if you could prove that the NIH got it right on ivermectin.
I offer a million dollars if you can prove that the NIH got it right on fluvoxamine.
And you have two ways to win.
You can either show that the evidence is, that your hypothesis matches the evidence more closely than the alternative hypothesis of it working.
Okay, or you can show that you're gonna save more lives By choosing what the NIH did because you know the NIH doesn't care about lives at all They never make the lives calculation in their recommendations.
Let's not say they don't care about lives I think they don't make the if you look at the recommendations They never and I think about the cost of life and I wonder about the cost of being wrong are Are we too far in the weeds right now?
No, this is important, right?
Because everybody looks to the NIH for these guidance, and the NIH uses these academic principles of what is right instead of saving lives in a pandemic, and that is absolutely wrong.
Actually, I would disagree with you.
Well, good.
Okay.
I think that what's coming out in the recommendations right now Is not really aligned with academic norms.
I think there is appearance that there's decisions being made that are somewhat arbitrary.
Oh, like, like, like, like, well, the ivermectin response.
No, no, no, no.
But, but remdesivir.
Yes.
Right.
Remdesivir.
Which is approved on like this, this marginal evidence.
Remdesivir is one.
Remdesivir is one.
Dexamethasone, dexamethasone is another.
So what you have is anomaly after anomaly after anomaly, and they all go in the same direction.
They all go in the same direction.
Everything, repurposed drugs is down.
There's a force being exerted by an object you cannot see.
Now, my claim is going to be, and this is something I've spent decades thinking about and working on, is that there is an emergent kind of phenomenon that fits regulatory capture but doesn't have the components that you would expect to find necessarily when you go looking for it, right?
So regulatory capture as a concept has to be broadened.
In other words, an industry comes to generate levers that it uses to influence processes.
It increases the power with which those levers work.
And somehow we are seeing the symptoms of that disease.
And it comes out, as you point out, in biases in journals and what the editors do want and don't want.
It comes out in, frankly, in the social media environment where what we're allowed to talk about is being curtailed.
And the effect of that – It's somehow very organic, isn't it?
It's odd.
How is it that JAMA only publishes a negative Ivermectin study?
It is an emergent phenomenon, I agree.
It's an emergent phenomenon.
And so that means that this is a wicked problem in the sense that when we are trying to grapple with what it is that's doing this, it is very tempting to imagine That there must have been a meeting in which people decide it was okay for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, possibly millions to die needlessly given a pandemic we might be able to end if we just simply decided to do it.
But it doesn't have to have been a meeting.
That's it.
It can be a function of the underlying drivers.
It can be a function of the underlying drivers.
And if I can step into a murky realm here.
But it could also be a meeting.
It could also be a meeting.
It could be like, if you looked at Tony Fauci's emails, like Chris Martinson has dissected those emails, and there are redactions to that.
They got Fauci's emails, and Chris analyzed the redactions.
Here's the reasons for the redactions.
There's something going on here that people should be looking at.
Beyond Chris.
Okay, beyond Chris.
I mean, there's three major publications of record in the United States, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times.
Both the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal came out with the conclusion that a lot of those redactions may hide things that were intended to be hidden.
We can't prove that.
We're going to table this for the moment because I think the important thing is we've got anomalies.
Was there a meeting?
I'm betting if there was a meeting, journal editors weren't invited.
There were meetings, no doubt, and I bet you if you tuned in on those meetings, you wouldn't necessarily know what was up.
As a matter of fact, I would imagine that every time a new pharmaceutical is being brought to market by a company, They have some sort of meeting in which they say, we have this very exciting new drug.
It has this potential market.
The upside is glorious.
Here are the assets in bringing it to market.
Here are the liabilities.
Oh, on the list of liabilities, there's going to be, well, here's a drug that's now out of patent that has effects in the same area.
But you know what?
It would have to be used off-label, and that can't possibly be safe.
So this is what we're going to highlight.
It's not safe to use a drug off-label.
Something like that is going to happen.
It's not going to sound like people being deaf to the idea that people are going to die by the thousands, right?
It's going to sound like something else.
And so, anyway, what we do know now, and people have been on this apparently for months, I became aware of this yesterday, which is that Merck, which very conspicuously, another anomaly on the list, attacked the safety of its own drug, ivermectin, even though they knew from four decades of work... Safest drug on the planet!
Right, so that was an anomaly.
Why would Merck say that its own drug was unsafe?
And citing no evidence.
Right.
Well, there is no evidence.
Right.
So why?
Well, it turns out they have another drug headed rapidly for what?
An EUA, right?
So what does the EUA require?
It requires that there's no safe and effective therapy existing, because if there was, you wouldn't take the risk of fast-forwarding this process.
And not only that, but they're also involved with Johnson & Johnson.
They are a partner with Johnson & Johnson in producing their vaccines.
So The point is, all right, we've got an anomaly.
Why would Merck say things about its own drug that aren't true and that indicate that people should be afraid to apply it when the precautionary principle would actually suggest that they have to apply it?
Oh, absolutely!
Well, I don't know.
It might have to do with the fact that their business, their portfolio of COVID therapies, involves EUAs.
These days, there are really rigorous terms and conditions that have been propagated all throughout academic medicine regarding disclosure of conflict of interest.
And this specific situation clearly meets those criteria.
You mean they didn't say they were developing an alternative drug in the press release that they issued about ivermectin not working?
Robert?
So, all right, now let's just say... But look, I am sure that now that Tess Lowry's systematic review and meta-analysis, which is the highest level of evidence in evidence-based medicine, so once this is published, and this can be published either today or tomorrow... No, you're talking about her ivermectin.
Her ivermectin, yes, okay.
So once this is published, I am sure that uh that gavi will stop running those anti-ivermectin ads that google will refuse to run that and that google will change that their the youtube policy and they will restore all those banned videos this is the vaccine so i don't have unfortunately i don't have yes no no it's it but it but it will be published um it It's supposed to be out either today or tomorrow, so this is the vaccine.
I've been watching the meta-analysis that is being done semi-independently of her, and I don't debate That the meta-analysis data for Ivermectin, to my eye, is extremely encouraging.
Okay, so let us collect our gains and move forward from here.
What we have is anomaly after anomaly.
They all go in the same direction.
We've got a plausible motive for distorting things.
We've got the strong probability that they didn't decide to allow people to die by the thousands, and they didn't decide to inflict a dangerous pharmaceutical on people.
That as the danger emerged, they took the standard action to be very, very skeptical of the data of danger.
I love your thinking that this is an emergent phenomena of the system, that it exists in its intrinsic flaws.
It's intrinsic flaws, and I would say that these things extend, in my experience, they extend into all kinds of places.
So you described that your contacts in the regulatory apparatus, in the FDA I think you said, report that they're extremely busy and they're just under strain, but my guess is chronic condition, no?
It is.
So, how do you end up with an FDA that chronically doesn't have enough people to deal with the data that comes in that might tell you that these things aren't safe?
And what's worse is they want to accelerate The going from an EUA to approval.
They want to accelerate.
They're putting their foot on the gas and they want to vaccinate our kids.
They want to accelerate it at the same time.
Am I wrong?
That's wrong.
We are in phase four of these drug trials.
Phase four being you release it to the public and then you monitor what happens.
You need to explain all those deaths before you go and get it approved.
Yes, you're wrong.
Okay.
Here's why.
Okay.
Phase 4 is what happens after market authorization.
Oh, and we haven't got—so technically we're not in phase 4.
Absolutely not.
Right?
Okay, so here's the thing.
We're still in phase 3.
These are still—this is bedrock to understanding the bioethics.
This is phase 3.
These are still experimental products.
This is phase 3.
That's why it's called— The emergency authorization did not require the collection of the requisite data to figure out whether or not it should go to phase 4.
Um, the data that are being collected are not being done in a rigorous fashion and it's, and basically my colleagues are telling me they're extremely frustrated because they can't make heads or tails out of the data.
Not only that, they can't, they have not, the public doesn't know how many people have died.
So from from the vaccine, I want you to sketch the picture.
Of course, we are obligated to err in the right direction.
But what does this picture look like?
How many people could you say we know have died and how many people might have died?
And what does the distinction between those two numbers depend on?
So, in the VAERS database, which is voluntary, the US government commissioned a study to find out how much under-reporting this is, and they estimate that it could be only 1% of the reports that are actually reported.
That 99 out of 100 don't get reported, which means 5,000 reports translates into 500,000 deaths.
And I don't think it's that high.
It's very unlikely to be that high.
It's unlikely that, you know, because, right, you know, there are mortuaries would be, you know, overrun with, you know... With vaccine deaths.
Okay, so what... Right, it's not that high, but it's higher.
I guarantee you, it's higher.
And I talked to the... It's the 5,000 that we know about.
There are going to be a few of those that are actually just sampling error.
And then there's going to be the great majority of them which are connected to the vaccine.
Right, but none of them have been explained.
Right, but in some sense, we are all old enough to have lived through the period in which every single person on earth knew that cigarettes caused cancer, but we were fighting in court about whether or not you could prove it because no individual death could be established on that basis.
It took a long time to get to the point where what we all knew about the population level meant anything about what happened to the individual who died of lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking.
Right?
So, we are there.
We are playing games with what's obvious from the data and what can be denied on the basis of fancy arguments and statistics that most people don't understand.
It's hard to deny this.
Yeah, it is.
And I think this is a great opportunity to segue to this compilation from the UK Yep.
...of adverse events that's been done in a responsible, rigorous fashion by a meticulous researcher that's well-respected.
You're talking about the Tess Lowry.
Tess Lowry in the UK.
You want to see... Who, by the way, is not being funded by anyone.
You know, she is, like, doing this on her own nickel.
Nobody has been willing to... Well, that's another can of worms.
But the point is that she's got no conflict of interest here.
She's been the champion of ivermectin.
And then she looked at what was happening in the UK database, and you're seeing the same thing as in Varus.
So let's look at the data.
Let's look at her, yeah.
Let's look at it.
Let's look at the data.
So this... Steve, can you tee this up?
Give us some context.
What is the source of this data?
What are these data?
So this is, if you go to the first page, they have a yellow tag system in Britain.
Which means?
It is Britain's version of the VAERS system in the U.S.
So it's a voluntary reporting system where, and in Britain, they have three vaccines, primarily the AstraZeneca vaccine, the Pfizer vaccine, and the Moderna vaccine.
So the AstraZeneca is an adenovirus DNA vaccine?
Right.
Correct.
So all three vaccines in the UK are based on gene therapy technology and are producing spike protein in cells.
Right.
The genes have been introduced to.
They've either been introduced in the form of the DNA of an adenovirus, of cold virus that we all get, or in the form of an RNA that's artificially inserted and artificially synthesized.
So forgive my ignorance here.
In the case of the DNA vaccines, the DNA is integrated into the nuclear genome or not?
Not.
That's what I thought.
It sort of stays on top.
It's attached.
Yeah, it's epigenetic.
You can think of it as a small circular extra chromosome.
It's like a plasmid that For mammalian cells.
So I always worry when people say gene therapy technology that they are painting a picture that actually isn't quite right here, even though that's technically accurate, I assume, because you're using the term.
I don't know how else to say it.
Right.
Crucell, the guy that founded Crucell was the senior postdoc in the gene therapy lab that I worked at at the Salk.
Okay.
Dinko Valerio.
And he came to me once A few years after Crucell had been founded, which was a gene therapy company based on adenoviral vectors, and he said to me, Robert, you're right.
We should use this for vaccines.
And he pivoted Crucell to being a vaccine company, and the rest is history.
It was bought by J&J, and that is the basis for the J&J technology.
It is explicitly a retooled gene therapy method applied to vaccines.
Got it.
Okay, so you were telling us about what we've got here.
Oh, I do want to correct one thing.
This report, by the way, just came out this morning.
I just got it this morning at like 5 a.m.
So let me pause you.
Yeah.
In your piece, I believe it is not, you have to do some work to realize that the number of deaths that we're talking about, that 5,000 number, that's U.S.
That's US only.
Oh, yeah, yeah, no.
In Europe, it's like over 12,000.
It's the self-reported deaths.
Yeah, self-reported deaths.
Self-reported deaths, so it's probably a lower bound on that number.
Yeah, if you think through, you know, Mary has died after getting a vaccine.
And you're the relatives of Mary, and you're dealing with a whole bunch of stuff.
Okay, the probability that you're going to say to yourself, self, I need to log on to a website.
Nobody reports it as a vaccine, right?
So my point is only, it's understandable, but this is the problem with self-reported databases.
Right.
It's a bias.
It's a bias in a direction we can infer.
Well known.
And, but I just want to say that number, 5,000, is a very frightening number.
It's an especially frightening number in comparison to the U.S.
population when we basically have to extrapolate out and the data from Israel, from Europe, seems to reflect the same pattern.
It's the subset of the U.S.
population that's accepted vaccine.
So it's not the whole US population.
Right, right, right, right.
True.
It's a much smaller number.
130 some odd.
But the other thing is, look, I mean, I contacted the FDA when I saw this and I said, so what do you think?
They said, oh, you should contact a specialist who understands the VAERS data.
And I said, you know, I thought I understood it pretty well.
I did an analysis on trial site news where I show, there's a video on trial site news where I do some analysis and it shows, oh, this is like at least a hundred times worse than the flu virus in terms of the death.
The flu vaccine.
The flu vaccine, in terms of deaths.
And I argue actually that it's like a thousand times more than the flu vaccine in the table.
I'm sorry, in the paper.
That's kind of a straightforward, unadjusted analysis.
No, but let me finish.
Robert, can I finish?
Can I transition to what we're looking at here?
No, no, let me finish.
Because the FDA told me to go to an expert.
So, I contacted the open VAERS people who are looking at this data, and I said, so, it says 5,000, what do you guys think based on, you've been doing this for years, what do you think the true number is?
And they told me that, of course, nobody really knows.
But based on their analysis, they put it around 20,000 deaths.
That was, you know, for the real numbers.
So that's just their opinion.
So can we segue to this?
Hold on one thing.
Am I right?
Hang on.
Am I right that even at the lower bound number, the 5,000 deaths?
It's a stopping condition.
Well, not only is it a stopping condition, but I mean, you tell me if I've got the statistic that you reported incorrect, but I believe what you say is that that number is more deaths than for all 70 other vaccines combined over the last 30 years.
Right.
So that tells you something.
Yeah, and also the adverse effects, if you look at those, it's not just the deaths that are... So, now let's look at the adverse effects.
No, wait!
Please, let me finish, okay?
Stop interrupting.
Alright, we're good.
Okay, good.
So, there are two aspects, that if you look at this vaccine in terms of deaths, It's more than all the other ones.
If you look at it in terms of adverse events reported, it's also more than all the other vaccines over 30 years combined.
So, if it's not, I'm okay.
You know, look, if it's not, if it's, you know, we have a hypothesis that because this toxic spike protein What would the dimension of the thing that explains it have to be?
and all over and causes these weird stuff.
That's totally consistent with what we're observing.
And if somebody has a better hypothesis in terms of what is causing this, it's in the water, it's in the drinking supply, you know, whatever, whatever it is, let's hear it. - What would the dimension of the thing that explains it have to be?
It would have to be something like someone put this in the data, right?
Which would then not explain all of the people Yeah, somebody overreported someone who's gaming the Vera system, for example, but that's a federal crime.
Not only is it a federal crime, but the fact is the anecdotal stuff that we can all detect by asking people around us, it says actually there's a real pattern.
And guess what?
The exact same pattern exists in the UK, so when I got this report, and you look through it, look at all the symptoms here, look at all the deaths in each of these categories, and look at the breadth of this, and it's two pages, so this is, you know, the first page, this is just the... This is bleeding, clotting, and ischemic adverse drug reactions up to the 26th of May.
Right.
And then the next page, and you know, look at all these disorders that happen, and then it's now an immune system.
Immune system, adverse drug reactions.
We haven't even gotten to ADE and all the other things.
Steve, can I ask a question?
Because many of these adverse events were already known with the recombinant adenovirus vectors.
Okay?
It's already been These were expected before?
No, it's particularly the clotting disorders.
We've known for quite a while that they were associated.
That's why the J&J vaccine was stopped.
When you say quite a while, you mean since the release of these vaccines into the human population.
Yeah, like a couple months ago.
Remember, we had a pause.
Right.
And why was it detected in the Phase 3 studies?
Well, oh, Phase 3 studies are supposed to be perfect!
You talk to an academic, they always tell you Phase 3.
I'm going somewhere with this, okay?
Steve, can you tell me, this aggregated adverse event log that Tess has provided, is this in the UK, based on the yellow cards?
Okay.
Is this for all three vaccines?
Yes.
It's a yellow card system.
It's all aggregated.
So what that means is we need to be a little cautious because we don't know which of those three vaccines of which represents two different technologies.
Right, she doesn't have a breakdown.
And my point is that we already knew That the advectors were associated with the coagulopathies, the clotting disorders that were in table one.
So, so look, but, but we should scroll down to the, her conclusion of this, which says, okay, and she should go and, you know, she put this together and got it out quickly.
It says the MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the yellow card system to declare the COVID-19's COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans, period, full stop.
Preparation should now be made to scale up humanitarian efforts to assist those harmed by the COVID-19 vaccines and to anticipate and ameliorate medium to longer term effects.
And I can tell you that Bruce Patterson, he specializes in long-haul COVID.
So when you've had the original thing.
Well, now he's getting patients who are coming to him with, I never had COVID, but I had the vaccine.
Right.
And those patients come to him, and in every single case, he looks at the blood work and he says, your blood work is abnormal.
Your blood work looks like a long-haul COVID It kind of, it's different, right?
Because the vaccine, you get it, it goes all over your, through your body, like, you know, in 15 minutes, it's like, everywhere.
Whereas, you get it naturally, it has a different pathway.
And so, the blood work looks different.
But the point is that it shows up on his biomarkers as, you've got long-haul vaccine Well, I think it is becoming clear to clinicians that long-haul COVID and post-vaccine syndrome are closely related because the spike protein is shared between all of these.
I think that's a, I would call that A valid working hypothesis for that association.
Right.
And nobody is even looking at this.
I mean, that's the sad thing.
So that's as a professional, okay?
So we're looking at all this as a professional.
As a professional, nobody has looked at this.
For me, the thing that's alarming is that there's no alarm.
Right.
Oh, yes!
Exactly!
Like, why aren't alarm bells going off?
5,000 excess deaths.
That's my point.
Why is nobody saying, why is nobody in academia, why is no dean of a med school saying something?
Like, they're all silent.
Look, they don't even know.
The reason is they don't even look at the virus system.
Because I know a guy, he's vaccinated like a million people, okay?
And I went to, Robert, please, let me finish, okay?
Because I know him and you don't, alright?
Alright, we're good.
His organization has vaccinated a million people.
There we go.
Well, all right.
It's like, I can't even... He's like the traffic cop here.
But I asked him, I said, and he says, hey, I'm on the CDC calls every week, you know, because I'm one of their big, you know, vaccinators.
And so I said to him, so do you know how many people have died, have been killed by this virus?
And he said, it's really, really small.
It's like 100.
You mean the vaccine?
Sorry, thank you.
This is really, really small.
It's about a hundred.
I said, really, they're telling you it's about 100?
Because the v-safe system, it is not transparent at all to the public.
You cannot search it at all.
It is like this secret black box that nobody can see inside.
Nor can my colleagues at the FDA that I just spoke with today, who are data analysis specialists.
What are they hiding, Brett?
What are they hiding?
That we shouldn't be allowed to see that?
We shouldn't be allowed to see, and in fact, I would argue And why isn't even anyone asking why can't we see it?
So this is the problem.
Heather and I did a segment on our last live stream, and our point was actually, you know what?
People do incredible science under conditions that are way harder than where you have a database or you have a laboratory, right?
We do science in the Amazon, right?
You can infer pattern In such a circumstance, you can test hypotheses.
We do it all the time.
And yet, we are being held to this standard at the same time that the very data you would want to access is stored in a system that is impenetrable.
Right?
So, can I kind of peck at that just a little bit?
Because I'm going to trot out the bioethics argument.
Sure.
Okay.
So, they're currently experimental vaccines.
There's three fundamental bedrock principles in Western bioethics.
One is full and complete disclosure of risks.
One is ensuring full comprehension of risks by people that are going to be taking the experimental product.
And one is willing consent.
You've got to have those three.
And the thing about This database not being available for outside query by responsible parties, which is what, by the way, any academic publication would require.
If you were going to say to in JAMA.
You were going to say, we conclude, based on our analysis of this v-safe database, that the vaccine is safe and that there are no deaths.
If you were going to say that, you would have to say that we will provide these data For outside analysis by third parties upon request.
If you publish, that's what you have to put in there.
There's no ifs, ands, or buts.
So what we functionally have is folks within the government saying, this is the truth.
Well put.
But, I'm sorry, but I'm sorry, we are not going to allow this information to be independently analyzed by responsible, qualified third parties.
That's not right.
Right.
Well, at the same time, and I don't, there's a, somebody's going to have to do the work to figure out how this actually functions, but then there's the social media side.
Where the natural processes that would allow a massive error like this to emerge naturally is being so shaped by an environment in which one is presumed morally bad if you express skepticism over things that one should obviously be skeptical about.
If one tries to gather with other people who are suffering the same symptoms.
There's a whole bunch of thou shalt not discuss this, that, or the other.
It doesn't matter who you are.
Which is unprecedented.
It's unprecedented.
But there's an explanation for it.
Sure there is.
So no, no, no, because look, Mark Zuckerberg sent an email and this is in the public domain now where he said, he sent it to Tony Fauci and he said, we will censor anything that goes against the narrative.
I mean, essentially that's what he said.
Okay.
So when you have a Facebook group of 70,000 people who are vaccine sufferers, that Group disappears overnight.
We have another Facebook group of COVID vaccine side effects.
120,000 people?
Disappears overnight.
Yeah.
So how could you have, you know, like 200,000 people who are in these COVID vaccine side effect groups, like they would have nothing to talk about.
Right.
Because it's a perfectly safe vaccine.
Like what?
We don't even know what they were talking about.
Are we broadcasting that?
No, no, we're not.
This is us.
Good.
This is unprecedented.
We have no cognitive immune system to prepare us for this kind of shaping of what we can see.
Oh, people are allowed to discuss.
This is not normal.
And so the point is we use our normal heuristics to figure out how dangerous something is and how dangerous it is would ordinarily be something you could detect by how frequently you encounter discussions of things that have gone wrong.
But if those discussions aren't allowed to be had, then the point is you artificially have the sense that this is very safe.
And so, you know, again, it's an anomaly.
Now, I don't think, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm being naive, but I don't think that, you know, Twitter and Facebook were in the meeting in which something was decided that it was going to be fine for thousands of people.
No, they're just buying into, because it's suppressed, they're buying into the whole thing.
I think... Robert, please, let me finish.
I may have to use...
I have never broken this out before, but we are going to be very careful, all right?
We are going to be nice to each other, and that thing is going to...
You have just gotten a foul.
Oh, sorry.
You have to give it to me.
I thought I was supposed to take it.
I was warning you.
Oh, that's a warning.
I thought it was who's got the ball, who can speak.
No, no.
But you got the floor.
Yeah.
Okay.
So thank you.
So I did a test.
I went to a vaccine line in my local pharmacy.
And I said, Hi, I'm thinking about getting the vaccine, but I've heard some things that some people have died.
Does anybody know how many people have died from the vaccine?
Because I'm not sure what to believe.
So one woman says, Oh, I believe in God.
And God says that I should go and take the vaccine.
And then another guy says, Are you an anti-vaxxer?
And it's like, you cannot even raise even a question.
In fact, I asked people on Nextdoor, I put up a poll to say, right, to say how many people, you know, oh, there's this posting on Trial Site News, how many people believed it?
And, you know, ten people responded, five said, yep, totally believe it, and the other five said, totally bullshit.
Right?
And it wasn't anywhere in between.
I gave them like five levels, and it was either you thought it was total bullshit or you totally believed it.
It's enormously polarized.
And it was censored!
The poll was censored by Nextdoor like hours later, and so you can't even ask people the question.
And when I asked the pharmacist, I asked the pharmacist, so do you know how many people have been killed by this virus?
And she says, By the vaccine, thank you.
She says, actually I don't.
And it's almost like she never even thought that it's an issue because they're so programmed to think that the vaccine is safe and effective that your mind shuts off to the possibility that, you know, and if you have an abortion, You can't even think that it could have been caused by the safe and effective vaccine.
Spontaneous.
So, this is again in my area of expertise.
There is something about the, you know, your poll, small as it was, reveals that there's something very unnatural about people's conclusions about how likely this is to be safe.
You would expect a range, right?
You would expect some outliers who think it's incredibly dangerous, and you would expect some people to think it's perfectly safe, and you would expect a whole lot in between.
Yeah, kind of like a bell curve.
It's the total opposite.
Right.
We're divided into teams, and the teams are basically repelled by each other out of disgust.
Right?
Oh, yeah, no, absolutely.
So the sense, and this is something that we have faced on this channel from the beginning, is to even begin to try to unpack the nuance around this.
What is going on, right, is to step into the line of fire of this disgust mechanism.
You're morally bad for even raising this question.
Now how can it be, how is it possible that scientists, raising the question of how safe is this novel technology actually, how could that possibly be, you know, a morally deficient position, right?
It's the right thing to do.
It's, yeah, I mean you should be able to question, you know, science is about, you know, questioning and science should be free.
To question what the narrative is and, oh, there's a phase three, because even phase three studies are never perfect.
And so, but the thing is that when I posted this article to Trial Site News, I had a scientific advisory board of 14 academics, very high power academics, All of them resigned like three days later saying that what I was doing, it was irresponsible, that it will cause vaccine hesitancy.
I should take it down.
They don't want to associate it with me anymore.
And don't email me ever again.
Was there any substantive critique?
No.
And I asked for it.
I said, you know, hey, I'm sorry you're resigning, but could you please point out an error and I will correct it.
And in my article, I say, hey, if you've got an error, post it and I will go and correct it.
And they gave me nothing.
They just said, I don't want to talk to you again.
They gave me nothing of factual that was wrong with my article.
So this is another symptom that is another data point on that line.
And this is the thing that I find most troubling, frankly.
And much of it is coming from the academic community.
I call it, you know, self-appointed academic policeman.
Oh, yeah.
And you know, I go on Clubhouse.
And I show up in a room and I say, well, I'd like to talk.
Well, the moderator's like shut me down.
And I then I challenged him.
I say, hey, let's go to a private room or let's go off on Twitter.
You know, I claim that you're wrong about ivermectin.
Let's go off.
And so the moderator says, well, I can't go, but I'll appoint someone.
So I go off with this guy on Twitter and he DMs me and he says, show me your evidence.
And I said, I gave him the web link to Tess's meta-analysis.
So he says, oh, that's a web link.
I want the study.
And so, okay, well, so here's the link that's in the study.
So I give it to him.
And he says, okay, well, I have to study this.
And I said, okay.
And it's clear he's never looked at a systematic review before because he didn't ask for the protocol that they use and normally you would go and do that.
And so I said, Uh, he comes back and he says, well, how are those studies, uh, uh, you know, how did they, I said, I guess you've never done this before because you would be asking for the entire protocol, which you didn't ask for, which was on the webpage that I gave you in the beginning.
So the point is that these people who are these self-appointed police don't even know what they're policing.
And then when I wrote him and I told him, hey, you know, Tess's thing is coming out as peer-reviewed.
And you can't get any better than a peer-reviewed meta-analysis that's the highest.
And so I said, you have to go and accept that.
And the precautionary principle says you should use it on your patients now.
Silence.
Right.
So again, the thing you should detect at the end of this is not all of the text in the middle.
It's that at the end of the day, what's being said doesn't add up, right?
If you believed the data was all that ambiguous, you'd still give a safe drug because you don't have an alternative.
Absolutely.
We're literally sending people home without treatment where they go and sicken the people that they live with when there's a perfectly safe drug.
It's worse than that.
Go for it.
We're sending them home and we're saying don't come back until your lips are blue.
Until you're sick.
Right.
No, it's not sick, okay?
It's hypoxic.
It's that your blood oxygen is so... No, sick is, you know, I've got a headache and I've got a fever.
My sick is different than your sick.
But this is turning the dial up on sick.
This is pretty severe sick.
They had a very safe... You have to get oxygen now.
Lips are blue equals oxygen saturation of high 80s.
Okay, that's way sick.
Yep.
And our policy is...
You know, despite all the data that you and others have championed, you have personally funded, which I acknowledge that commitment.
I think that's super important for the audience to understand, is for you this isn't just talk, you walk the walk.
You took your wallet and you said Fluvoxamine Study at WashU, one of the top universities in the United States.
You funded it.
So when you talk about the Fluvoxamine Study, it's not just that you pulled something out of the air, you enabled it.
You provided leadership.
Okay, so all those data are out there, and yet, the current public policy is, if you come into my hospital, and you've got all the signs and symptoms, and you've got a PCR diagnosis, and you feel sick enough with COVID, that you feel like you've got to go to the ER, and the ER tells you, I'm sorry Mrs. Smith, we're not going to take you in,
Because your blood oxygen saturation levels are not at critical levels and you need to go home and just incubate.
Right.
Without giving you a drug that would almost certainly make you better and without giving it to your family so you don't sicken them.
We are actually behaving in a way that propagates the pandemic.
Right.
So let me tell you.
I think we can all agree that the behavior is bizarre.
Yes.
Especially when we know like George Farid and Brian Tyson.
They have a little practice.
They've treated 6,500 patients.
Average age is 60 years old.
They have like zero hospitalizations.
They say, we only get a hospitalization when someone comes up to us really late.
But anyone who gets to us early, they don't go to the hospital at all.
You know, we turn them around with our treatment protocol.
So the most important thing is to treat people early with these drugs.
And it almost doesn't matter.
Oh, it has hydroxychloroquine, it has ivermectin, it has fluvoxamine in it, and the point is that they use the drugs that are shown to have an effect size, and combined they have an enormous effect.
And everyone will have their own set of Of drugs.
You know, David Seftel just used fluvoxamine.
He got a 100% track record.
Other people use ivermectin and fluvoxamine.
I know a lot of docs who started with ivermectin, they added fluvoxamine.
They say, oh my gosh, you know, this is even better than what I had before.
Right.
So it's all about this combination of drugs.
And of course, we don't tell people about George Farid and Brian Tyson.
They don't even exist because those are anecdotes.
Right.
We ignore the frontline physicians who are having success.
We don't go and find out, oh, you know, why isn't the NIH saying, hey, this guy has 100% track record?
He just said something that's super important.
Okay.
Oh, finally!
No, you said a lot of things that are super important, but I want to highlight that one.
You emphasize frontline physicians.
And this has been my observation in dealing with this community intensively since January of 2020.
They only trust these double-blind randomized control trials that take a year to do.
It's crazy.
And typically require 20 million or more to do.
Well, yeah.
Or a billion dollars in the case of what Merck is asking for.
Can I get the little yellow card?
I asked for the floor.
I just want to make a point to amplify on the good message that you just gave, okay?
Um, and it's a good news story.
We need a little bit of good news here.
There's a lot of, a lot of kind of creepy stuff.
We're going to end with great news.
But anyway, we could use some good news along the way.
Here in the States and across the world.
We've had primary care physicians, frontline docs, ICU docs, desperately seeking solutions.
And they have resorted, because they have the right to do so, as physicians, to prescribe things off-label.
And I can tell you, these docs that I deal with all the time, are spending enormous amounts of time in the literature, reading the preprints, trying to figure out some solution to save their patients' lives in the face of this amazing gap of clarity from our centralized public health service.
And I just kind of wanted to take a moment and pick at what you just said.
The innovation, this is amazingly paradoxical, What I've seen is all of the innovation in treating this disease is coming from these frontline docs that are tinkering and innovating.
And what this gets to is the fundamentals of, and I'm going to say it, what makes this country great?
And it's historically not been large, centrally controlled enterprises.
It's been individual initiative.
And one of the good news stories in COVID is that a lot of the success have come from the docs like you're dealing with.
Innovating, tinkering, experimenting, trying things, and they're driven by the need to give their patients some option.
I just wanted to amplify that.
Thanks for letting me have-- - Hold on, hold on. - Let me give the counterpoint to that when you give it to me.
Okay, so the docs on the ground are in a position to see this.
They are in a good position, at least with respect to ivermectin, because it's so safe, right?
If you don't believe it's any good, but it might be, you can give it to a few patients, and if you see a signal, then you can give it to more patients.
If you can get it.
If you can get it.
Which you can't get it in Canada.
The pushback is incredible.
The stigmatization of doctors, the punishment of doctors.
But you also, you make a really good point in your document, right?
Which is that doctors who have a number of patients below a certain threshold.
Never see anything bad.
What they see are anecdotes, right?
And so you need a practice of a certain size before you see anything you're going to regard as a stigma.
600 or more, 900.
That wouldn't matter so much if the doctors were in a position to encounter each other online and say, you know, I had the weirdest thing happen.
And they won't talk about it.
And the point is the stigma for talking about it in public.
I can't tell you.
This is driving me crazy.
The paramedics won't talk about it.
They see all the professionals in all of the related disciplines.
The number of people who will say to you, well, actually, here's what I'm seeing, but I'd really rather not because.
Right, because I could get fired.
I get fired!
Right, and the point is, that's a signal in and of itself, right?
That is a signal that some phenomenon does not want this discussed, and frankly, again, if you imagine that what we've got now, at the very least, right?
We've got an excellent prophylactic that is extremely safe.
We've got an excellent treatment that is extremely safe.
Those are both ivermectin.
Right.
Then we've got fluvoxamine.
Fluvoxamine, which crosses the blood-brain barrier, so it gets to some place.
The brain fog and all that, and long-haul COVID.
Right.
These things, that's a pretty good kit to deal with this pandemic.
It's a good kit for ending this pandemic.
And what we have is I can't swear that it's related, but it's certainly conspicuous.
It's the only hypothesis I can think of that we have financial interests of, you know, private corporations that involve these excellent treatments not being available in order to try experimental stuff that's not out of patent, right?
But I wanted to point out something cryptic that's hanging out here, right?
You said it's going to cost $20,000 to do a randomized Oh, 20 million bucks.
Sorry, what did I say?
20 million.
That's not a small amount of money.
So, when somebody online, whoever they are, however well-intentioned they are, whatever degree they may have, when they say, really, the only thing that's going to convince me that I should risk my patient's life with ivermectin, which is of course an insane Assertion that there's any risk at all really it depending it So long as you keep the dose right in the safe range within the range that we know to be safe, right?
of course, there's some risk but Like all drugs, right?
The problem is but but with ivermectin the risk profile is extremely well known It's been out there for decades 40 years 4 billion doses already delivered just so right so Here's the point.
When you, as a warrior on Twitter, start battling for, hey, I'm a science person, I want to see the randomized controlled trial before I give patients any risk at all for ivermectin, what you're effectively doing is you are a warrior on behalf of new and less well-known drugs that are still under patent, and against drugs that are old and out of patent, because who's going to pony up the 20 million dollars For something they can't make a profit on.
For something they can't make a profit on and that would lock their EUA.
I lived this, okay?
I set up a company, Therac Pharmaceuticals for Zika, and I worked closely with the DoD and developed a portfolio of drugs, repurposed drugs, many of which are now being applied to COVID because they're antivirals, okay?
I went bankrupt.
The investment community had zero interest because there's no way to make a buck.
Okay, and Pharma would not partner because there's no way to make a buck.
And you can't do it.
So that, I have direct personal experience validating the thesis.
That the financial incentives around drug repurposing are such that it doesn't get done.
Well, even worse is you can't get an EUA.
Can you give me a pen?
Yes, sir.
You can't get an EUA.
We applied for an EUA at the FDA, and they basically said, eh, we're not convinced by your evidence.
And you need to come to us with a drug company to show us how it's going to be made.
It's a drug that's already on the market, right?
They're not even set up for issuing an EUA on a repurposed drug.
No, they're not.
You're right.
You're fundamentally right.
Okay, can I finish, please?
Okay.
So we reached out to all these drug manufacturers.
Usually we would get no response at all.
And the ones that we did, and I won't say who they were, but thank you for responding, was, yeah, look, we can't really come up with a financial justification to get involved.
And I said, I'll pay for all your expenses.
I'll cover all your costs.
Eh, we just don't want to do it.
So I can't even, even if I had their Phase 3 trial that they need, which I do have now, they still would, I still would not be able to get an EUA on a repurposed drug.
Yeah, so I have a thought here.
You tell me, actually, you're the expert on whether or not such a thing is plausible, but here's my sense.
SARS-CoV-2 is a funny virus, right?
It seems to infect a number of different creatures, but especially high on the list are minks and ferrets, right?
Now, I think that this is highly likely to be the result of experiments that may have produced this virus, but it doesn't really matter.
The thing is, ferrets and minks appear to be the only creatures who not only contract COVID, but can also pass it on like human beings do.
I'm not entirely sure that there aren't some other domestic animals.
There are domestic animals that catch it.
I don't know of any domestic animals that transmit it.
Now, if I'm wrong about that, I'm wrong about that.
No, I don't know that you're right or wrong.
What I know is that to detect that signal would be really tough.
Yeah, but here's the thing.
The mink ferret signal?
Not tough.
We've seen that one.
So here's the question.
Is there room for some kind of guerrilla research effort where ferrets... I mean imagine you got 2,000 ferrets.
But why do you need to do a guerrilla research?
Because what you want is the quick and dirty So, there are ways to do that?
Right.
It's like the Seftel trial, right?
"that demonstrates the effectiveness, the safety, "and doesn't cost the 20 million bucks." - So there are ways to do that. - Right. - It's like the CEFTAL trial, right?
Instead of having the rigor of a IRB-approved, randomized controlled trial, When David Seftal did his study, it was like, hey, I got two options for you.
You choose, let me document that, and I'll publish the results.
Well, if you do that a thousand times, if there are a hundred physicians that do the same thing, and they publish the same result, do you really need a randomized controlled trial?
Believe me, I think the signal here is such a slam dunk.
It's 100% effect size.
So, what you're talking about is building a new animal model?
Well, no, I'm talking about the fact that, A, because ferrets and minks, which are very close relatives, that's why this is true, have a human-like ACE2 receptor, right?
Which is, if this was the product of research in Wuhan, this is probably why they would have used ferrets, is because it's a laboratory available animal that has the appropriate receptor in order to create a human infection.
And it's universally used for influenza vaccine research, for example.
So, readily available, you can order them.
All I'm saying is that that is a ready-made model for COVID, and that therefore, anything that we need to demonstrate... I mean, look, you get 2,000 farads, okay?
Half of them are treatment, half of them are control, right?
You give the half that are treatment, ivermectin, you then expose them to COVID.
My guess is you're going to find out that they don't get sick, the ones that aren't protected with COVID do get sick, and then you take those that got COVID and you divide them in half, right?
And you treat those that got COVID with ivermectin or a placebo and voila!
We're going to know everything we need to know from that experiment, I would imagine.
So, I used to be a Primate Center Researcher at Davis.
I do understand animal models and I have good friends who have been at the tip of the spear in developing the animal models for you.
We've got a pretty good animal model in the Golden Hamster.
Golden Hamster.
So, we don't have to go there.
And yes, the Golden Hamster gets COVID readily and transmits it.
I don't know about transmission.
If you want to ask a transmission question, that's a different, but you can still check for virus replication and those kinds of things.
It is the currently accepted animal model.
My point is, if you're going to go down there, there's a whole lot that goes into building a good animal model, including titrating the virus dose and a whole ton of stuff.
It's not cheap.
And at the end, remember what I said?
Mice lie.
Monkeys mislead.
The only thing it tells us about humans is humans.
And the way that we can really tell about humans, in this kind of a context, Is a meta-analysis.
Which we've got.
We've got two of them.
Which we've got.
So, but hold on a second, I have to go just a little bit down this rabbit hole here, okay?
Because I believe that the golden hamsters have anomalously long telomeres, which will be the result of their captive breeding, which have an implication for how susceptible they are to toxic phenomena like spike protein.
Okay, could be.
Alright, so my sense is that ferrets actually are a better model, also because we can model not only the effect of the drug on the animal, but we can also model the epidemiological impact.
Could be.
And you're dead on that one of the lovely things about ferrets and respiratory viruses is that we have a huge body of literature on transmissibility and how to assess it.
So that's all fair too.
So what you're criticizing is the folks in the animal model community that have made some strategic decisions that you disagree with and that that may be that they should have gone down that rabbit hole instead of the one that they did.
And as far as Golden Hamster, I'm no fan of that model.
But I'm just saying that even if we were to do what you did, which is a non-trivial investment, we still don't get to what Tess has done.
Or Andy Hill.
I think the signal is so strong, and if the signal was that strong and the drug is that safe... So what is about to happen...
Okay.
And what happened was there was some large trials started with ivermectin and the data was supposed to come in right before the WHO determination and it didn't come in because this is how it is with clinical trials.
Sometimes you get the enrollment that you want.
It's turning out to be wicked hard to enroll trials with COVID.
It just is.
Well, WHO doesn't have any outpatient trials.
Which is another problem.
They're not WHO trials.
So there are trials, large trials pending, Andy Hill tells me.
And we discussed at length about what he was going to disclose and when publicly.
And together we made a decision, it's his decision, I was just counseling him, to just stop releasing interim results and wait for these large trial results and they're scheduled to come in about September.
No.
The WHO already knows that ivermectin works.
There's never been a case where a peer-reviewed, systematic review and meta-analysis has been overturned because I asked an expert in this area and I said, hey, what happens if you have the top level of evidence And you have one systematic reviews that says it works, and you have another one that says it causes harm, then how do you resolve that?
And she says, well, that's never happened in history, so we don't have to worry about that.
So, you know, you're advising the WHO to wait.
I'm not advising the WHO, I'm advising Andy Hill, who's now at the same position as us.
We agree.
It is a moot point.
Ivermectin clearly works.
because we now have this peer-reviewed-- - We agree.
It is a moot point.
Ivermectin clearly works, right?
The signal is overwhelmingly clear.
And the people who are saying it isn't clear enough don't make sense because their next sentence is we shouldn't prescribe it until we have better evidence when in fact because it's a safe drug and because the evidence in their mind is not clear you should prescribe it and see if it works because the alternative is to send people home.
You're being a hypocrite if you're saying hey oh I subscribe to evidence-based medicine and I believe and I believe in the triangle and this is the way it's done and then they don't do it.
Right.
They don't walk the talk.
It's an anomaly and it seems to match the incentives of a corporation that's got two EUAs in play and potentially a lot of money to be made if we can't deal with the pandemic and we have to get lots of... I'd just like to add one more log to your fire, okay?
In the roster of the blizzard of criticisms about the ivermectin data, One that comes up often is that these small studies that have been done across the world in various sites independently are not peer-reviewed and published.
And the log I want to add on the fire is that it's become wicked hard to get anything through peer review involving repurposed drugs.
Which is why I set up that whole special edition of Frontiers in Pharmacology for repurposed drugs.
And then all of them quit.
And then it got killed.
Well, no, all of the editors quit.
Yeah, I was one of them.
I was one of the leaders.
Because the journal, because once these papers had gotten through, the journal decided to Well, we don't like this.
The Ivermectin one.
It was very arbitrary.
So I would say that's another signal of some kind of emergent capture.
That's all I wanted to share, is this argument that's put out by your hypothetical objector that's out there, who has not ever tried to publish anything, but by God, they're an expert.
I deal with them all the time on LinkedIn and Twitter, but the objection that those data in those meta-analyses are not peer-reviewed and published overlooks the fact that it has become insanely, you know, bizarrely, and you can, you know, I know because I interact with my academic colleagues,
we've never encountered a situation like this where it has become this difficult to get anything we've never encountered a situation like this where it has become this difficult To get anything through peer review.
And anything that has to do with repurposed drugs is just almost impossible.
No, but it's easy if you have a study where you claim that the repurposed drug doesn't work.
Then you can get a drama.
We call that a negative reporting bias.
And I think there is a number of instances that support that.
You know, classically, there's a positive reporting bias, that the negative studies never get published.
Right.
No, I hear it a story worse.
This is the opposite of your classic p-hacking stuff.
Right.
We have currently some pretty strong evidence that the script has been flipped.
Yep.
It is a priori evidence of some kind of corruption of the system, right?
Or it's just an anecdote.
Well, the point is that what it does is it says the deck is stacked against...
For some reason.
For some reason that we don't need to know in order to understand that we have to be alert.
I can't imagine what that would be.
I want to say a few things.
Okay, I want to make sure that before we finish up that we cover the issue of reproductive harm because I feel like we should.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So, okay, so let me just say I've been saving this.
So, if you get hospitalized, I, you know, like Robert just said, oh, you know, the doctors are the front lines, they're coming up with innovative treatments.
I found it's almost the reverse because I, someone called me because her husband was in one of our hospitals, El Camino Hospital.
And I, she called me for help because, you know, he's, he was in bad shape.
He's on ICU.
And so I'm known about these drugs, ciproheptadine, and inhaled adenosine.
And both of these are, like for ciprohepatidine, 50% of the time, you give this, it's an antihistamine, right?
I mean, so it's really cheap.
Eight milligrams, three times a day.
And you go from, and I posted on this on my Twitter account, you go from lungs, which are like dark, to fully clear in 48 hours.
And the physicians say, we've never seen anything like this.
Happens about 50% of the time.
And so I try to get El Camino Hospital to do this on this patient.
I said, I'm a friend of the wife.
She's authorized me to talk to you.
And he said, well, I have to get that IRB approved.
And it was like a Saturday, so I had to reach out and contact the IRB.
He doesn't need IRB approval, but he told me, hey, if you can get an IRB approved, I have no trouble doing it.
So I get the IRB approval, and the IRB guy says, you don't need IRB approval, it's a repurposed drug.
So I tell him that, and he says, well, let me check that.
So he calls the guy, just to verify that I was telling him the truth, and then he says, yeah, but we're not gonna do it.
And I said, well, why?
You know, here are all the papers.
Here's all the justification.
Why would you not do this?
And he said, well, we're just not going to do it.
We convinced the patient not to accept that therapy.
And it's like, here you go and you give them the treatment on a silver platter.
Right.
And they say, no, we're not going to do it.
And it's the same thing for ivermectin, right?
When people have gone to court to force doctors to give ivermectin and the hospital doesn't want to do it because if the hospital gives a drug which has not been approved by the NIH.
They are liable if something happens.
Right.
Because if they follow what the NIH says, then they're clean of liability.
So the hospital actually doesn't want to give you stuff that would save your life because the NIH is keeping it from you.
Hang on, Robert.
I know you want to talk, but hang on.
The other thing is that in a pandemic, another solution, rather than the ferrets and animals, is just to, doctors are always, the outpatient doctors, are always trying new things.
And so if they reported in to the FDA, that's all we need, right?
Because you see all the data coming in and you can see, holy moly, the doctors that are giving the ivermectin and fluvoxamine, they've got like no hospitalization.
Repeatedly, and so you can see a signal there.
And the final thing, and then Robert, I'll let you talk, is that Bruce Patterson is specializing in long-haul COVID.
And he's found that there are four drugs that are effective for long haulers.
It's fluvoxamine, ivermectin, simvastatin, or statin, and maraviroc.
And those four drugs, he's found that, well, some people need like these two, and other people need these two, and other people need this dose, and so forth.
And he measures the biomarkers, so he has a scientific way to tell which of those.
But those four drugs, he says that if one of his friends gets acute COVID, which means you got COVID, he says, if they take these four drugs, Right?
Because he knows what works, because long-haul COVID is essentially, oh, I get to experiment on you until I cure you.
And then, so he says, hey, if this works in long-haul COVID, then isn't that interesting that ivermectin works in acute COVID?
And isn't it interesting that fluoxamine works in acute COVID?
So, if I was running ACTIV6, I would take Bruce up on the offer and I would use all four of these drugs.
Okay, so I can speak to that too.
Okay.
So you hit on three things.
Let's see if I can remember.
Active six was one.
What is that?
We'll get there.
Okay.
One is the inherent paradox of the disincentives for hospitals.
Yep.
Okay.
Right.
And I forget what the third one was.
So, let me just do the two that I remember.
The hospital has two components.
Well, the third one is I just wanted to acknowledge what a pleasure it is interacting with you because you often... Oh, I remember now the third one.
You often independently arrive at the same position, which kind of is validating, that the team that I work with at the DOD comes to.
I work closely with a team at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency in the Joint Science and Technology Office.
Focused on coming up with systems to allow rapid response for outbreaks and engineered pathogens for warfighters.
That's our mission.
So I want to highlight something.
What you said will be misinterpreted by some people.
When somebody else arrives at the same position, yes, that's very nice and validating.
But what you're really saying is if somebody arrives at the same position from a different starting point, it's very likely that that position has a great deal of merit.
Right.
It's a signal that the thing is actually robust because it doesn't matter where you start, you land there.
Just so.
Well put.
Thank you.
Okay.
The comment that you made about setting up a system to enable Patient-reported outcomes and physician-reported outcomes on a national or global basis is a profound statement.
We have nothing like that.
My friends at the FDA also came to that conclusion and they're frustrated because it doesn't exist.
And we have, you know, you come from the Silicon Valley culture.
And that culture gives us as a nation some incredible tools including machine learning and artificial intelligence and deep learning.
And if we were to set up a system as you're proposing to enable distributed capture of primary reports from practicing physicians and then apply our amazing toolkit now for analysis of that.
It is probably one of the strongest things that we could do that would have the lowest cost in terms of being able to identify and discriminate signal and noise from novel interventions.
So that's that one.
Good job.
We agree.
And if you did it here, if you had that in place here, it would have identified a kit of, it sounds like, four drugs that between them are essentially sufficient, which is amazing because frankly antivirals that actually work and are safe enough has been hard to come up with.
Well, there's a reason for that we can unpack, but let's not.
I want to get down to it.
But amazing that with this pandemic that actually... Hospitals, hospitals, you've identified one of the structural disincentives.
Which is legal liability.
And remember who the cops are that are enforcing this.
It's administrators.
It's not docs.
So what you have is MBAs controlling the practice of medicine and the use of alternative drugs.
The other disincentive they have, and this is really coming out of the federal treasury.
This is coming out of your tax dollars.
Okay, is that they don't make the same compensation.
If they prescribe remdesivir, you know, six or eight thousand bucks pop for a treatment course, versus they prescribe ivermectin, Okay.
12 bucks a dose or something.
They're not making the same nickel.
Right.
So there's a legal liability structural disincentive.
Yeah, it's a disincentive.
And there is a financial disincentive.
Now, what was the third one we were talking about?
The other big theme that you were hitting on.
Which I've now lost because I got lost in the hospital world.
I was talking about long COVID and the fact that it's a place to test.
You've got a bunch of different tools.
Yeah, so now I've lost that.
Well, hold on.
Before we go to reproductive... Before we go to reproductive harms.
Damn, I've now lost what I was going to say.
I should give you my paper.
- Okay, so you should, I could give you my paper.
But there's another drug which we funded the work on which is GS441524.
And this is an antiviral.
It's in fact sort of the precursor to remdesivir.
And it works really, really well.
But it's being pursued by Victoria Yan, who's just an individual, and so she's raised some money privately to do this.
But It was a long hauler essentially got the this drug and the long hauler said, Oh my God, I have been a long hauler for like six months.
I have been in pain.
I can't get out of and a week.
Or it was like three days after taking this GS-441524, she said like, I have, I like back to normal.
I have never seen, you know, it's like, it was, couldn't believe it.
Right.
You know, and, and Gilead is doing nothing.
Right.
On this drug.
I mean, it's crazy.
And it's much safer than remdesivir.
It's easier, much easier to produce.
And yet, Gilead has totally dropped the ball on this thing, which was transformative for this long hauler.
So somehow, there's enough bias in this system to shut down anything generic, cheap, and safe, and to amplify things that are dangerous, new, still under patent.
Can't understand it.
And it's multifactorial.
Right, it's multifactorial.
Now here's the thing I forgot.
I've come back up with it.
I was talking to Pierre Corey about this.
There's something that bugs me about what doctors once were and what they've become.
And my sense is doctors, you know, I used the example of Frontier Doctors when I was talking to him.
Frontier Doctors had a lot fewer tools at their disposal, right?
A lot less knowledge about what could be done, a lot fewer drugs, right?
But what they had was the ability to interact with patients.
You know, the house call led you to see the context in which somebody was sick, led you to see the pattern of sickness in a neighborhood, right?
There are all kinds of things that you might detect.
Classical diagnosis.
Right.
And the point is, doctors were scientists.
Right.
They may have been informal scientists, but they were in a position to experiment and tinker.
And you give the patient some hypothesis.
Right.
It doesn't really work.
You've got something's bugging you in the back of your mind that actually this looks more like that.
And so you try the thing that works on that.
And lo and behold, the person gets better.
That kind of scientific doctoring is shut down by exactly the processes you're talking about.
Absolutely.
The liability sensitivity of the hospital, right?
The FDA broadcasting, you know, checklists are on high.
All of these things are resulting in the information that would be screaming at us if each doctor was having the same patients and you know they sit down at lunch with their buddy and they say you know I've got this patient I don't know what to do oh I had one of those and here's what I did and it worked and then you know the point is it would spread there it's not only that it shut down structurally but the new wrinkle now is communication about it is forbidden right it's It prevents the natural accumulation of information that would make us smarter.
And people don't believe it, too.
And when I see, like, there's a case of a doctor who I finally convinced to use fluvoxamine.
So he says, okay, fine, I'll use it in my practice.
It'll be, if you're over 65, you have multiple risk factors, and you have symptoms and, you know, you're in bad shape, then Only then will I use it.
And this is like, are you kidding me?
Right?
You're supposed to use it as soon as the patient presents.
Right.
And you're supposed to use it even, you should be even using it on kids because, I mean, the tragedy is that there's a doctor I know that said, oh, you're a kid.
I'm not going to give you anything.
Well, you know, fluvoxamine is really, you know, a very mild drug.
And what happened is that the 17-year-old developed Tourette's Syndrome as a result of the long-haul COVID.
And so this doctor said, okay, I learned my lesson.
I am going to treat even the kids.
And so, you know, you have the physicians who are like, oh, can't do any harm, only treat you if you're necessary.
But this is a virus.
You always treat viruses early.
Quickly, yeah.
It's like if you had a fire right here on your laptop, you'd be like this to turn it on.
I would need a randomized controlled trial to see if water would help.
Right.
No, no.
It's a reasonable metaphor.
You take the glass of water and put out the fire.
You wouldn't wait And wait, and wait, and wait.
Oh yeah, it's really big now!
Okay, I'll call the fire department.
Alright, I want to push back in one place.
Okay.
It's not serious pushback.
I think what you've found is right.
I'm compelled that we've got multiple drugs that work, okay?
I'm a little nervous about fluvoxamine because it's an SSRI, and so I know it's going to have cognitive implications.
Not in 14 days.
Maybe not, but the point is I'm a little cautious about it because I know it's interacting with systems that we ideally would like not to mess with.
Yeah, don't take coffee when you're taking fluboxamine.
Okay, but here's my point, right?
We've got a drug that seems to have no serious interactions with other systems.
And so it should be your go-to first.
If you've got fog, maybe fluvoxamine is the go-to.
No, no, no, no, no.
And the reason for that is that this, you're, you're thinking that this virus should be treated, you know, tenderly and gingerly and let's only put, you know, remember David Ho?
You remember David Ho, right?
AIDS.
The guy that came up with multi-drug combinations for AIDS.
It's early and hard.
And so the point is that COVID is so deceptive.
It's not the right analogy and here's why.
Okay.
Here's why.
Because the problem with AIDS was as a retrovirus You had an impossibly fast rate of evolution.
And so the reason you hit it with three drugs is that it can't evolve in three directions at once.
Yeah.
Right?
And so the point is, it's like, you know, one of these military things where you've got guns on three islands and it stifles the enemy.
In this case, there's no evidence that I'm aware of that there's actually any evolution away from the kind of protection you get from ivermectin.
And so, the point is, if ivermectin works... No, no, no!
Okay, so here's my counter-argument.
Okay, Robert, you can go next, okay?
So, my counter-argument is this.
So, let's take an anecdote, okay?
Let's take Dr. Drew.
Dr. Drew, he's a doctor.
He knows what he's doing.
He got COVID, and he went for the monoclonal.
He got it early, and he went for ivermectin.
Wait, wait, wait.
He went for the monoclonal and he went for ivermectin.
Yeah.
That was his treatment.
Didn't do fluoxamine at all.
Guess what happened to him?
Well, I'm trying to figure out whether there's any reason to expect.
I don't think that the monoclonal is going to interact with the ivermectin.
No, it doesn't.
No, it doesn't.
Yeah.
Right?
Okay.
Because I think the antiviral for ivermectin is fairly modest, but okay.
So he took those two drugs.
Yeah.
Guess what happened?
He kept getting sick.
No.
Well, he ended up with long-haul COVID.
Okay.
So the point is that this is a very, very serious virus, and people are treating it like it's a regular virus, okay?
Now, I agree with you about HIV and how it's different, but David Ho's point should still be the same.
For this virus, in that we should not go and say, like, under-treat it.
We should, if we have safe, effective drugs.
Right.
Too slow is an error in and of itself.
Right.
And so, in Pierre Khoury's FLCC protocol, they say, well, start with ivermectin, but if you're getting worse over two days, then give the fluvoxamine.
And that's not right, because fluvoxamine is not the mental drug.
It activates sigma-1, which calms down the inflammation.
And the thing you do not want is inflammation in the brain.
And this is what Dr. Drew suffered from.
So yes, ivermectin is great, but it's not 100%.
And once we have A combo, which is 100%, then we can go and say, okay, we're done!
You know?
You've compelled me, right?
And the answer is, my concern, which is real, is minor in comparison to the hazard of COVID.
Correct, because he was in terrible shape.
And I said, look, Dr. Drew, you should try the fluvoxamine.
And I kept beating on him, like, every time I was on his show.
And he finally got the fluvoxamine, and he said, wow, this is, like, really game-changing.
And I said, yeah, you know, doctors are the worst patients, aren't they?
Right.
So the point is that treat this virus like your life depended on it because you don't want to have any kind of inflammation in your brain.
All right.
So I'm compelled and I would say ivermectin is a prophylactic.
I think that's a slam dunk.
Treating it with the drugs you've got that work in some reasonable combination is a slam dunk.
Robert?
The third point was active six.
Oh, right.
Okay.
And it's germane.
It's, it's germane to this.
Okay.
Okay.
A statement was Steve suggested the obvious.
Why don't you do trials with these drug combinations?
Okay.
So agents.
So for me, this isn't a theoretical, I'm living it.
I've been living it for the last nine months.
Okay.
I've been trying to advance a two drug and three drug strategy with us government funding.
Through the FDA because my, the source of this capital is coming through the Department of Defense.
We have to be very rigorous about ensuring human subject safety, FDA compliance, all that.
We got to do everything by the book.
That's the way it is in the DOD these days.
Not like it used to be.
Okay?
We're really rigorous.
So we're living it.
I can tell you that the barriers to proceeding with clinical research in either inpatient or outpatient environments for repurposed multi-drug strategies are immense.
The agency is requiring that we do the full portfolio of drug interaction studies before we are allowed to proceed.
That's 9 to 12 months worth of stuff.
In our case, it's for drug combinations that we already have data on substantial numbers of patients because of the things I was talking about.
Docs tinkering.
So this idea, which is totally valid and has guided us from the get-go, That we would build, we would learn from David Ho, and we would use a multi-drug strategy.
In this case, for repurposed drugs, what we have is a rich library of capabilities relates to anti-inflammatories.
Almost all the agents you've been talking about are acting at the level of anti-inflammatories, not antivirals.
Why are we not focused on antivirals?
Okay?
Tamiflu is the best way I can express that.
The history, long history, of coming up with strategies for treating pulmonary viral infections At the level of an antiviral agent is horrible.
It basically doesn't work.
It's a strategy that doesn't work.
Why not?
Because it's too hard to get it early and that's what you got to do.
Yeah.
Okay.
And what, what you're doing with Fluvoxamine, what we're doing with our agents that we're trying to get through the FDA and perhaps we'll launch in India soon, is that we're attacking the second phase.
COVID is a hyper-inflammatory response.
It's not the virus that kills you.
It's your response to the virus, okay?
And the good news... I'm sorry, I'm going to criticize Tony.
I didn't want to go there.
The thought leaders that have set public strategy in the drug space have decided To a large part, to emphasize direct acting antivirals.
And they have sought to test those, most often, in a late stage COVID environment.
It makes no sense.
Well, more importantly, it doesn't work.
Right, of course, because it makes no sense!
But it gives you the faulty signal that there's some ambiguity.
I mean, I've seen this in the ivermectin data, where the point is, the studies vary, and if it takes you five days to get to the patient, then of course the signal is weak.
And if you're giving insufficient drug and you're only giving it for one day, and ivermectin, so in my correspondence with the agency, advocating for an ivermectin-containing arm in the study, I had to write the section about the justification for mechanism of action of ivermectin.
And just to illustrate the point, I've never disclosed this publicly, I don't have actually authorization to say so, so maybe I shouldn't.
But the truth is that I wrote this big long section, summarized the different potential mechanisms of action of ivermectin, most of which are anti-inflammatory.
The agency wrote back and said, you have to do the studies in cell culture to prove the mechanism of action before we'll allow you to proceed with the trial.
And our decision was to just drop it.
Yeah, it's crazy.
It's absolutely crazy.
Well, it gets to this point of another data point.
Yeah, another anomaly.
And there's so many examples of that, like Laurent Lamar.
Right.
Oh, the Loran Lamab story is... All right, so, gentlemen, I have to... I agree.
I have to put a signpost here, okay?
We are running up against time, and there are some things that I think we really ought to cover to make sure that they are here.
The ones on my agenda, I want to talk a little bit about the various different hazards from this vaccine.
We've talked a lot about the damage that people suffer, but there are a couple other hazards, and I want to, while we have you here, I want to just get your impression about whether these things are something we need to worry about or not.
And I think we ought to talk about the reproductive harm because this is an entirely separate realm where it's not, you don't necessarily die, but if you lose your ability to reproduce or you lose a child.
We're in the following generation.
Right.
We don't know.
And so anyway, that's, it's well worth covering because the signal there is very clear to you, I believe.
Yep.
Okay.
So which do we want to do first?
You want to do the reproductive?
In fact, I can bring up that graph, which will show you why this is an issue.
Graph from your paper.
So.
Sorry.
The producer of the Dark Horse podcast.
He doesn't know his password.
Just for the audience, give me a little commentary.
I think it may have had more to do with my not wearing my glasses.
Alright, so here's your paper.
And so are we actually showing?
There we go.
Here's the graph.
And what this is, do you want to set this up Steve?
Sure.
Oh wait, no, they can't see a damn thing.
Alright, what am I doing?
I am going to put on my glasses.
He has to look at his chi-chi.
Yes, I do.
My son created this so that I would look like an expert.
Oh, there we go.
There you go.
Okay, so Byram Brittle did a Freedom of Action I'm pretty sure I linked to the original data in my paper.
And this graph was created from that Pfizer data.
And I'm pretty sure I linked to the original data in my paper.
And this graph was created from that Pfizer data.
So this is not the Pfizer data itself from the Pfizer study.
This is a graph, and people have double-checked and triple-checked this.
It's a summary graphic.
It's a summary graph so that you can see it visually.
I did review the primary data, and I concur that the primary data is consistent with the graph that you have nicely summarized.
Right.
And so what you see from this graph is that when you inject in the shoulder, Do you wanna walk through the, teach the listener how it shows that?
How it shows what?
Yeah, what you're just saying.
So yeah, some people will just listen to this.
So what we're looking at is a graph of different lines of concentration of, is this spike protein in various tissues?
No.
Yes, it's a lipid nanoparticle.
Oh, it's the lipid nanoparticle, which is the delivery mechanism.
Right, it's like the... It is the drug.
Well, for people at home, it's the box in which the mRNA... It's a proxy for the drug.
So the mRNA is what causes the manufacture of the spike protein, but if you find the lipid nanoparticles, that tells you that your drug got to this location.
Right.
It's the delivery box, effectively.
It's the FedEx delivery box that has the mRNA inside.
You're exactly right.
This is the lipid component that does the delivery.
Okay, so good.
So what we've got here are different lines that tell you over time, from a quarter of an hour to 48 hours, where you find what the concentration in various tissues are.
And you've got some strong signals here.
You've got it in whole blood, not surprisingly, over the first four hours.
In other words, it's moving around, it's circulating.
That in and of itself is unusual and concerning.
Forgive me, just to get a little more precise.
We've administered by needle into the deltoid of this complex.
And you're just tracking the lipid part of it now.
There's also an RNA part of it.
But as you say, it quickly moves into the blood.
Plasma is the self-refraction.
That's the yellow mustard line.
And the gray line is whole blood.
So that includes the cellular part of blood.
Yep.
Okay, carry on.
Okay, and then we get lines that rise.
So all of these things decline as basically this diffuses through the body, which actually is not what you would hope.
You would hope it would stay in the arm, but it's basically diffusing through the body, so concentrations are dropping as it gets more and more evenly distributed.
And then concentrations are rising conspicuously in two places as we close in on 48 hours.
One of them is in the ovaries, where it goes sky high.
That's really frightening.
Anybody that's looked at this data says, what?
Yeah, that is a very frightening signal.
And it's the cognitive dissonance between what the CDC says is that this is safe, but For pregnant women.
Right.
This is perfectly safe, and it's on the CDC website.
It's unbelievable.
It's great.
At some level, it's not safe for women at all.
I mean, this is... Right!
It's not just pregnant women.
Before we interpret the data, let's make sure your listeners understand it.
Okay, so the ovaries show a high concentration, for whatever reason, it's ending up in the ovaries preferentially.
Yes, the lipid is ending up there.
And then the other place that we have a signal, which I think suggests something we need to worry farther down the road.
You tell me, Robert, if I'm on the right track here or not.
But the fact that it shows up concentrating in bone marrow... Bad news!
Actually, that suggests that you could end up with... I'm not saying this is going to happen, but I'm saying we need to look for something like leukemias showing up here because of their creation in bone marrow.
I know from other work That it also seems to show up preferentially in lymph nodes, which raises the question of whether or not lymphomas might be created.
In any case, these are possible long-term effects that we have no way of knowing don't arise because these things have not been injected into people for more than a year.
So we have two adverse event signals that are starting to become apparent, my friends at the FDA tell me.
Okay.
That are relevant to what you're saying.
You're focusing on bone marrow.
So typically aplastic anemia, leukemia, lymphoma, those kinds of things might, if there is going to be a signal, we might see it six months, three years, nine years.
Okay, hard to tell.
Because this is a progression of cancer that often requires multiple mutations.
So let's just park that.
It is a risk that should be monitored.
You said somebody is beginning to see a signal of something, but I didn't get what it was.
Yeah, so I was going to get into that.
There's two signals that are starting to... We don't have time to go into the nuance of how come it takes so long for them to figure out what's going on.
One of them is thrombocytopenia that's not having the platelets.
Which are manufactured in the bone marrow.
Right now we're focusing on bone marrow signals.
Thrombocytopenia is one of them.
Another one that is very hard to understand that's starting to come up in the database Is reactivation of latent viruses.
So this is shingles, shingles is an example of that but there are many others and there's something in the literature about reactivation of human, latent human retroviruses.
So it is, it is, there are anomalous findings cropping up and I concur that It was when I received these data to evaluate.
I gave you that whole story.
Okay.
Those are two of the things.
And by the way, what's really odd to me about the ovarian signal is there's no signal in the testis.
Right.
It's very low.
And a colleague of mine, Dr. Kevin Tamera, has done a lot of thinking and reading about that because it bothers him too.
He's a urologist, so he kind of specializes in the male reproductive system.
And he has some theories having to do with charge, because these are charged lipids.
So there are particular features of the ovary that may, as opposed to the testis, that may explain some of this, but it doesn't get us away from the two core things.
Number one, This was known with the original data packages.
The Japanese data package is essentially a historic document.
It's different from what the FDA is currently looking at.
So these data have been out there a long time.
And yes, we have a whole lot of messaging.
But not in public view?
Within the purview, the confidential.
Of the regulators.
Protected, not disclosed purview.
Yeah, and this is company confidential.
Of the regulators across the world.
But not the, yeah, this was.
So this messaging that we're all good.
Company confidential.
So let's not get lost.
Nothing to worry about.
Yeah, that messaging was inconsistent with these signals that were apparent, at least inside of.
The data.
That the regulators knew about.
The data or the data.
Yeah.
We've got potential long-term, we've got short-term implications in the bone marrow.
We've got potential long-term implications in the bone marrow.
We have short-term implications in the ovaries.
We've got potential long-term implications.
I would add to the list what I've been worried about most from the beginning are autoimmune disorders that might show up in the long term.
Is that plausible as you see it?
We talked about this earlier.
For me, it's less the lipid component, although that certainly has merit for autoimmune.
It's more the circulating free spike protein, which we didn't expect.
In the literature, the developers assured us this would not happen.
The literature suggested we would not have free spike.
And then Harvard and Brigham did a study in nurses and lo and behold, we clearly have free spike after vaccination.
And that has a whole other set of implications, but autoimmune development of autoimmune disease against complexes of foreign protein plus normal human proteins is certainly something that you'd have to monitor for.
As we were discussing, the way that that's part of the reason why you typically want a two to three year follow-up period On the initial group of phase 3 patients to make sure that autoimmune consequences don't develop, because they typically take time.
And this is why, you know, they always say that there's no such thing as a vaccine that is developed fast.
You know, like the fastest we've ever developed a vaccine has been like, what, like 7 years?
Yeah, probably, unless we go back mid-century when things were loose and fast.
Right, but there's a reason for that.
It's not just that, OK, well, we have better technology now.
We still need to be able to see what the long-term effects is on a 12-year-old.
You can't fast-forward time.
And in fact, usually you use animal models to do that, and the assumptions on which the animal models bring these things to light are faulted.
Right, and how do you judge the effect on the 12th world?
What the animal models give us is a signal that alerts us to things that we need to follow up on carefully in humans.
Okay, so hold on.
So just to make this segment clear, okay?
We've got Very alarming short-term stuff.
We've got short-term stuff that is alarming on the basis of where we find these lipids, where we find the spike proteins.
Those things are reasons for concern because it wasn't supposed to be this way.
We've also got an alarming signal in terms of the hazards and deaths or the harms and the deaths that are reported in the system, and there's a reason to think that those are Dramatic under-reports.
Yes, and they're all consistent with the spike distribution.
That's two parts of the harm equation.
The harm equation involves, there appears to be short-term harm being done at an alarming level.
Long-term harm is quite plausible based on what we already know about what's taking place, but we of course are going to take time to figure out whether it's actually a benefit.
To find out and then it's going to be too late.
You can vaccinate yourself, but you can never un-vaccinate.
You can't un-vaccinate.
Okay, so then there are two other harms that are potentially involved in this vaccine.
I wanted to get your input on whether it's worth worrying about these things.
One of them, as made famous by Garrett Vandenbush, who was a guest on this program, Is the hazard of the vaccines because they create a very concentrated evolutionary push on spike protein alone that vaccinating into a pandemic rather than in advance of the pandemic is liable to cause the evolution of escape mutants and that it could in fact make a much worse pandemic in the end.
So this isn't a theoretical.
This is a real.
It's real.
We already have the data.
What does that mean?
We are having escape mutants arise all over the place.
Yeah, and you believe it is caused by the vaccines?
So I can't, I can't.
So because we got two variables going on at the same time, we've got vaccination, we got natural infection.
Yeah.
But in my mind, I mean, the data, the data are in.
Yeah.
The escape mutants are happening.
Yep.
We have focused on the spike domains that are associated with escape from the vaccine domains.
We have neglected to focus as a community on the other mutations that are also accumulating.
So that's kind of a sampling or selection bias that we have ongoing because we're focused on the vaccines, but it's not the only thing that's changing.
You mentioned HIV, super example.
HIV evolves during its infection of each separate patient.
Single-stranded RNA.
As a virologist, and there's some veterinary virologists that are speaking about this too, that this is, for those of us who are hardcore virologists and vaccinologists, this is accepted wisdom.
This is just the way things are.
And we're going to live with it.
And this kind of gets to my point that I made earlier when I objected a little bit to some of the statements.
In my opinion, We're stuck with this virus or its downstream variants pretty much for the rest of our lives.
It's going to become more like a flu in the sense of we will have continuing evolution and continuing circulation of variants of this.
I believe that that is inescapable.
Well, so I would argue, based on what I understand, that That might happen.
I've worried about it from the beginning, that the likelihood of it happening has to do with the fact that we botched the early response and therefore gave it a large canvas in which to experiment.
True.
But I don't, I don't, I haven't seen anything yet that tells me that we couldn't, if we got on this now, that we couldn't stamp it out in two months, three months of concerted effort.
Except for the experience of actually trying to do that with polio and smallpox.
But I'm glad to concede your optimism.
Okay.
I hope you're right and I'm wrong.
Good.
It would be a shame not to try.
You know, I'm not sure that's going to happen with Tony Fauci.
No, no.
I got a plan.
You'll see.
Okay.
Alright.
So we've got two pieces of this puzzle.
We've got short-term, long-term, actual harm to patient.
We've got epidemiological risk of the evolution of escape mutants.
And then the third category that I wonder if we should worry about has to do with antibody-dependent enhancement.
Right.
And so for... You knew it was coming!
For my listeners who don't know what that is, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but the basic point is Antibodies are complex proteins.
They're a series of proteins linked together.
They basically function by the tips of a y-shaped thing that you've probably seen on various sites or whatever.
That y-shaped thing sticks based on the electromagnetic affinities of the tips to very specific objects that have the inverse set of charges, or roughly the inverse set of charges, And there's some evolution that causes that sticking to get better and better, so our vaccines train the antibodies and the cells with receptors that are like antibodies to better and better recognize these.
Very good.
So bad?
Yeah, I try to dumb it down a lot and I talk about a fork.
Well, I was a professor for a long time.
Anyway, so this is all true, but the point is, and my wife and I have a saying that we, every time we get to some weird unexpected thing in this landscape, we say, welcome to complex systems, because you don't always, you know, there's the- Immunology is the ultimate complex system.
Well, we've got the immune system, which is a complex system, inside a human, which is a complex system, inside of civilization where there's an epidemic, which is a complex system, and that's, it's a very difficult puzzle, but anyway.
The antibodies stick to the antigens, and in sticking to the antigens, the general thing, and what we hope, is that they block the interaction of the spike protein, for example, with the ACE2 receptor, and then the virus can't get into the cell.
That's what we hope.
But it is also possible, because really what we're talking about is stuff that sticks to other stuff, that it can stick in a way that actually enhances the infectivity, right?
So the fact that we don't control what happens after we introduce the immune system to the antigen, and that the evolution can produce things with unpredictable effects, can result in exactly the opposite.
And in fact, this is not just a theoretical possibility.
This is something we've actually seen, and I believe we've seen it with mRNA Vaccines Okay, so is that right?
So there haven't been any mRNA vaccines in other creatures.
We are the first creatures that is being tried to there's just that okay, okay, okay, but What you're talking about?
When I so we've been writing and trying to get published papers about this kind of from the beginning It's not purely theoretical It is the basis for dengue hemorrhagic fever.
Okay, so it's not what he's talking about isn't something that he's just come up with out of his mind.
It's actually the basis for one of the major viral diseases.
Is this why the second bout of dengue is worse?
That is precisely it, especially it has to be a different strain and there's a whole It's lovely.
If you want to understand the interaction of virology and immunology, dengue is a super way to dive into that world.
But one of the nuances that you almost got to, So I'm going to go to my metaphor of the fork.
And so the tines of a fork, if you think about that, are akin to the sticky part of the antibody that he's talking about.
But the fork has a tail, the handle that we hold on to.
That tail is not there just for nothing.
That tail has its own cool, evolved, neat stuff that it does.
And one of the things that it does is it sticks to specific evolved receptors.
It's called the FC region because it's the constant region of the antibody.
The tines are variable, as you say.
So the part that sticks out has a receptor that it binds to.
That receptor is present in cells that normally can't be infected by this virus.
Dendritic cells and macrophage, which by the way go to lymph nodes and travel around all over the body and are totally central to our ability to generate an immune response.
And one of the things that happens with certain types, because there are different types of antibody-dependent enhancement, but the word, antibody, so that's the fork, dependent, this won't happen without it, enhancement.
What is being enhanced?
What's being enhanced is infection and virus replication.
How is that happening?
How is the presence of an antibody Increasing the ability of the virus to infect something else when it's blocking the virus.
Because what happens is that essentially that handle of the fork can now interact with the FC receptors on macrophage dendritic cells and other antigen-presenting cells and enable that virus to come into those cells that would normally not be able to infect.
And those cells travel all over the body.
These are immune cells.
These are the cells responsible for presenting antigen, and so what you have happened with antibody-dependent enhancement.
Is you can get an explosive increase, not only in virus replication, but in activation of inflammatory responses, which happens about seven days after the infection.
Okay, so hold on.
And all of the prior vaccines that have been developed largely for veterinary purposes, and all of the prior attempts to develop human coronavirus vaccines, Have failed due to ADE.
That's one of the things that's really interesting.
Really interesting about the current ones is they are showing so much efficacy.
It's the reason why I wouldn't take vaccine for a long time.
Is I was watching for an ADE signal.
I'm not seeing it.
We're all looking for it.
That's good.
And we're not seeing it.
Why did you get vaccinated?
See, I got vaccinated because I didn't know any of this.
I assumed that what I was being told is the truth.
Nobody was dying and everything was safe and it was safe and effective.
I was told that and I trusted the authorities.
And I, you know, was just like that.
And then when I discovered, you know, my little, you know, antennae, you know, popped up and discovered, wow, confirmation of my hypothesis.
You took the red pill and suddenly.
Yeah, well, no, I've always had the red pill.
But, you know, on this one, I said, you know, there's only so much you can question.
Right, and when has the CDC ever, you know, misled us?
I can't blame ignorance.
I'm a bona fide expert, right?
Right, right.
So how did you?
Well, we didn't know about the biodistribution.
We didn't know about the free S1.
We didn't know about the pathogenics.
So why did I take the vaccine?
Yeah, why did you?
Two reasons.
Admit it.
No, I'm totally transparent about it and have been in multiple other podcasts and online.
Okay, there's two reasons.
And I waited.
I would not get involved early on because I knew that it was going to take time for the ADE signal to either be proven or not revealed.
Okay?
So, I came to the conclusion it's been enough time, we're not seeing the ADE signal, and I don't have to worry about that too much.
Remember, I'm a long COVID.
There was a lot of reports popping up about vaccines helping with long COVID.
Oh, that makes sense.
And, number two, I need to travel.
Right, and you're forced to.
And the rules are, the rules that are emerging, particularly if you want to go to Europe or offshore.
Which is crazy.
You gotta have, well, it is what it is.
I live in the real world and I need to travel.
So the reason my wife and I both took vaccines, because she's also a vaccine expert, My wife and I both took Moderna, the highest dose, right?
The one, frankly, the one that I advised everybody, don't take Moderna.
If you're going to take anything, take Pfizer.
Okay, that's been my advice again and again, but it wasn't an option for me where I live in Virginia.
By the way, what he's talking about is that's what I took.
Yeah, they never did any dosing studies to find out whether they were overdosing.
So, hold on.
I want to just collect our gains here, okay?
We've got two kinds of harm to patients, short-term and long-term.
Both of these are alarming.
They're worrying from what we already know.
You've got the possibility of the driving of escape mutants, for which we know that we were getting escape mutants, and we don't know to what degree that is responsive to the vaccine, but it's at least quite plausible.
And then we have the risk of ADE, which it turns out we don't have the signal for.
So that's good news.
Yeah, currently.
Yeah.
So far.
But that's great.
Okay.
So I think that's a pretty good encapsulation of, like, worries in this neighborhood that are... The one that was unexpected is the coagulopathy associated with the adenovector.
Okay.
That one was out of the blue.
So the coagulation problems, which are almost one of the central hallmarks of COVID disease.
Right.
So am I wrong to think that that's just more spike protein cytotoxicity?
I think it's a plausible hypothesis.
Okay.
All right.
Which means, in English, that means he agrees.
No, it means it's a plausible hypothesis.
He's a scientist.
He gets what I mean.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I'm translating it for the non-scientists.
It's a plausible hypothesis, and the tone in your voice suggested there's not another obvious, more plausible hypothesis.
I think it is the most compelling current hypothesis that I know of.
All right, so I think we have taken care of the big pieces of the puzzle that I was hoping to hit, aside from the one where we saved the Earth from COVID.
Are there things on your agenda that you... You wanted to talk a little more about the reprotox.
Yes.
Well, indeed.
So we did it, but what should people be thinking about the fact that we at least know that it... So the thing that this signal about the relative concentration of these novel lipids that we've never had before in humans That we don't have long exposure to in animals.
And the signal in this limited rodent study, hopefully, which was not done under good laboratory practices.
It wasn't the real vaccine?
It wasn't even the RNA encoding spike.
Right, and you couldn't, because you'd want to find out where the spike actually went.
I spoke to the director of CBER about all this, and he said, you know, that was then.
We have a new data package now, and please allow us the respect to evaluate it.
And Peter Marks is among the best we have at the FDA.
Okay, he's time-tested, he's smart, he has integrity, he asked me to allow them the respect to evaluate the product and I think we kind of got to give that.
But if we go off the data that the Canadians provided to us from that package that shows the graph that you just showed, we have concentration in ovarian tissue of a novel lipid reagent that is previously untested and has some very unique characteristics.
It's an ionizable cationic lipid.
We just don't know what that means.
Here's the thing.
When I first started, when I first trained about what the history of the FDA is, the thing that is the hallmark of the modern FDA is the response to thalidomide.
And that has guided the whole legislative structure and organizational structure of the FDA.
That's all about reproductive toxicity and potential consequences in terms of birth defects.
I hope that Pfizer has submitted to Peter a comprehensive genotoxicity and reproductive toxicity panel in the non-clinical studies, but even then, rats are not humans.
And what we've learned is that reproductive risks don't always manifest in the first generation.
So I don't mean to scare, but I do mean to speak honestly and with integrity.
And I think the honest position is, if you were to ask me, Robert, do you know what the reproductive consequences are?
For this signal, I have to tell you, no, I don't, because we don't have the data.
And if you then ask me, has there been any examples in the past of reproductive effects of agents in female reproductive tissue that were not anticipated by the animal model testing, I would have to say, yes, there is.
So I think my position on all of this goes back to the bioethics, if you'll forgive me, There has to be full and open disclosure.
I think we owe it, we do owe it to people, to the audience, to those of us who are facing this crisis and wanting to do the right thing.
I think we, this gets back to it's your body.
I think that the burden is on the government not to tell us what to do, but to convince us, based on the information, what to do.
And I think that they have an obligation, they do have an obligation, this goes back to the bedrocks of bioethics, to full and open disclosure.
And in the case of the The potential reproductive implications of this aggregating signal in a female reproductive tissue, I think that there needs to be transparency, and I think that we have to not
Assume that reports such as dysmenorrhea, which are occurring, and you can appreciate if you're a young woman and you're having menstrual irregularities, it's kind of embarrassing socially to talk about it.
And you're not going to rush off to the internet and go post it.
Even if you're a millennial.
And I don't think.
So I think that we as a public health community, if I can speak for the public health community,
Really should err on the side of transparency and disclosure and trust the American people and the people all over the world, the adults who are competent to make decisions, to make decisions for their own health and for those adolescents and infants and youth Remember, they cannot give informed consent.
They can't.
By definition, the only people that can give it for them are their parents and their guardians.
And I do feel pretty strongly that these things that I hear about now in multiple cultures, this strategy, we're going to give out ice cream to get the kids to get vaccinated, that's just wrong.
Yeah.
No, it's tantamount to evil in light of the very scary implications of the… And we're going to look back, we're going to look back, you know, there's been times when as a culture facing, as you know, many cultures facing major crises, war and other things, where there's been decisions made to cross ethical lines.
And, you know, in US history recently, in our experience in World War II, we had the internment camps.
Germany's had their experiences, heaven knows.
And it's easy in the fog of war, and I can tell you from being on the front lines of outbreak response, it is like war.
And it's easy to make judgment calls.
Where you say that the benefits merit compromising some of our core ethical principles.
And invariably, in retrospect, we end up saying that was a mistake.
Yeah.
And I'm going to leave it at that.
All right.
So I think you have a last point you want to make and then I will deploy my plan and we'll see how that goes.
Well, look, knowing what I know today, if I had known what I know today, I never would have vaccinated my three young daughters.
I would have done whatever I could, you know, they're of age, they can decide for themselves.
But I would have done everything in my power to have tried to change their minds.
And I don't have any boys, but if it were my children, I would do whatever I could to do that.
I think it's, I do not understand this push to let's get this, let's accelerate the approval of this experiment.
And to experiment on our kids is to me, and what really frustrates me is I have, I know one of the cabinet members of the Biden administration.
And I brought this to his attention numerous times.
And he has tried to get the attention of the proper people.
And I hear crickets.
The bell doesn't ring.
It doesn't register because it's against the narrative.
Yeah.
And there's a reason for that.
It's like, and I, cause I sent it to a friend of mine yesterday and I said, Hey, could you get the, you know, I've tried the secretary and he wasn't able to get it to Biden's attention.
Could you at least get it to, and mentioned someone who's a top staffer of Pelosi.
And so he looked at the document.
He spent, probably spent two minutes looking at it.
And he said, Steve, I love you.
I've known you for a long time.
You're a great guy, but it, I mean, I should show you the email, but it ended with, and you probably don't think that there was an attack on January 6th.
And that is just, you know, it's like, look, it's gaslighting.
If you want to, if you want to criticize what I've written, Please tell me what's wrong, and I'll fix it.
And I said, so you just, so tell me the truth, you just deleted it when you saw it.
He said, no, I didn't delete it.
I kept it around, but I didn't forward it, like he said he would.
He said, forward it to me, I will send it to, so he just, you know, Yeah, I mean, this is important, right?
I might be right on this.
And everything I've seen, every single thing I've seen from talking to the paramedics, from talking to the doctors, seeing doctors fired, seeing paramedics intimidated, You know, seeing my friends doing the next door surveys, every single time I try to look for, oh, maybe, you know, are they right?
And I get nothing.
I get confirmation the more I learn.
And for me to try to convince an academic, oh, and his argument was, Steve, you must be wrong.
Because all the academics say that it's safe and effective.
Right.
And you see these posts from, you know, I commented on a post from one of the doctors at UCSF who says, I'm going to vaccinate my kid.
And I said, well, you should look at this first.
And And so my friend's comment was, look, this is like global warming.
And so there's the global warming deniers.
And they're, you know, deniers of, you know, what happened, Jay?
It's tribal.
He goes and he says, he says, look, you're up against all everybody else.
says that it's safe and effective.
All the academics say it's safe and effective.
No one is raising any alarms.
And so it's basically, they're saying like, there's something wrong with you.
And in fact, right after Byram's presentation, my wife was entertaining five of my friends, or five of our friends.
And after I heard this about the biodistribution, I said, hey, if you haven't vaccinated your kids, I just found out some information that says this is, you know, this is gonna be unsafe, and here's why.
We're supposed to be in the arm, went to the whole body, spike protein is not a harmless antigen.
And then they said, hey, thank you, Steve.
Thank you, Steve.
You know, we were gonna, you know, vaccinate our kids, but we're not gonna go to, and then I walk out.
And then they're like, is Steve okay?
Has he been working too hard?
As if this was a minor issue.
Yeah, they're like thinking that he's lost it, right?
And so this is the frustration.
This is why people can't speak out, right?
Because the narrative is so strong that everybody believes in this false narrative.
And so anyone who challenges and says the Emperor wears no clothes, is just shot down and marginalized.
And they say to your face, oh, hey, thank you a lot.
And then when you turn around, they're like, wow, what's happened to him?
You know, and the amazing thing, of course, is that here you have a case where the NIH is basically sandbagging effective treatments, that the CDC is going along for the ride, that the FDA is fooled, and that people in Congress think Tony Fauci, that the FDA is fooled, and that people in Congress think Tony Fauci, who's been called out as the creator of the coronavirus and caused this whole thing and then screwed
Oh, no, it's, no, there is... Oh, believe me, I was very early on the lab.
We should have a separate one on this, but Chris Martinson does a fabulous job on his YouTube channel in taking down Tony Fauci and this whole cover-up.
I'm not defending Fauci.
Okay, yeah, but you know, but Congress, like I wrote to Anna, sorry, my Congresswoman, and I said, look at, here's the document, here's the facts.
How do you respond to this?
She wrote me a nice letter that says the vaccine is safe and effective, we'll be rolling it out, and the CDC has found no problems, and I'm like going like, well, they haven't even analyzed any of the cases, and they should be assuming that it was a vaccine.
Like, they halt things!
Like, they're stopping criteria.
You know, should be a hundred deaths, or two hundred, you know, anyway.
Robert's right.
They're gaslighting us.
It's getting to you.
I hear you.
You sound completely rational to me, but you know.
No, look, look, look.
I expected this.
I knew when I went into this that I would suffer.
Let me give you some comfort.
30 seconds of comfort, and then we're going to fix the planet.
This is always the case when you're at the tip of the spear.
There's the parable, don't be a pioneer, all you get is arrows in the ass.
Yeah.
Okay?
This is a paradigm shift problem.
And the lovely thing about medicine is we've been through multiple cycles of this.
The classic one is gastric ulcers and the bacterial basis for gastric ulcers, which the guy that did that was subjected to everything that you're experiencing and more.
Right.
It is just, you know, so I guess I'm saying welcome to my world.
Yes.
I embrace you and it's the nature, it is the Right.
He said I was politically incorrect.
It's the red badge of courage that you're going through this, and you have the guts, despite all that, to continue to say whether you're right or wrong.
To have the courage to swim upstream and say, this isn't right.
Right.
And everybody, by the way, everybody advised me, because I told people, look, and you know, this is the real, like Pierre Corey doesn't do this.
This is like, you're taking on two albatrosses.
Right.
One is championing early treatment, right?
In Brazil, they don't think early treatment works at all, despite all of these, all the proof.
So, you're trying to champion this cause, right?
You're going up against the NIH and the WHO.
And they said, if you take on also the vaccine, You're done!
You're done!
So wait a minute, Robert is saying something very important and I know he's right because I've been through it in a totally separate instance, right?
The work I did that revealed that there was a flaw in the drug safety system, that bell still hasn't rung.
That was 2002, right?
I know what that is, and Robert's right.
This is par for the course, except the stakes are really high here.
And the amazing thing is that nobody is pulling the Andon cord in Congress to say, hey, stop!
But that's what we've got to do with the Save the World Plan here.
Because I really want to begin to wrap this up.
And I think the point is, you've got all of these anomalous signatures, right?
Even if the answer is, and I can make a defense for emergency use authorizations for a vaccine that is not well enough tested in the face of an emergency, in the face of a virus that we might get stuck with as a permanent fellow traveler.
Should let people I can make that argument.
I can't make that argument when there's perfectly safe therapies that are available to us off the shelf.
That's right.
Absolutely right.
And I never could have made that argument for people who've already had COVID.
And I certainly wouldn't have made that argument for women or children, okay?
You know, especially pregnant women.
But the fact is, that's ovaries, right?
That signal is telling us something about potential long-term reproductive health.
So, all of that said, Nicely worded.
Potential long-term reproductive health.
Thank you.
I would have said something different, but you said it correctly.
He's a scientist.
Yeah, I'm cautious this way.
So let's just say we've got all of these signals of something I would call extended regulatory capture, where regulatory capture now reaches into Not just regulatory agencies, it reaches into journals, it reaches into universities, it reaches into the social media layer, it reaches into the organizations of doctors, all of the things.
And the World Health Organization, good point.
So, this extended capture, we're all feeling it.
To the extent that people are not doing what we're doing here, and they are silencing themselves because they're afraid of the stigma that comes back if they talk about the things they think they might be seeing.
Right?
Everybody is being touched by this.
I call it self-censorship.
It is self-censorship, but the point is, I don't think there's any way to beat that going through the front door.
What you're finding out about trying to raise the alarm here is telling you something about that's not going to work, because there are so many layers protecting it.
We are aligned.
Right.
The only way to go is to go to the people.
Not the people, because the people can't do anything about it.
No, no, no, no, no.
Yes, they can.
It sounds to me like you're coming to the same point.
Oh, yeah.
Well, let's see.
Let's see.
Let's see what your solution is.
My solution, and I, you know.
I have my own solution.
OK.
So my solution.
It doesn't have to be Elon.
But it can be Elon, right?
Now here's my point.
Elon checks all the boxes, right?
Elon is hyper-intelligent, right?
And he appears to be hell-bent on saving planet Earth.
And he's willing to do this with Herculean efforts, right?
How hard is it to shift the country to thinking that electric cars are super cool, right?
How hard is it to get us to actually put people on Mars?
These are difficult.
And so my point is, look, if Elon is hell-bent on saving planet Earth, the hard thing to come by when you're in the saving planet Earth business Is practice, right?
It's very hard to find places where you can practice that skill and you need it because it's a difficult job.
So my point is this is the perfect instance because here we have an easy way to save planet Earth and it just so happens that Elon has a tremendous number of resources.
Now he could do this as a matter he could get together some of his friends and he could pool the resources or he could do it alone.
But my point is What we're really looking at is runaway extended regulatory capture that has caused the greatest defect.
If there is an argument to be made about our economic and political system, it is that our system can allow you to evaporate trillions of dollars of wealth in the pursuit of billions of dollars of wealth.
And that is what is happening here.
If what we see... There's a lot to be said for that statement.
That bears repeating.
It's pretty scary and the point is it's not just wealth in this case.
We're talking about trillions of dollars of wealth.
We're talking about the tensions on the global economic and political system like we have never seen before.
We're talking about a huge amount of needless death and suffering and loss of years of viable life from people.
So that's a hell of a lot to lose so that some entity or set of entities can make I don't know, five, ten billion dollars?
Right?
It's absurd.
So the point is, look, there's a bitter pill here.
The bitter pill is we can't solve the problem perfectly, right?
We're going to have to accept something ugly.
And I think what we have to accept is that if this is going to happen to planet Earth with perfectly viable solutions available to us off the shelf that we're not going to be allowed to touch, I'm afraid the next move is that they're going to be taken from us so that we can't even source them as individuals.
If that's what's going to happen, then the answer is we need to buy out the interests of those who are doing it.
Right?
If they've got an emergency use authorization for an untested, dangerous new drug, and that's the reason that they're thwarting our ability to talk about the solutions that are available to us, then let's just fucking buy them out already!
Right?
And if that's Elon, then it's Elon.
And if it's a group of people, then it's a group of people.
But there's no reason to crash planet Earth over that.
This is basically a shareholder activism argument.
I guess it is.
It's the little fish rising up enough, I think.
I've never even imagined acting with that strategy.
That's profound.
Why wouldn't we do it?
Well, cash.
Capital.
Right, but the point is, okay, I ain't got it.
I don't think any of us have it.
Well as you've done, my friend, I don't think you've got it.
Not quite in that category.
No, but you know... But you've done your part.
I can speak to something... Assuming we're not silenced.
I don't know if YouTube is going to go and say this violates their policy.
We talked about ivermectin.
We're going to find out in a few minutes whether we're even still on the internet.
My guess is we are or somebody would have found a way to alert us.
Well, I'm getting all these texts.
I don't know.
It's a signal.
It's a signal.
But in any case, look, I do think this is way easier than shifting people to electric cars.
And it's a hell of a lot easier than going to Mars.
Can we just try this one?
This is a, hey, practice saving planet Earth kind of a plan.
And it's right there in front of us.
And everything adds up.
And the thing is, The thing that's really glorious about Elon is he is way smart enough to look at the same data that we've looked at and reach the only conclusion you could reach if you look at it, right?
He'll see it.
So I have to be careful here.
I'm a consultant.
One of my clients is a very, very large Indian conglomerate.
Um, run by one of the wealthiest men in the world who, um, the tax law there is basically requires companies to tithe into a nonprofit.
And one has awareness.
Your comments spark a link.
In that setting, that very large multi-billion dollar non-profit, a fund that's been created, is actively investing in novel solutions of the kind that we're talking about.
For the rural poor in India and so that I think one of the things that I have we haven't talked about but the global kind of geopolitical what comes out the other side of the sausage machine thing is
We're facing a future where pharmaceuticals and vaccines are largely produced offshore.
We are losing or have largely lost our pharmaceutical industry here in the United States as a consequence of this kind of kookiness.
And it's the odd thing is, as you say, use the term market regulatory capture.
Problem with those kind of situations is you get protected industries and they're not able to continue to compete on a global stage.
And I fear with good reason and knowledge and experience.
That we're well along that road and it's hard for me to see a future, basically I'm going to use slang, where China and India have not eaten our lunch.
No, and you know, the thing is, this actually dovetails with the, if you zoom out and you look at planet Earth with respect to the question of vaccines and off-the-shelf, out-of-patent drugs, Somehow, whatever it is that looks a lot like extended regulatory capture is putting the United States behind.
Exactly.
Right?
How is it we botched the initial reaction to COVID and now we're going to botch the solution?
Everybody else is going to reach for ivermectin because it works and they're going to figure it out.
They already are.
Right, they already are.
And other agents, not just ivermectin.
Sure.
Other repurposed agents?
Fluvoxin.
You can take ivermectin as a prototype.
Inhaled butyrosinide.
And you know, it's the one, maybe there are others, but it is the one that seems to me like a safe prophylactic response, which is really the key to making it drive COVID to extinction.
But so anyway, If there's a group out there or an Elon that wants to do this, the key thing is you have to buy out the interests of the obstructionists who are making billions and evaporating trillions and inadvertently, I assume, killing tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, ultimately, potentially millions of people.
And the other thing you have to do is you have to ratchet up a campaign to generate these agents and to get them to the people who need them so we can drive COVID to extinction, which really does, to me at least, look readily possible.
Okay, so I have a different solution.
All right.
Elon tweets a link to this video and he says everybody should watch this.
This is very, very, very important.
He has 50 million Twitter followers and with 50 million you've got scale.
You guys are operating in a world that I don't touch, and so I defer to you and your knowledge of these things.
It's a different world than I live in, and I wish you godspeed, quite literally.
And I hope, you know, like we said about extinction of COVID, I hope I'm wrong and you're right.
Yeah.
I've hoped I was wrong many times in this video.
I fear that's not the case.
So there's another solution, too, which is that everybody who is watching this video, I think, has a social responsibility, moral responsibility, ethical responsibility to retweet this, share it on, you know, whatever social media, LinkedIn, Facebook, the employees.
Of these companies also, if you're an employee of Facebook and LinkedIn and Twitter and so forth, that if you see your company acting in a way that is actually where they're taking this, where they're promoting misinformation or suppressing legitimate information, then
You know, the only thing that can stop, the government is not going to stop these companies from doing the wrong things, but the employees of these companies can say, this is not acceptable for humanity, and I will not work for a company that is basically telling people to get the safe virus, that is running ads that says ivermectin doesn't work, that is censoring
Like how do you, if you work at Facebook, how do you think about working for a company which is censoring these vaccine victims who are trying to get support and trying to understand what can I do about them?
And this company is censoring those people.
And what we don't have is these people don't have a voice.
The people who have died.
I think that's crucial what you just said.
The people who have died from this vaccine Don't have a voice.
The people who, the doctors who want to speak out cannot, because they don't have a voice, especially if you got any kind of NIH funding, if you're in academia, you speak out, you will never see a dime, you will never get a drug approved again.
These agencies have a long, you know, People, I need to, you know, so I'm trying to be the voice for the voiceless, for the vaccine victims who are ignored by the mainstream media.
And I just got a tweet yesterday from a woman who says, I run a support group, and one of our members And a voice for the children, right?
- Okay, can I jump in on this?
'Cause that-- - No, no one was listening to her.
And yeah, can I, let me finish.
Okay.
And a voice for the children, right?
Because who is gonna speak for the children, right?
Who is going to be the voice of the children here?
And to speak up for them.
And so we have all of these people who are afraid to speak up.
And I was told, Steve, they told me, let me advise you, don't touch this issue.
It's a third rail.
If you touch it, you'll vanish.
I was given the same advice.
You know and and look and my I really acknowledge you're taking the risk here because YouTube may totally demonetize you your your income will be wiped out and What you're doing is trying to spread Information that's all factual.
Yeah, but it goes against the narrative But what choice and so people people so people are afraid to speak out and you know everybody I asked is Every single person I asked said, Steve, do not do this because you will get shot down, you will get gaslighted, people will not believe you, and this message of early treatment then will never be heard.
Yeah, but if not this, what?
And if not now, when?
That's really what it comes down to.
Robert?
Two things.
The irony is that the RNA story went through this same thing, where it got suppressed and shut down and was considered to be crazy talk.
Okay?
That's a small thing.
Many years ago.
That's a small thing.
Riffing off of your speaker for the dead, which is kind of what you're saying, I'd just like to throw in that I'm in close contact with the long hauler community.
And like your story, a member of that community recently committed suicide.
And there was a huge outpouring in social media.
Particularly in LinkedIn, in the long hauler chat groups of other people that have been suffering long hauler syndrome that feel, you know, hopeless and helpless.
This is, you know, the parameters of depression and are also at risk for suicide.
And, um, speaking, you were speaking to employees of IT companies, um, If we can't allow these people to even have a voice, then they're completely disempowered.
It's as if they are written out of history.
And I think that if you want to make a case for a moral obligation, We must let these people who have no voice to at least speak to each other.
If we're not going to listen to them as a public health community, let's at least let them talk to each other.
They have an absolute right.
Yeah.
Absolute right.
These people are suffering, whatever they may be suffering from, they have an absolute right to discuss it with others who are suffering.
Thank you.
Absolute right.
Yeah, I was trying to look for the message.
Yeah, well, for what it's worth, I'm getting these messages, too.
And people are clearly losing their lives to suicide, among other things, because it's so horrible.
And how much worse does it make it when you're being gaslit and told that it isn't a thing and you're not allowed to talk to others?
It's an impossibly cruel situation.
All right, I think we have to bring this to a close.
I think we've covered what we needed to cover.
I must say I am very grateful to you both.
I regard you both as extremely courageous for speaking up.
This is not an easy topic to speak up on.
I know it's not safe for any of us.
I do hope that whatever it is that needs to coalesce out there to fix this problem, we'll hear what we're saying and figure out how to put it into motion.
If we haven't gotten it right, Then that's fine.
There's some way to do this, and it's got to happen now.
And frankly, the clock is ticking because every month that we don't do this or do something, we are giving COVID-19 time to evolve to become a permanent fellow traveler, which will be an absolute tragedy for humanity.
