The War on Ivermectin: Bret Speaks with Pierre Kory on the Darkhorse Podcast
Bret Speaks with Pierre Kory in the wake of his recent book publication. They discuss the governmental and pharmacological campaign against Ivermectin, an effective prophylactic and treatment measure for Covid-19, and the harm done. Buy Pierre’s book: War on Ivermectin (https://www.amazon.com/War-Ivermectin-Medicine-Millions-Pandemic-ebook/dp/B09T4K2YTV)Find Pierre at the FLCCC: https://covid19criticalcare.com/ ***** Find Bret Weinstein on Twitter: @BretWeinstein, and on ...
I had no idea when I stood up what was going to happen.
I literally thought, like when you talk about the testimony, Brett, I mean, I thought the science, the review that we had done was going to be warmly embraced.
Like I actually literally was trembling.
I thought like ivermectin would be deployed in the systematic prevention and treatment of COVID worldwide and that things were going to be different and better.
And then my same thing that happened to you.
I mean, my career, you know, I lost three jobs.
I'm out of academic medicine.
My academic career is over.
And I also have a new, a new livelihood and I'm actually quite happy about it.
But the transition was difficult, but I didn't know that was going to happen.
I didn't volunteer for that.
Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast.
I have the pleasure and honor of sitting this morning with Dr. Pierre Corey, who many of you will know from the COVID pandemic writ large and from Dark Horse.
He made a previous appearance on Dark Horse, which was taking off like wildfire before YouTube removed it and struck our channel.
And in some sense, Pierre, I think, is it reasonable to say that that podcast allowed you and me to mutually ruin each other's careers?
Oh, that would be the understatement, Brad.
I think you're, I was already in it, but you launched me like right onto the front lines of the battlefield.
And you know, we've, we've taken some hits and suffered some casualties, but we're, we're still standing.
Yeah.
Yeah.
We, um, I would say we, we have lived to fight another day, uh, an achievement about which I am quite proud.
Me too.
And, uh, it has been an honor to fight alongside you, Pierre.
It's, it's, um, You have been one of the very bright spots in a very dark period of history.
I don't know, it's a very moving statement, Brett, because it's... I know you've been through a lot, and in some ways, I feel like you almost got it worse than I did.
I mean, you really... I don't know, I think you were more well-known, and so there's more people to attack you, and yeah, it's been rough, but I wouldn't change it for the world, and I thank you for everything you've done, and we've been just trying to do the right thing, that's all.
Well, I think we both, you know, took some heavy fire in our own domains.
I almost, not even almost, I feel worse for people like Paul Merrick, who, you know, is a colleague of yours who I didn't know until you pointed me in his direction.
You know, you clearly have, you are motivated by your anger at what was done to patients and to citizens during the pandemic.
And it activates the fighter in you.
And you and I are a little different in this way, but I have a similar reaction to it.
Guys like Paul Merrick, I feel, you know, this was a good doctor who He was not supposed to be thrust onto the front line of some battle in which he would be accused of all kinds of vile things, right?
This is a guy who cared deeply about his patients and he needed to be left alone to take care of them.
So as bad as what happened to you and me is, I feel worse for people who didn't train for it.
Yeah.
You almost contrasted me and Paul, and I think it actually would be a fair contrast.
I fight with my fists, and he fights with his heart.
I think he has a lot of sadness.
I think we both have a lot of anger, but I think he's more sad and tender about it, and I'm just really angry.
Our first sponsor for this episode is new to us.
It is Betterbiome, maker of knobs.
N-O-B-S.
It's a new kind of toothpaste, and it's fantastic.
In fact, we started using this product several months ago and approached them rather than the other way around.
Betterbiome, that's biome without the E on the end, is a brand that I first found and brought to the rest of my family's attention.
Now we are all using their fantastic product every day, and can attest that they are telling the truth when they say that they are a brand focused on transparency, safety, and effectiveness.
Let's talk fluoride for a moment.
Fluoride is, of course, the anti-cavity ingredient in most toothpaste that you already know about.
But as we discuss in our book, the fluoride that we encounter is not in a molecular form that is found in nature, and it has never been a part of our diet.
And ever more research is pointing to neurotoxicity from fluoride exposure, especially in children.
Nobs, from Better Biome, doesn't contain fluoride.
But that in itself does not make it unique.
Many oral care products are now abandoning fluoride as the research continues to emerge about toxic effects.
But unlike competitor products, Nobs includes a different and far better remineralizing agent.
Nobs uses hydroxyapatite.
Hydroxyapatite is the main component of the enamel in your teeth, and is in your bones as well.
It has been extensively studied in medicine and dentistry and is as effective as fluoride in remineralizing teeth without the toxicity.
Hydroxyapatite doesn't just stop cavities from forming, it can even arrest tooth decay once it is underway.
Furthermore, even most natural toothpastes that are free of fluoride still have lots of abrasive ingredients like charcoal, baking soda, eggshells, Nobs has none of these things.
Nobs also contains no sulfates, parabens, phthalates, microplastics.
No BS.
It's right there in the name.
Furthermore, Nobs comes in the form of dehydrated tablets, which allows them to be shelf-stable without any preservatives.
Take a tablet, chew it, and then brush as you normally would.
Your teeth are going to feel fantastically clean because they are.
Also, unlike with toothpaste, TSA has no interest in knobs because they're tablets.
So if you're flying with knobs, you don't risk losing it in security.
So check out knobs at www.betterbiome.com slash darkhorse.
Remember, biome without the E. B-E-T-T-E-R-B-I-O-M dot com slash darkhorse.
Listeners can enjoy 15% off their first one month supply of knobs from now until July 17th, 2023.
Our second sponsor for this episode is House of Macadamias.
Trees aren't edible, I speak from experience, but tree nuts are delicious and nutritious.
They are generally high in fat and low in carbohydrates, and contrary to what various food pyramids and government agencies might have led you to believe, high-fat, low-carb foods are increasingly understood to be both satisfying and good for you.
Each species of nut is different, however, and for many of us, macadamias are the best nut there is.
Academia nuts take a very long time to grow, however, and because they are both rare and highly sought after, they have the dubious distinction of being the world's most expensive nut.
Between the taste and health benefits, though, they are worth it.
They have even fewer carbohydrates than most other nuts, for instance, half of what cashews or pistachios have and two-thirds of what almonds have, which makes them the perfect snack for breaking a daily fast and controlling blood glucose.
They're also uniquely rich in omega-7s, including especially palmitoleic acid, an unsaturated fat that has been linked to natural collagen production, fat loss, and heart health.
And House of Macadamias is intent on making this amazing food accessible to everyone.
They have partnered with more than 90 farmers in Africa and now make one-of-a-kind vegan keto and paleo snacks.
These include their dark chocolate dipped macadamias and a delicious assortment of bars made with 45% macadamia nuts in flavors including salted caramel and chocolate coconut.
But our favorite product of theirs is the simple salted macadamias made with Namibian sea salt.
They're amazing, we love them, and we think you will too.
House of Macadamias also makes a delicious macadamia nut oil, which is 100% cold-pressed, rich in monounsaturated fatty acids, and has a higher smoke point than olive oil, so it's well suited to high heat cooking and baking.
And they've just introduced delicious nut butters.
You can imagine how good those taste.
Our House of Academias highly recommends House of Macadamias for all your macadamic needs.
For a limited time, House of Macadamias is offering listeners a free box of their bestseller Namibian Sea Salted Macadamia Nuts worth $35 with your purchase at houseofmacadamias.com slash darkhorse plus 20% off your whole order with the code darkhorse.
Once again, that's www.houseofmacadamias.com.
Use Dark Horse for 20% off your order.
You won't be sorry.
Our final sponsor for this episode is Vivo Barefoot, shoes made for feet.
All right, unless you are driving or operating heavy machinery, I want you to try this exercise.
Look down at the ends of your legs.
Do you see feet?
Okay, then this message is for you.
Everybody should try these shoes.
Most shoes are made for someone's idea of feet, but not Vevo's.
Vevo's are made by people with feet who know how to use them.
And word is spreading.
People often approach us because of the Vevo's that we are wearing, saying they've heard they're good.
And they are.
These shoes are every bit as good as you have heard.
Here at Dark Horse, we love them.
They are beyond comfortable.
The tactile feedback from the surfaces you're walking on is amazing, and they cause no pain at all, because there are no pressure points forcing your feet into odd positions.
They are fantastic.
Our feet are the product of millions of years of evolution.
Humans evolved to walk, move, and run barefoot.
Modern shoes that are overly cushioned and strangely shaped have negatively impacted foot function, and are contributing to a health crisis.
People move less than they might, in part because their shoes make their feet hurt.
Enter Vivo Barefoot.
Vivo Barefoot shoes are designed wide to provide natural stability, thin to enable you to move more, and flexible to help you build your natural strength from the ground up.
Foot strength increases by 60% in a matter of months just by walking around in them.
Vivo Barefoot has a great range of footwear for kids and adults and for every activity from hiking to training and they have everyday wear.
They're also a certified B Corp that is pioneering regenerative business principles and their footwear is produced using sustainably sourced natural and recycled materials with the aim to protect the natural world so you can run wild upon it.
Go to vívobarefoot.com and use the code DarkHorse15 to get an exclusive 15% off your order.
Additionally, all new customers get a 100-day free trial so you can see if you love them as much as we do.
That's vívobarefoot.com and use the code DarkHorse15 at checkout.
Yeah, really.
Well, I appreciate your anger.
Before we get going here, let's just frame this a little bit for people who might be joining this discussion late, who maybe weren't there for the initial Dark Horse episode and don't know what we're talking about.
You came to my attention as the most prominent voice I hate to use the word advocating because advocacy is not the role of a doctor nor of a scientist, and it's a term that's pointed at us frequently, but you were the leading advocate for the idea that we had tools at our disposal that we were not using during the COVID pandemic.
I saw a now quite famous piece of testimony that you gave, a quite impassioned speech to the Senate, was it?
Yeah.
About ivermectin.
And as you probably remember, Heather and I had our own trajectory with ivermectin where, you know, initially We believed what we had been told, that this was a drug that maybe had initially shown some promise, but that scientific study had proved it was ineffective.
And then when we just scratched the surface of that claim, we discovered all kinds of shenanigans.
There's a moment on Dark Horse where I literally think what I said was, what the fuck is going on here?
Right?
There was too much bullshit surrounding Ivermectin for this just to be the normal fog of war.
Somebody was monkeying with our ability to even understand what it might be useful for.
At which point I found your testimony, and anyway, the die was cast, I suppose.
But in terms of framing the discussion...
You obviously have a new book out about the... You want to show your book?
Yeah, so I have it right here.
So it's called, oddly or aptly, The War on Ivermectin.
The subtitle is The Medicine That Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the Pandemic.
Excellent.
Now, you asked me to blurb your book, which I was able to do.
And I think actually that blurb might help people understand why, you know, many people have the sense like, what does it matter now?
And It matters a great deal now that we understand what happened to Ivermectin, even if the potential utility of it is now greatly reduced by the endemism of the virus.
Could you read that blurb?
Yeah, so I just want to say how honored I was that you wrote support for the book, and yours was one of the most moving.
So here's what you wrote, Brett.
The COVID-19 pandemic changed the world.
Among the most profound changes was a coup by public health bureaucrats against doctors and the traditional practice of medicine.
Medical professionals and scientists were told how to think, and those who bristled at the new order or at the broken logic it dispensed were ridiculed, censured, and cast out.
There was to be one and only one answer to the pandemic, a pair of unprecedented, barely tested therapeutics portrayed to the public as safe and effective vaccines.
The only hitch in that plan was that these novel therapeutics couldn't possibly get FDA approval fast enough.
Instead, these brand new shots would need to get emergency use authorization, which, because of the danger of experimenting on the general public, required there be no available alternative.
That requirement is why an all-out war has been waged on ivermectin, a drug that safely and effectively treats and prevents COVID, but isn't worth money because it's no longer under patent.
If the truth of ivermectin were ever recognized, it would bring the full criminality of global COVID policy into stark relief.
The War on Ivermectin tells this shocking story in vivid detail from the vantage point of Dr. Pierre Khoury, a heroic and highly decorated ICU specialist who spent every minute fighting on the front lines of this dirty, covert war waged by pharma and its governmental captives against doctors, patients, and all the citizens of Earth.
Yeah, that does encapsulate the significance of your book, of what happened regarding ivermectin, and I would ask anyone who is listening to this podcast
If you have not confronted the evidence of malfeasance surrounding ivermectin, please put aside what you think you know, because the amount of money that was obviously spent to create a false impression
surrounding the utility of ivermectin with respect to COVID and it has two different kinds of utility which we will talk about but that vast sum that was clearly spent and the tools that were brought to bear to demonize anybody who saw or even glimpsed the truth here is in many ways the the deepest layer of what I think of as
Kind of a red onion pill, right?
It's not a red pill.
COVID is a red onion pill because there is layer after layer and the deepest layer involves an unholy alliance between governmental functionaries, members of the press, tech platforms,
To make consideration of ivermectin unpalatable, and to portray those who somehow escaped that labyrinth appear like quacks.
I mean, including you, a highly decorated doctor, and by far not the only one on this side of the question.
to portray you as lightweights or as Sam Harris famously mused, possibly schizophrenic for your belief that there might be some value to this drug.
That edifice that was created really tells the tale of what has happened, I think, to civilization, right?
This was a story that illustrates the reason that we are losing the ability to govern anything well.
100%.
You know, Brett, you just talked about that unholy alliance, right?
And you just listed the governmental entities, the media, the social media platforms.
And, you know, I want to add to that on Holy Alliance, or really what that alliance is built on, because this is what's been exposed to me.
I think the deepest and most powerful lesson that I've learned is, and I don't know how I'm going to say this, but it's the deep rot at the core of medical sciences, which is to say, really at the level of the clinical trials.
You know, prior to COVID, I had a general implicit faith and trust in the institutions of society.
Brett, I'm sure you were much more worldly than I was before COVID in terms of what the media, you know, the narratives and the propaganda in the media.
But, I mean, I believed in the New York Times.
I believed in the high-impact journals.
I thought the best science and scientists published there.
Like, if you got published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that was like, that's like the pinnacle of your career.
And I thought only the best studies made it.
And what I discovered in COVID, and which is really strange because this has been well documented for decades, right?
So, you know, I always quote Marsha Angel, the Dr. Angel who was the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years.
And, you know, she stepped down in 2001 to write a book about how Pharma was literally running the journals.
That's 20 years ago.
By the way, Brett, they don't teach that in medical school.
There's no class in medical school which is about the scope and the scale and the influence and control of the pharmaceutical industry, of literally the medical sciences.
That Unholy Alliance, all of that, and what my book is structured around is really it's a case study in how disinformation is practiced.
Literally, as defined according to the Disinformation Playbook, which was really invented by the tobacco industry.
These are tactics they use to counter science that's inconvenient to their interests.
And they've been, you know, all industries practice disinformation and they all use the same playbook and it's using that alliance, right?
They control agencies and media and now social media.
I would say what is unprecedented, Brett, is, you know, when I look at the history of media and propaganda, I mean, it's been going on for a couple hundred years.
I mean, there has been huge, you know, newspaper barons who owned, you know, you know, multitudes of papers.
And so there was always control over narrative.
But now, The ownership of media is so consolidated and concentrated.
I can't remember the exact stat, but I think five or six companies own almost all media, at least mass media.
In order for the media and the agencies to do what they did, they needed the science to support that narrative of the horse dewormer, ineffective.
I just want to finish this point on that.
I have a chapter in the book called The Big Six.
And the reason I call it the big six is because it was literally six trials that were unique.
Okay.
So they were unique in terms of the fact that they were large, heavily funded, done by highly, I wouldn't even say respected, but very accomplished researchers.
But they were the only six out of, for instance, all of the early treatment trials, they were the only six where literally every investigator on that trial was drowning in conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry.
And they were heralded as the top, as like the answer to all answers, right?
These were the most rigorous, high quality, randomized controlled trials.
And each of those six were published in high-impact journals, and they were the only trials that generated massive media campaigns, right?
Every time they were published, front page New York Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, all around the world, ivermectin found to be ineffective.
And so I guess my point is that Unholy Alliance is founded upon the science, the literal conduct of science.
They manipulated trials both ways.
They can create trials designed to show something doesn't work.
They can manipulate trials to show that it works, and safety and efficacy and all that.
And we saw so much.
It wasn't just ivermectin, right?
I mean, we saw it with hydroxychloroquine.
We saw it with the vaccines.
I mean, they just They literally control science.
And so whatever they conclude in those high-impact journals is what everybody believes.
And that was astonishing to me.
Listen, I'm an old liberal, right?
Big Pharma was always a four-letter word, right?
No one ever trusted Big Pharma, right?
I mean, their history is profoundly actually criminal.
But what I didn't know, you know, I always thought they were manipulating things at the edges.
They might hide a few things that, you know, that was inconvenient to them.
I didn't know that they run the game, like literally run the whole game.
Yeah, so you mentioned the question of whether I might have been a little more worldly.
I think I probably was, but only because I went through a different ringer 20 years ago with the work I did as a graduate student on what I thought was a purely abstract evolutionary question.
I didn't realize that I was stumbling into a realm that had medical and therefore monetary implications.
And having seen what took place there, whatever naivete I might have had, Vanished.
I think I looked at your work, Brett.
Yeah, I'll give lots of people who are familiar with the podcast will have heard this story before, but the short answer is what I discovered was that there was a flaw in the model animals, specifically mice and rats, that we were using to do all of the early testing, you know, a lot of the scientific work and the early safety testing.
For drugs and that the flaw in question which I believe arose accidentally But it biases these animals in the direction of being extremely resistant to damage.
That is to say they can repair almost any level of damage that doesn't outright kill them.
And so if you give them a very toxic drug that destroys cells, it may actually cause these animals to live longer because it interrupts the cancers that they are preternaturally prone to.
Now I don't know, I don't think Pharma understood that until I put it together.
But I then, there's a story about the attempt to prevent my work from getting published, but I did ultimately publish it.
I pointed directly to the implication for drug safety.
And that was 20 years ago.
Literally, as far as I can tell, the only thing that has happened is a lot of backroom double dealing in which the pretense that there's no problem or that if there was a problem, it has been solved without any discussion of how that was done, right?
That has been sort of spackled over this giant hazard.
And because the flaw in question A, seems to be likely explanatory for things like the Vioxx debacle, similar cases with FenFen, Gleevec, Erythromycin, all of the NSAIDs.
Because it seems to be explanatory of something in which human beings are injured and killed, And because there was no interest, what I thought as a young graduate student 20 years ago was that even if there was something broken about our system that would not have been eager to take care of this problem, that the embarrassment of not taking care of it would have been so profound that it would have been forced to address it directly.
And when I saw Zero Movement and when I attempted to raise this issue in the press, And it was like a bell that didn't ring, right?
It was like a dream where there's a bell and you're trying to ring the bell and you hit it and there's not a sound.
That experience told me there's something, the physics of the universe that I am now in do not add up, right?
And I believe that what happened is pharma realized, oh, we've got mice that buy a safety test into making drugs look less toxic than they are.
Well, you'd have to be crazy to fix that.
That's why I think we're still stuck with it.
But anyway, that did, let's just say, raise my awareness about the possibility of very major things being wrong.
Let me ask you a question about that, Brett, because it's intriguing.
Basically, what you learned with your inconvenient science is that they have the capacity to suppress and or ignore, or just basically somehow make that not known.
Did they Did they actually do any studies that conflicted with yours?
Because that's the other thing, right?
All they need to do is inject doubt, right?
So they can do a study showing that you're wrong, right?
They can find the opposite conclusion to what you conclude, and that's kind of what I see them as the most effective way of neutering inconvenient science.
Well, I think a couple things are true.
As is always the case, these things have a conspiratorial component.
The JAX lab, the place that is the source for the vast majority of the mice used in scientific experiments and drug safety testing, has somebody, since my work was done, who is nominally in charge of mouse telomeres, right?
But one gets gobbledygook when one tries to chase down what that actually means.
Are they monitoring?
Is there some record of the length of the telomeres in the colonies?
Can we look at what the current state is?
And one does not get a straight answer.
So at some level there has to have been a meeting or meetings in which they decided a strategy to not upend their business, not have to redo all of that safety testing.
On the other hand there's an awful lot of emergent behavior among scientists and others who know which side their bread is buttered on that looks like a conspiracy but doesn't, it didn't function like one.
So, for example, if you know in what way the mice are misleading, that gives you a mechanism to predict the outcome of experiments that would otherwise be unpredictable.
Hmm if you can predict the outcome of experiments before you run them Then you can look like a genius and you can publish important papers in the New England Journal of Medicine or wherever else Because you look like you're just excellent at science Where instead what it really is is, you know where the bodies are buried and how to interpret the bias So anyway, a lot of people I believe in the cutthroat world of medical science
Once they realize what's going on, do they want to kill their careers by trying to call attention to it, or do they want to ride that wave?
And those people may never have been brought in on any conspiratorial conversation.
They're just getting ahead.
So no, I don't want to detract from a discussion that should be about your book and about the war against Ivermectin, but the one thing I did want to say is
You're talking about the degree to which pharma, yes, not only influences, but has effectively fully captured journals, medical schools, medical associations, governmental regulators, all of the pieces of the puzzle necessary to create a totally fictional world.
Yes.
Which is what they tried to do during COVID.
Yes.
And so I call this the pharma game.
And they and I think part of what people don't get is Yeah, you know 20 years ago.
We all knew pharma was a problem right and like you we all believed.
Oh, it's probably Altering the science enough to matter yeah, not writing it out a whole cloth right exactly So we're looking what we're really looking at is The evolutionary product of the world we all thought we lived in, right?
Pharma having too much influence over regulators instead of it is the regulators, it is effectively the puppeteer And it is moving these puppets around to create the impression that science is being done to ensure the safety of the public.
It's not true.
100%.
It creates the impression.
Absolutely.
And it's worse than nothing.
Because the thing is, if you didn't have regulators, if all you had was your doctor and a bunch of pills, your doctor would be in a position to notice and to discuss with other doctors, hey, I don't think that pill is safe.
Maybe stay away from that one.
But the impression that is created through the journals and through this phony scientific work actually causes, I'm sure it causes, doctors to override their doubts about safety.
Right?
How could it not?
Maybe I'm seeing, you know, maybe the pattern I'm seeing isn't really a pattern.
Maybe it's sampling error.
And I know that because, hey, here's a large study that seems to suggest exactly the opposite.
Well, that's exactly it, right?
I mean, the doctors, you know, when I think about medicine, I mean, not really my career, but if you look at the history of medicine, like, you know, some of the seminal books from the 70s, I mean, the pharmacopeia at that time, the amount of medicines that we were using in disease, I mean, it was very small, right?
Now you have Huge amount of medicines, right?
All coming through pharma funded trials and all that.
And your point is correct.
I mean, the average doctor, you know, they essentially, they have an implicit faith and trust into those institutions, right?
The journals and the people who do the studies.
And they think that there's an integrity, there's a code of ethics, there's, you know, all of these things.
And they'll believe what they're told.
And what's shocking to me, Brett, is how much they so easily believed.
One thing, you talk about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
We know that doctors are too busy.
They don't really read studies critically.
They'll read the abstract.
First of all, even to read studies critically I mean, you really have to say, like, what didn't they put in this paper?
Like, what is missing?
Like, there's so much things that you find out when you really think about a paper.
And, you know, all these anomalies, like they'll present certain data in certain papers and leave it out of others.
You have to ask, why'd they leave it out?
You know?
And so, but doctors, they read abstracts and, you know, and especially an abstract from the top of medical journal in the world.
I mean, that abstract is thus truth, right?
It's almost like one of the, you know, the 10 commandments from the mountaintop.
Right.
And how much they just, you know, like, I guess I use the example of, like, for me, like, this unveiling, right, of the scope and the scale of this capture and control, you know, was slow.
I mean, it was slow and iterative during COVID.
I mean, I was learning these, I was finding these astonishing and really disturbing facts of these things that they were just divorcing themselves from even pragmatic science or even These were policies divorced from science, and I was like, how can they do this?
How are they getting away with this?
And I will tell you, the day that I remember being really the most upset and disturbed was the day that the FDA put on their website that there's no evidence to support checking antibodies before vaccination.
When the vaccines came out, my good friends and colleagues who were internists, who had offices, their patients were coming to them for guidance around the vaccine.
Their initial gut reaction was like, take a history.
Did you have COVID?
That would be one way.
Or check antibodies.
One of my colleagues, he was checking antibodies.
If you had a positive antibody, You can skip the vaccine.
But here we had, you know, a governmental agency telling the entire country of doctors that this thing called natural immunity, which is, as an evolutionary biologist, Brad, I think you can speak about natural immunity more than most.
I mean, this is literally how we've survived, right?
Through history and viruses and, you know, organisms.
And suddenly, some words on a website, and the entire country just goes with it?
Without critical questioning?
Without a discussion?
I mean, there was some stuff around that, but like, how did they cancel or disappear natural immunity with one page of a website?
I mean, we were vaccinating people who just recovered, Brett.
I mean, you know, the worst story I've heard, not the worst, I don't want to qualify it like that, but I had a patient once about a year ago, she was a pharmacist who worked at a hospital.
And she told me that the hospitalists at that hospital were vaccinating COVID patients upon discharge.
Wow.
And yeah, that to me was a wow moment.
I said, wait a second.
You know, because there is some precedent to that, like with flu, like people come in for some other reason during flu seasons and, you know, the doctors will offer them a flu shot because they're captive right there.
It's like, hey, you're here, we'll give you a flu shot.
So flu shots kind of, you know, is like kind of a checklist upon discharge.
So like, I get that.
But here you had patients admitted for COVID, survived COVID, still probably a little rocky.
Not all of them are well, but they're ready to go home.
And you're going to vaccinate them?
Well, it's incredibly foolish for multiple independent reasons, right?
It's like late 2021.
It's like, guys, we're using a two-year-old protein.
And anyway, your answer that when you said, wow, that was what I said that day.
I just literally was like, what is going on?
The world has gone mad.
Well, it's incredibly foolish for multiple independent reasons, right?
On the one hand, and I guess the thing that's really frightening about this is anybody who's gone through medical school ought to be able to piece one, if not both of these together.
One, the history of vaccine safety is not a clean record until 2020.
There are lots of cases where vaccines that were promising did not get through safety trials because they were dangerous, and there are cases in which vaccines that were released were withdrawn because they turned out not to be safe.
So the idea that vaccines are safe is dead on arrival.
That is not a true idea.
If vaccines are safe, it's because we're good at the safety process.
In this case, you had so-called vaccines that were A, highly novel in their mechanism of action, really unprecedented.
And B, the safety testing at best was truncated by time and there is no way to accelerate safety testing because part of what you're looking for are long-term effects and so there is no way to know that there wasn't something lurking five years out, right?
So a doctor should be interested in taking anybody off the list of candidates that they can take off without a cost even if these vaccines were highly effective and there were no harms that had been spotted you should still want to vaccinate as few people as you have to because the potential of hurting somebody in some way that we didn't yet understand was something you couldn't take off the map so
natural immunity that should be like oh what a relief we don't have to take any risk with you because you got through it your immunity is going to be better than this vaccine which provides one antigen it's not broad it's it's almost stupidly narrow it's an old antigen right from a variant that is no longer circulating so thank goodness we can take you off the list and not expose you to that risk every doctor should have seen that and then on the other side the part that's maybe harder to spot
is you're dealing with a layered set of complex systems.
What happens when you take somebody who has just recovered from the current circulating version of a disease and you inoculate them with something that triggers the production of a closely related antigen while their immune system has not fully stood down from the infection it just beat?
Right.
Does that make them more susceptible in the future?
Does it make them less?
Does it cause the immune system to think that it has failed to fight off the infection and to go into some kind of overdrive that we don't understand?
There are a dozen ways that could go wrong.
It's super complex.
And then the related question, Which we've explored a little bit, is what happens when you give someone a vaccine for that narrow, old antigen, which is now quite different, right?
It's mutated, it's not the right, and we know a little bit about that with flu, because they've always done, you know, they're always a day late and a dollar short with the flu vaccine, but this was, this is even more, I think it's even more mutagenic than the flu.
I mean, this thing was rapidly changing.
Rapidly changing, I think, in part, or in large part, because of the vaccination campaign itself, which creates an almost absurdly concentrated evolutionary pressure which drives the virus around.
But in any case, the obvious caution that should attend medicine when confronting a novel therapy was simply not there.
The desire, it was like a religious desire to vaccinate people rather than a, hey, we've got no choice, we've got to do a lot of vaccination, but let's figure out who doesn't need it, right?
You know, Brett, I mean, you're making, the way you lay that out, right, just makes so much sense.
It's pragmatic, it's prudent.
Those are all principles that you would think a doctor would employ, a physician would employ.
And let's be fair though, Brett, you know, what you're, the reason that you just articulated There's a percentage of doctors who did approach and I think thought of it that way.
Some, a very tiny number, stood firm and stuck to those principles.
But if you look at the population of physicians in this country, I think there was a large percentage who just believed what they were told, that they didn't have critical thinking.
But the one that's most troubling is that percentage, and I don't know what percentage that is, who knew this was wrong and were coerced.
They realized they couldn't put up resistance.
If you did, you were going to be shunned and vilified and even unemployed, right?
I mean, if you were in your office and you worked for an employer and you started telling patients, you don't need the vaccine, you don't need the vaccine.
You're not around long.
And those who thought it was the right thing because all the Fauci's and the experts and all the societies were telling you to vaccinate everyone, so you thought you were doing, you know, the best science.
I think there's a lot of physicians who literally thought, like, because the expert said so, it's the right thing to do.
The best scientists and the best minds in the country in medicine are telling us to vaccinate anything that moves.
So let's do it.
But there was a proportion, I think, that thought like you, Brad, and they went along anyway.
That's true.
For the purpose of understanding the Ivermectin story, I would just, simply within the confines of this conversation, I would like to give them a temporary pass for reasons I think will become clear to you in a second.
Okay.
It is hard, and this has been hard for me as somebody who got ejected from his career and was forced to start another and then had that one interrupted by YouTube in part because of the podcast.
By me!
It's so dangerous that YouTube decided to move against our channel.
But as somebody who has faced, who has been driven now from one mechanism to another for earning a living and keeping a roof over my family's head.
I have a hard time judging people that I don't know and whose circumstances I don't understand for responding in disappointing ways to intense pressure in their professional realm.
I want them all to stand up, but I understand that most people aren't built for it, and I also know that some people Yeah.
And that's, that's totally a fair statement.
You're right.
I mean, not that I should be more forgiving, but more understanding in a way.
And I get that.
I mean, you know, yeah, it's, it's not easy.
It's not easy.
And here's the thing though, Brett, like the things that you did and you stood up for, When you did them, though, you didn't know what the consequence was.
I didn't know what was about to happen.
Here's the example.
When I meet people, especially in the bubbles and circles that I travel in now, generally I meet supporters, people who understand, they follow our science, they believe in our guidance.
You know, people will say things to me like, you know, thank you for standing up your courage.
They'll use words like hero.
And I'm like, the actual truth is I had no idea when I stood up what was going to happen.
I literally thought like when you talk about the testimony, Brett, I mean, I thought the The science, the review that we had done was going to be warmly embraced.
I actually literally was trembling.
I thought like ivermectin would be deployed in this systematic prevention and treatment of COVID worldwide and that things were going to be different and better.
And then my same thing that happened to you.
I mean my career, you know, I lost three jobs.
I'm out of academic medicine.
My academic career is over and I also have a new livelihood and I'm actually quite happy about it.
But the transition was difficult, but I didn't know that was going to happen.
I didn't volunteer for that.
Had I known, would I have done it differently?
I'd like to say there's no way I would have done it differently.
I would have done the same thing, but I really didn't know.
And when you talk about these other doctors that I was kind of like being quite critical to, you know, I do think they're in a different position because they know fully well what those consequences are, right?
Because they've seen what happened to their colleagues who stood up or stood out.
And so, yeah, I think that's a different calculus than- No, I'm going to stop you.
I know you're trying to agree with me and I'm going to disagree with you because I'm not saying they shouldn't have stood up.
And you're right.
I didn't know what was going to happen to me.
There was no guarantee.
And frankly, I want to live in a world where people do what you did.
I want to live in a world where people did what I did.
And in such a world, we'd be better off, right?
What we face now is a collective action problem where people who keep their head down do better and people who stick their head up are punished.
And that is a world that belongs to pharma.
So I'm not intending to make some kind of I'm just saying, I'm hesitant to judge people, especially if I don't know their circumstances.
And for this conversation, I just want to acknowledge that not everybody, maybe they all should, but not everybody has what it takes to stand up in the face of what you and I both know firsthand was an insane level of coercion and pressure.
And the reason that I want to grant them that temporary exemption here from what I think is their moral responsibility...
Actually, I will just go back and say we are talking about violations of the Hippocratic Oath and the Nuremberg Code.
So this exemption doesn't get you very far, right?
Those things, those are sacred principles for good reason.
But the reason to grant a formal pass is this.
It surprises me, but it is true, that people are more awake to what took place with respect to the so-called vaccines than they are to what took place with repurposed drugs.
And I would also tack on vitamin D, which was barely mentioned during the pandemic and should have been front and center.
So people get that something happened to them with respect to the vaccines.
People get that something Caused their doctor to ignore their natural immunity, caused their doctor to ignore the innate immunity of their children, that something wanted them vaccinated in spite of the fact that nobody could have known these things were safe, and in fact on closer inspection they knew they weren't, right?
So the fact that people are awake a bit on the so-called vaccine question, to me, should have them say, now wait a minute, If I can see how far the reality was on the so-called vaccine question only a couple years out, right, the distance between the narrative that we were sold and the reality we can now see, then I know
That there is something massive, distorting perception in this area.
And my question really, with respect to many people who have gotten pretty good on the vaccine question, but still can't see what happened to ivermectin, is why are you so damn sure of yourselves?
Shouldn't what happened on the vaccines cause you to throw out everything you think you know and start over analyzing, right?
If you think randomized controlled trials prove that ivermectin is ineffective against COVID, are you willing to look at what was inside of those trials?
Because it's shocking, right?
This is the same story as the vaccines.
Yeah, so you know that's been That is a really great question, right?
So, yes, in people's awakening or awareness now of what happened around the vaccines and the manipulations and suppression of the data, the coercion, and then clearly that there was an incentive to have those things successful, right?
So, you know, why aren't those lessons Applied to, like you said, other areas of science.
I think it's a very natural thing.
So the other thing I think of is like literally the mirror image of the vaccines was repurposed drugs.
And I'm just going to call someone out as the most shining example of what we're talking about with this inability to see past the vaccines is really Alex Berenson.
Yep.
I think he is the most glaring example.
And, you know, I've had the opportunity to talk with Alex.
Like, we were on Steve Kirsch's podcast where Steve was really excited.
He wanted us to have a debate.
And, you know, we tried to get Steve to come.
Now we're just going to have a discussion.
And it was a very professional discussion.
I was very polite and I was, you know, I was trying to teach Alex.
I was like, Alex, You know, and I commended him, Brett.
I said, listen, Alex, your work on the early calling out of all the anomalies and aberrancies and all of the really the fraud from the trials and to the suppression of data and the misrepresentations of the efficacy of, I said, your work has been great.
And I think he's made a big, really positive impact by getting people to be really cautious and questioning these vaccines.
And yet he comes out And he holds up those big six trials, which are just reeking of fraud and conflict, and he holds them out as like the pinnacle of science.
And he goes on Joe Rogan, he says, ivermectin is no better than a placebo.
And I talked, I said, Alex, I don't understand why you don't see that for the vaccines to be successful, and those that want it successful, It was required that they destroy the science around repurposed drugs.
Like, it's not a complicated concept, Brett.
I mean, that lesson that you just gave as an example of the vaccine, that lesson should guide us in questioning all of those things.
And the incentives to destroy repurposed drugs were the same incentives supporting the vaccines, and they used the same tactics.
Just one, they wanted to, you know, the narrative that they wanted to create is that it's safe and effective, and the other one is that it's an ineffective horse dewormer.
But they were two hands of the same body.
Yeah, it just makes no sense to me, right?
As soon as you discover that a wobble in a planet's orbit implies some other gravitational body, right?
Now the point is okay.
What else does that explain?
And the desire to shortstop the, you know, it's like the scales fell halfway from their eyes, right?
That doesn't make any sense.
Look, at worst, let's say ivermectin was a fiction, had no relevance to COVID, which one should not expect for multiple reasons.
Once you actually understand That this is a drug that is actually surprisingly broadly useful against RNA viruses.
The presumption should go the other way, but nonetheless, let's say that it was a total fiction.
At worst, you throw out what you think you know, you go back to the The evidence, and you arrive back where you were, because the evidence holds up.
Like, what have you lost?
In fact, you're on a much more secure footing, having thrown it out and arrived at the same conclusion twice.
Whereas, if you actually do this exercise, and you say, well, what would have to be true for these trials to be wildly misleading about the utility of this particular drug?
Well, they would have to be either built to fail in some subtle way, or they would have to report evidence in a misleading fashion that it created a false impression of no efficacy.
Actually, both of these things are in there, right?
They're right there to be found.
Now, the fact that it took incredibly smart people weeks to unpack what actually the methods meant in order to figure out how the trials were built to fail, right?
That's a story in itself.
No method section should be so complex that it takes a group of people, you know, weeks to unpack what was actually done.
The method section should be straightforward.
Yeah.
But, you know, let's take, for example, the Bizarre and as far as I know as yet completely unexplained BMI cutoff for the increasing dosage of ivermectin.
Ivermectin is a drug that is dosed based on body weight and of course COVID is a disease in which the hazard of the disease goes up spectacularly with excess body weight.
And so in order for, you know, so basically people who are thin are at much less risk and so you would expect a drug like ivermectin to be much less useful because they're not going to get sick.
100%.
And so you would expect if this was a highly effective drug you would see it in people who were obese.
Yep.
And what do you find in the methods?
Very subtly you see the methods if you read them uncarefully they have a decent accelerating dose that goes up with BMI, but cryptically there's a cutoff at which for no reason they stop increasing the dose, which means it specifically underdoses the patients who are likely to be sickest and therefore creates the impression that the drug is not effective.
Brett, that point you made, for someone like you or me, when I see that, I know exactly what they're doing.
There is no rational explanation.
Never before, so ivermectin, it's used for decades, given out across continents to rid the world of parasitic diseases.
It also happens to be an antiviral, as we know.
In the decades of use, never has anyone heard of a weight limit to dosing.
You dose it per kilogram body weight, period.
It distributes to the fatty tissues, you have more fat, you can need a higher dose, right?
And suddenly in these trials and COVID, and I like how you say, like, I don't think it's even that subtle.
What I find is when you read the methods, it's just simply stated.
It's not like, you know, they give you their rationale or they just say, you know, this drug in the intervention group, it was drugged according to this schedule.
And anyone above, let's say 85 kilograms, 95 kilograms received that top dose.
And it's just stated there as if that's normal.
So a casual reader will just read and say, okay, they had an upper weight limit to dosing.
I'm sure it was because of safety, right?
Safety, Brett?
Is that what it was?
But that's what someone would presume, that there's no nefariousness there.
When I saw it, I was like, what is this weight limit?
And then you have to ask yourself, then why would they put a weight limit?
If it's an extremely safe drug, it It's dosed according to weight.
Why would they do it?
And there's only one answer to that, right?
Which is what you said, is that it's a brilliant way of mitigating or trying to disappear the efficacy.
It's going to be strongest in the obese.
The highest risk is where you're going to see the biggest benefits.
It's not that subtle, Brett.
I don't think.
It's not that subtle.
I mean, again, you know, your point about doctors reading abstracts, this is scientists too, and it's an expected effect of the competitive nature of these disciplines.
Right?
People are trying to get the biggest bang for their buck, and there's diminishing returns in reading the details of the papers.
So people economize, and it's wrong, because the bodies are buried elsewhere, you know?
A mentor of mine used to joke, he would say, may all your abstracts come true, right?
Abstracts, you know, are their own species.
But in this case, especially, you know, and Alex Berenson, How could somebody who understands as much on the vaccine side be as easily duped as he's been on the repurposed drug side?
Right?
It's just not that hard, right?
If you go look and you know, frankly, the work has been done.
We now do have a very good description of exactly how these trials were built to self-sabotage.
And then, I mean, the irony of ironies here, of course, I'm not telling you anything you don't know, is that you've got pharma, which is expert in making trials that make drugs look better and safer than they are, and expert, it turns out, in making drugs look less effective and less safe than they are.
And it sets up trials to fail, designed to fail, and the drug is good enough that they don't actually fail.
The efficacy is still reflected in these trials if you look at the data.
If you look at the presentation, it's quite different.
And so, you know, how much of this do you have to see before you have the equivalent of my what the fuck is going on moment?
Yeah as soon as you see that it's like well I can't tell you what the truth of it is but I can certainly tell you I don't trust this paper.
I mean that that point you just made right which is you know I I'd like to laugh at some things, although this topic's not funny, but they're expert at manipulating trials.
They design trials with predetermined results, and that's described in the disinformation playbook.
Tobacco did it.
They've been doing that for decades.
You know, with Ivor Macdon, I found it fascinating because here you have the top guys who know how to do this, right?
Farmers literally writing these protocols for them.
They put every little trick in the book to try to bear the efficacy.
And Ivermectin was so good, they had a lot of trouble disappearing that signal, Brett.
You know that.
They had to resort to stuff that, you know, you normally don't see them have to resort to.
And I think my favorite, not my favorite, I don't want to say favorite, but the most potent and brazen example was the NIH Active 6 trial, where they had to do something which is considered a never event, which is changing the primary outcome in the middle of the trial.
And they changed it, right?
They were looking at a difference in illness, I think symptom severity, at day 14.
That was the original protocol, which makes sense for a viral illness.
You want to see who gets better by day 14.
And in the middle of the trial, without prevailing any data for why they did it, They switch it to, no, we want to compare how people are feeling at day 28.
And in the actual paper, you see that at day 14, there's a profoundly statistically significant difference in favor of ivermectin.
So, if you're a trialist there, and your farm is running these agencies in these trials, suddenly your researchers are telling you, Houston, we've got a problem here.
We have a profoundly statistically significant benefit that we've identified at day 14.
What are we going to do?
The answer?
Let's change the endpoint to day 28, where that's statistically significant.
By the way, it's still beneficial there, it just wasn't statistically significant.
Yeah, it wasn't statistically significant, which somehow, you know, because the press is undereducated with respect to science, journalists will translate into no effect, which is absolutely and completely unjustified interpretation.
You know, I have been persuaded by my own scientific journey that the philosophy of science matters tremendously, and almost nobody is educated in it because it's boring and seems like a different field and all of that.
And this is a case where the The alteration, the moving of the goalposts in the middle of the study, it renders the entire exercise completely scientifically invalid.
Invalid.
Brad, if I did that in a trial, let's say I did a study.
Imagine the speed of the rejection from the journal When I actually submit my paper and they see that I changed my endpoint, moved the goalpost, in the middle of conducting a study, they would say, I'm sorry, we can't publish this.
You've committed a scientific trial wrong.
I'm sorry, Dr. Corey, this invalidates whatever you found.
At the level of evidence, it invalidates it.
At the level of behavior, it's fraud.
Yep.
Right?
The thing that makes science work is the directionality of the observation, right?
You have a pattern, you observe it, you hypothesize a possible explanation, you formulate a test based on the predictions, and then you run the test.
It has to go in that order where there's no science in it.
If you knowingly take the prediction And you modify it to match the data.
You have taken something that is anti-scientific and you have dressed it as if it was science.
Which is, not only is there no information in your study, because we don't know where else you did that, but the intent evident in your modifying, you're moving the goalposts mid-study is to deceive, to lead people to believe that the evidence says one thing rather than what it actually said, right?
You are required, even if you think your study found sampling error, right?
To the extent that you are interested in publishing this study, you have to publish what it actually found relative to the actual predictions, which in this case come in the form of this particular measure that was then altered mid-study.
100%.
That's fraud.
You described the scientific method, right?
And you talked about then tested.
And here, there's some rules on how you test things, right?
You come up with a study design and you say, I'm going to compare these two things in this way.
And that's what you got to stick to, right?
But here I want to go a little further, right?
So you called it out.
First of all, it's anti-science.
It invalidates the study.
I like how you called out the behavior is fraud, right?
The act is anti-science and invalidating.
The behavior is fraud.
But let's go further there.
That study Sailed to publication in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which is literally, I think it's number two or number three on the highest impact medical journals in the world.
Published that study, Where they changed the endpoint in the middle.
And there was really very little mention of it.
It's not even a limitation.
And of course no one talks about it in the media.
No one's like, oh, Jama just published a study, but they moved the goalpost in the middle.
And what's even more crazy, and I'm sure you've seen the table, because Alex Marino did such good work on dissecting these trials.
I mean, his work is unparalleled.
in the stuff that he's done.
And he's not even a physician.
I mean, he's a polymath.
He's brilliant.
But I mean, the comprehensiveness and detail of the work that he did, I mean, I learned a lot about, I learned way more shenanigans in these trials than even I could pick up.
I've learned it from Alex, right?
But you know, Alex highlighted the table that's published in the actual paper.
So it's so brazen, where they show the difference at day 7, day 14, and day 28.
And you can see the statistical significance.
You see that it was highly statistically significant at day 7, day 14, and then whoops, just falls under statistical significance at day 28.
So it's screaming from the paper In the Journal of the American Medical Association.
There's no discussion of it.
So that to me would be like exhibit A in a courtroom of evidence that pharma runs these journals.
A hundred percent.
And I would just point out, like, let's say, all right, you've recovered from COVID and you go to the doctor and the doctor says, all right, let's get you vaccinated.
Right?
So let's suppose you know what it means that you've recovered from COVID and you realize, hey doc, how much do you know about the safety of these novel vaccines?
And what happened to natural immunity?
We know that that's the best immunity.
What's more, if I look at these vaccines, there's no way it could possibly compete because the antigenic choice is so narrow and the antigen is of a variant that's no longer circulating.
So you hear, okay, your doctor is advising you to get a shot that can't possibly be safe.
and cannot possibly compete with the immunity that you've already got.
And the same doctor is telling you, yeah, if you get COVID or you're exposed to somebody who has it, ivermectin doesn't work.
At the point that you discover that your doctor is
In some way downstream of some distortion that has caused them not to look out for your best interests with respect to these so-called vaccines, at the point you know that they're needlessly exposing you to the risks of a novel therapy, when that same doctor tells you that actually repurposed drugs are not effective,
Then you should wonder whether the very same distorting influence has caused them to miscall that one as well.
And what I see almost across the board Is people assuming that the embarrassing revelations surrounding the so-called vaccine campaign are the limit of what happened?
For some reason, the sophisticated position is, yes, but ivermectin didn't work, which is obviously nonsense.
That was the ceiling of the corruption and fraud was the vaccines, right?
And they don't see how much further and deeper it went, right?
Um, and I don't, I don't think they understand.
Well, I mean, this is really the core issue.
Yeah.
Um, they do not understand what the pandemic would have looked like if we had played differently with respect to repurpose drugs and vitamin D, right?
If we had applied those things, Look through pharma's eyes.
At the level of how profitable this would have been, it was spectacularly profitable as it went down.
How profitable would it have been if we went on a campaign to correct people's vitamin D deficiencies and had applied ivermectin as a prophylactic when people were exposed to COVID and then treated them with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine if they came down with COVID.
What would the pandemic have looked like?
I feel like I want to raise my hand and be like, call on me.
I want to answer that.
All right.
I mean, Brett, we know the answer, right?
It would have obliterated those massive marketplaces that opened up with this pandemic.
I mean, overnight, you had a marketplace in north of $100 billion, right, for the pricey patented pharmaceuticals and the vaccines.
First of all, it obliterated that market.
That's one thing.
That was what they were trying to avoid.
But we know it would have changed the face of the pandemic.
We've seen it in places that use repurposed drugs.
If you didn't have hospitals filling, you would have very few hospitalizations, very few deaths, very little morbidity.
It would have changed the entire experience of this pandemic.
It would have saved millions of lives.
I want to say something about vitamin D, because you brought it up.
I think it's highly relevant to me and my book.
There's an anecdote that I talk about in the book, and I think you may have heard this before.
What happened after my testimony?
Here I am thinking, I'm bringing forth this news to the world that's going to be warmly embraced, and everything goes sideways real quick.
And I couldn't figure out what was going on, Brett.
You know, within two days of my testimony, the Associated Press calls for an interview.
I mean, me and the team are so excited.
We're like, yes, the Associated Press is going to bring forth this news to the world.
And you know what happened.
I mean, it was a complete hit job.
You know, I spent 20 minutes of my life, that I'll never get back, explaining to this reporter, providing all of the data, all of the evidence, and then what gets published is this attack on ivermectin.
They don't even discuss ivermectin.
They just lump it in with another medicine to be debunked, like hydroxychloroquine.
Like, it was bizarre.
Like, they don't even talk about it.
Okay, so this hit job happens, And everything continues to go sideways for months.
I knew that the big hands of Pharma was everywhere.
I knew we were fighting probably some corruption.
But it was only in March of 2021 when I received an email.
I received an email from a guy named Professor William B. Grant.
He's one of the top published researchers on vitamin D in the world.
He spent decades studying vitamin D and publishing on its impacts.
He wrote me this two-line email.
He said, Dear Dr. Corey, What they're doing to ivermectin they've been doing to vitamin D for decades.
And then he put a link to the article which kind of, you know, structured the book.
It was called the Disinformation Playbook and it's written by the Union for Concerned Scientists.
And I clicked the link, The article's really well written.
It's very simple.
It's this graphics, and they just outline the tactics that pharma does to bury science that's inconvenient.
The tactics are named after football plays.
It's the fix, the fake, the diversion, the screen.
They give examples of each play and how it comes about.
I read it, and it was like, Like a light bulb, like this click.
Suddenly, Brett, like in an instant, everything I'd experienced in the prior three months, you know, the retraction of my paper after passing peer review, like that we knew.
We knew that.
We were like, that's Bill Gates.
I mean, we just knew that, you know, or Pharma.
I mean, when my paper got retracted after passing rigorous three rounds of peer review and then suddenly that is like, nope, we're retracting.
You know, we knew the fix was in, but You know, the disinformation playbook article was much more broad.
It showed you all of the tactics that they use.
And when I'm looking at the plays, I'm like, I saw that today.
They're doing that to us, you know, this week.
That happened three times last week.
And like, I just saw everything.
It's like having the teacher's edition to what was going on in COVID.
I felt like I, And from that point on, from that day on, I saw the world through a very different looking glass.
And I just could see everything.
And by the way, those tactics and what they do, that's not just ivermectin, right?
Or even medicine.
It goes into many other topics that are in the news.
And so, Anyway, I wanted to bring up vitamin D because not only was it this research on vitamin D, but let's talk about that.
What I've learned about vitamin D science since then Is that like, and I learned it because I saw an article, I think it was in Forbes or in Time Magazine, the headline was like, stop with the vitamin D already.
That was the headline.
And it was this long article basically reviewing all of the summary analysis of what vitamin D has been tested against.
Many, many different diseases and illnesses and cancer.
And this article basically said that in these meta-analyses, when you combine all the studies of vitamin D, it essentially doesn't work for anything.
But the reality is, The published literature on vitamin D is so heavily polluted with manipulated trials that they've essentially been able to cancel the efficacy of vitamin D. They've been doing that for decades.
I mean, there's a massive body of literature which concludes That it doesn't work, right?
Because for every positive trial, they will create one to show it doesn't work.
And so all you need to do is inject out or neuter or have conflicting evidence.
And then everyone can determine that in the end, it doesn't work.
And, you know, that vitamin D thing, you know, I remember thinking in the beginning, like, we need a national campaign.
We need billboards out there.
Go to your doctor, check your vitamin D level.
We needed printed protocols for how much to supplement in the newspapers, right?
I mean, any rational public health official would have done that.
And even if there were any doubt about how well it works, and I don't think there could be any reasonable doubt, but even if there were doubt, It's effectively harmless up through some incredibly high dose.
And so the point is, you know, if it was a placebo, fine, you could make an error.
But the evidence that it was profoundly useful is overwhelming, if you know how to look at evidence.
And I would also point out The implication of the story you just described, that there is a vast sea of phony literature designed to create doubt about the efficacy of vitamin D. If you just simply evaluate that and find out that it's true, that you have a lot of studies that seem to cast doubt on vitamin D and that those studies are built to fail, for example, then the implication
is that pharma in a general way because vitamin d is so general in its implication is willing to make the population sicker because it sells remedies 100 right and that is a very troubling fact and really you know i think everybody who's listening ought to ask themselves this question that's a very provocative statement that pharma might be willing to make the population generally sicker because it creates remedies it's
And the answer is, that's a challenge, right?
If you found that that was not true, then it would cast doubt on your and my ability to understand evidence and to recognize patterns of bad science.
And if it is true, then it casts doubt on all of the things that you think you know because studies tell you.
Because you don't know how far the influence goes.
I want to talk about that, Brett, because that's literally what happened to me intellectually, philosophically, morally.
I feel estranged from medicine now and from many physicians.
When you think about how long they've been—and the way you characterize it, right?
You're literally putting forth this notion, which is really disturbing to contemplate, which is that You have an industry that is in the business of corrupting medical evidence so that you don't take something that can protect your health because they want you to develop more illness so that they can make money.
They need more customers, right?
That's the simple way of saying it.
I mean, you put everyone on a good dose of vitamin D, you are going to shrink your customer base and for numerous diseases.
And so you have an industry that's capable of working directly, you know, violating public health and the health of our community and our society, and that they've been doing this for decades.
And then you have to also ask yourself the question, Brad, is what else have they done this with?
So if you want to believe what I'm saying about vitamin D, then you're going to ask, what else have they destroyed over these decades?
And I mean, vitamins are one thing, right?
They've destroyed vitamin C and vitamin E and A.
You know, but lots of therapies have been destroyed like that.
And so then you're left with the unfortunate realization that the modern practice of medicine is highly curated around, you know, a discrete set of quite profitable interventions.
Things that don't make money or that protect health, you know, are not going to be taught and they're not going to be disseminated.
And so the last thing I want to say on that, Brett, because it kind of, it refers to what you were saying earlier about
You know, realizing, you know, if you've suspected that something wasn't right around the vaccines, and you've gone further, and you listen, like the example that doctor you gave, you know, who's telling you to take the vaccine even though you got over COVID, and then he's saying, don't take those medicines because they're ineffective horse dewormers, and you know, like, wow, this distorting influence has now kind of captured my doctor, And my doctor's not making sense.
I want to say how I see that now.
So where I go, Brett, you know, the places I'm asked to speak and lecture or conferences that I go to, a lot of them in the medical freedom movement, the people who come up to me are nothing short of terrified of going to their doctor.
Many of them have abandoned their primary care practitioners that they've seen for even a decade or two because they'll go into the office.
He's wearing a white coat and he's not making sense.
He's not making sense.
And he's telling them things that they know will directly threaten, if not maim them or their health.
And so how do you go to someone who you've always sought counsel to who suddenly doesn't make sense and is giving you advice that is directly contrary to your interest and your welfare? - Sure.
Yes, I feel like I've been on a lonely quest to make a particular point.
And I think there's something about the terminology that is just It's an unfamiliar thought pattern, and so I have trouble getting people to see it.
But the point is, medicine and public health are not synonymous.
Nope.
Right?
And public health is predicated on something true, which is that there is a population level set of questions surrounding health.
Right?
That if you optimize for individual health, you may end up with results that at the population level are suboptimal.
Right?
With respect to, for example, epidemiology and immunology, right?
The ability to get a large enough percentage of the population inoculated with a good vaccine that prevents a communicable disease.
You do not want people necessarily optimizing away small risks to their own personal health if it creates a large number of cases that didn't need to be.
Right.
Now, I have become skeptical that any governmental authority can be trusted to adjust the difference between individual health and population level health in an honorable way.
And I think we all have a sacred right to protect our individual health, especially in a landscape with as much obvious capture as there is in ours.
But nonetheless, analytically, there is a question to be answered about what we can do at the population level that is worth doing to improve health over the largest number of people.
However, what happened during COVID, as I said in that blurb to your book, was a coup by public health authorities and in my opinion deeply corrupt public health authorities that were not interested or were delusional about what would maximize health across the population.
A coup against doctors who practice an ancient art on its best days medicine is a science but on an average day it's an art in which people who are expert in looking at ill health deploy a limited set of tools and advice to increase the well-being, health, and longevity of their patients.
Sounds good to me.
What happened during COVID was that doctors were effectively forbidden to do that.
They were forbidden to develop their own understanding of how this disease progressed, who was at most risk, They were forbidden to deploy what they knew about the hazards of unknown therapeutics, right?
They were told what to think, and they were threatened if they departed from it.
Yes.
Has not been reversed, right?
The pandemic may be over, at least formally declared to be so, but the damage done to the power of doctors, the damage done to their credibility, and the damage done to their right to do what they train to do is ghastly.
And it leaves those of us who need doctors, which is frankly pretty much everybody at some point, In a very bad position.
I experienced this fear.
I don't, I don't want to go to a doctor who I know recently allowed themselves to become a puppet of pharma.
And I don't know, you know, they literally couldn't tell me if they had realized that they had been making terrible mistakes for three years and they're over it.
How exactly are they going to convey that?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, you, you've summarized the issue and I mean, it's, You know, the fact that we do need doctors, we're all going to need a doctor.
And, you know, those that are free from that oppression and coercion and control, you know, we still at least have a private practice system in this country.
And there are, you know, I like what Peter McCullough has said, you know, I think he once said that, you know, Literally, those that were saved from COVID, who were treated with these repurposed drugs, he estimated, I don't know where he came up with this number, but he basically said it's the community physicians that were in private practice, not working for health systems.
He thinks there's about 500 of them, and literally treated many hundreds of thousands of patients.
And but that's, there's not enough there to serve the needs of our society.
And so you're still left with a medical system with a history, because that's the other thing, Brett.
So let's say people realized what their doctor became in COVID, right, which is used to term a puppet of the pharmaceutical industry.
Well, then you have to ask, How long have they been a puppet of the pharmaceutical industry on how many disease models and around how many medicines?
And then that's where I was trying to tell you before, like what I'm learning now, Brett, so I'm in private practice.
I have a telehealth practice and I specialize in the treatment of vaccine injury and long COVID, which are very similar conditions.
You know, I take fees, I accept fees, I don't accept insurance.
I'm literally, I have that autonomy that's required.
And I will tell you, given the complexity of these syndromes and this disease, you know, I have to employ a whole range of different therapeutics.
And one of the cool things about that, Brad, is I'm learning so much.
I feel like I'm I am retraining in medicine, but now I have this really rich network of colleagues that I collaborate with that come from different disciplines, not allopathic medicine.
I have some brilliant osteopaths and chiropractors and naturopaths and even homeopaths, and I'm learning about all of these different therapies.
Three years ago, if someone had said to use, for instance, something as simple as hyperbaric oxygen, I would have been like, that's nonsense.
People claim that it works.
I'm actually able to deploy a number of different therapeutic approaches that no one would have ever taught me if I was still in the system.
But really, to break free from being that puppet, not only does medical education have to change, it has to be much broader than allopathic curriculums allow for.
But you're not going to get that if you go... I mean, medical schools in this country are literally controlled by the same entities we're talking about, right?
But I'm just saying there is... Let's try to maybe put that as a positive thing, although there's not enough folks like me and others to meet the needs of society, but I think that is the solution.
We do need...
We have to regain that autonomy, that freedom for critical thinking using risk-benefit and alternative analyses to the decisions and what we guide patients to do, rather than literally being coerced to following a protocol that's applicable to everybody.
You know, medicine can be really intellectually challenging.
That's actually what makes it fun.
of patients, their risks, and the coma.
Medicine can be really intellectually challenging.
That's actually what makes it fun.
I love thinking through cases and problems.
So when you talk about that puppet or that coercion, I do like to mention that prior to COVID, I had never in my career been told I couldn't do something.
I couldn't use a medic.
Like basically, you know, prior to COVID, Brett, the risk was on you as a physician, your malpractice.
So if you did something stupid, if you did something crazy, didn't have good evidence for it, or had some risks that were unacceptable, right?
That's on you.
Right?
So, you know, you do something wrong by a patient, you're going to bear the responsibility.
But here, not only the responsibility was relieved, but so was the autonomy, right?
So they just told you what you do, and then they held you, they didn't hold you liable for it, right?
Because you were following the guidelines.
And so- Well, it's worse than that, though, because Okay, they told you the advice that you had to deliver and the therapeutics that were allowed and they forbid you to prescribe off-label and they interrupted the ability to prescribe off-label at the pharmacy if need be, right?
But now that I hear you describe it from the doctor's perspective, the echo of the Milgram experiment is glaring because what I also, maybe this is what you were getting at and I'm just slow to catch up.
But the doctor who's been told what they're allowed to prescribe and been told they have no choice but to dispense this advice, to dispense this interpretation, right?
That doctor is absolved also of The horrifying experience of injuring or killing a patient through an accident, through a misprescription, drug interaction, whatever.
The point is, if you've been told what to do, if you've just become a medical cog who's dispensing Anthony Fauci's wisdom about how we're going to address this thing, and somebody dies, I think you would, you know, what choice did you have?
You dispensed the advice, the patient died.
That wasn't, you didn't choose the advice.
You were acting in accord with the best available science and knowledge and recommendations from authorities.
I mean, what could be more unimpeachable than that, right?
You were doing the best science out there.
And so you're right.
And then that is, you know, there's a little nuance you brought up there because, you know, we know that these vaccines are incredibly toxic and lethal.
And so there are physicians who, by doing that, they know that they've had patients.
I've talked to physicians who know that the vaccine was the proximate cause of death in their patients.
And yes, you're right, it does somewhat absolve them.
They don't have to carry that guilt of having made an error in judgment because they, by definition, were using the best judgment available.
Or supposedly, I guess.
Something was packaged in that way.
But allow me to redirect us here a little bit.
I'm getting something from your description.
I'm like relearning a lesson I knew, but I'm seeing it from a different spot.
There's a principle I'm fond of, posi-wid.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
Right?
It's the flip side of an evolutionary principle that I don't think has been well laid out, but basically the creatures you get describe the niches that are there.
Right?
If a niche is there, it's going to get filled by selection.
And whatever pharma started out as, There's an obvious niche that it has evolved to, it has mastered, right?
And the niche is how to create demand for products, right?
Demand for pharma's products are very rarely generated by health.
Demand is generated by ill health.
And so, you know, I would expect in a world where pharma had gained undue influence over our scientific viewpoint, that prevention would fall by the wayside.
I would expect that the contribution of a very well thought out diet would fall to the wayside in favor of advice that actually renders vulnerabilities and a friend of mine has recently been beating the drum in some
offline conversations about the possibility that the advice we have all gotten about the danger of iron deficiency is actually flipped on its head.
Yep.
I would expect pharma not to be in favor of life habits that generate happiness, satisfaction, etc.
And in thinking about this, okay, I've described a kind of a dystopian world in which this thing has evolved to interrupt these processes that make people need less pharmaceutical drugs.
On the other hand, when I think back through the pandemic, you know, there was a moment at which I realized this isn't Just wrong advice.
It's the inverse of right advice.
And in my mind, when I think about this, I think about the images of Signs closing off trails, outdoor trails, because of the pandemic.
Sand poured into skate parks where children might have done something that would have occupied them and made them feel good and gotten them in the sun and, right?
Just the idea that if it was good for you, something opposed it, right?
What it wanted you to do was go inside where you wouldn't make enough vitamin D, Or you'd be confined with anybody else who had the virus.
It didn't want you to treat until you got really sick, at which point viral diseases aren't treatable.
Right.
Right.
It gave you every piece of bad advice in the book, and it demonized anybody who noticed.
Right?
That does sound like a Well, here's the thing.
In evolutionary biology, we would draw a distinction between a parasite.
You might say pharma has evolved into a parasite that is draining health from the system for its own purposes.
But then there's another term, a parasitoid.
A parasitoid is a parasite that kills you.
I was going to say a predator.
I was going to use the term predator.
It's more than that, because there is death that's resulting.
A lot of death that's resulting, and what I'm wondering, you know, look, one has to be careful with thoughts like this, because you have to figure out how to falsify it.
But I have watched science come apart, right?
Biological science is no healthier than what you've seen in medicine.
Why is that?
Well, you can't very well have Do-gooders over in science testing bullshit marketing claims and discovering that they're not true and discovering that what you really probably ought to do is go to the skate park or take a hike and definitely get some sun and maybe sunscreen is something you want to use very sparingly.
Yep.
Right?
You can't have people doing that and so you more or less have to neuter the capacity of science to prove that you're lying.
And that describes what has happened inside of the university system, right?
The puppets who are dressed as doctors inside of medicine are dressed as scientists inside the R1 universities, and it is a lethal danger to civilization.
I don't know how much of it's pharma, but it's clearly a kind of spreading corruption.
But the system that you just described, right, that you would imagine it would be constructed with these features, I mean, you're literally describing the system we're living in, right?
Yep.
And then you consider the amount of people who are employed in that system who might not recognize the system in the way that you just described it.
You know, one point I wanted to make, this is going to be like another third rail of a topic, but when you talk about that system that has literally an incentive to create a population that is ill, right, and to make sure that all of the things that can make you well and healthy and happy are not, is what is advised, you know,
You know, from what I've, you know, what I learned about the COVID vaccines, not only I learned about Reaper, but it also led me to studying childhood vaccines.
And when you look at the history and the science that supports those vaccines, you learn some really, really uncomfortable facts.
And I would say one of the most glaring is the wealth of data showing the absolute explosion in chronic illness that's coincident with the explosion in the childhood vaccine schedule.
And so that to me is one of all of the things that we've already kind of talked about, Brett.
I mean, the things that I'm learning when I say that I'm estranged, I'm lost, I don't, you know, because everything that I thought to be true or at least had faith in that was operating, you know, with principles that I hold dear, you find that that's not the case.
And it's very disorienting.
And then to find what you think has been settled science, which is this, you know, the overwhelming benefit of childhood vaccines, you find that that's actually, that's got some pretty flimsy data to support, and it has very disturbing data that's suppressed.
But the point that I wanted to make is that We have so much chronic disease in this country at rates that you didn't see in the 70s and 60s.
I mean, there's numerous reasons, right?
Our diets have gotten worse and things like that, but the mechanisms of those vaccines and what's in them and how they really do That we've shown how they can cause chronic diseases, autism and ADHD and all sorts of things.
I know this is a troubling topic for people because, you know, how much can you bring someone along?
Like, I've come along slowly here, but I keep discovering this system at work.
So this is a very important, it is an uncomfortable topic, you know, but let's take a different version of it.
Okay.
Okay.
I came to an understanding that something about the Ivermectin story didn't add up at all.
And I said so, and Heather had spotted it.
We followed that road.
We discovered what you and I have been talking about.
I was very late to apply what I had learned about Ivermectin and the distortion field surrounding it to hydroxychloroquine.
So were we.
We were too, a little bit.
Yeah.
It's funny.
I just, and you know, at the point that I got to that, right, at the point that something woke me up that I needed to actually refigure what I had thought about it because everything I had learned about ivermectin meant that I didn't know anything actual about hydroxychloroquine.
And then, of course, it takes nothing to discover that what happened to hydroxychloroquine was purely political.
Right.
It was identical, but I, you know, I've made the statement, Brett, that, you know, I wrote the book The War on Ivermectin, but there's another, you could write The War on Hydroxychloroquine.
I mean, it's the same book and the same tactics, same playbook.
You're right.
There was some more political.
There was a political dimension because of Trump.
Right, right.
Political dimension because of Trump.
And you tell me if I've got it wrong, but I think Maybe just because ivermectin is so unusually non-toxic.
Right.
They didn't kill people with it.
Well, you brought up the point that I was just wanting to make, and I'm glad you made the point, is that, you know, when you look, so going back to what we were discussing earlier about some of these manipulations in the trials, and you look at how they designed ivermectin trials to fail, Their main tactics, so they used about four or five, and I'll just list them.
So one we already talked about, right, which is this ridiculous, unprecedented dosing limit, right, to these patients.
As soon as you hit a certain weight, you're not getting any more ivermectin.
So underdosing, you know, the highest risk.
The other is obviously treating as late into the disease as possible.
So they would enroll patients up to 14 days after first symptoms, which I can't say without laughing.
They use the lowest dose possible that they could get away with for the shortest duration.
No trial of ivermectin for a long time ever used five days.
I've never heard of an antiviral.
There's no antiviral out there that's ever used for less than five days.
So it's the lowest dose, starting late, mildest patients, capping the dosing limit.
I forgot that.
What's that?
You forgot fat.
And taking it on an empty stomach, is that what you're going to say?
This drug, because the typical use of it is for parasites where you want the drug active in the gut, in such a circumstance um, taking it on an empty stomach might make sense.
But if what you want to do is have it be absorbed, you want to do exactly the opposite.
It's fat soluble and you need, you need therefore to take it with something that has fat in it.
And they took great care to always tell people in those, in the big six trials to take it on an empty stomach.
Um, and then, and then they did a phenomenal job of making sure that the control group had abundant access to ivermectin.
So, so a lot of these trials, you know, I, I kind of, uh, I'd laugh and say, you know, it's pretty hard to prove that ivermectin is better than ivermectin.
Right.
And they knew that, right.
Um, but another, another egregious violation of, uh, the philosophy of science, but placebo group has access, but they, you know, they pulled those same, um, um, The same six tactics over and over and over again, but to the topic, right?
So I've long made that contrast.
So the tactics they used to prove that ivermectin didn't work was everything was about lowering, lowering, lowering, shortest duration, lowest dose, empty stomach, right?
Because there was a phenomenal dose response to ivermectin, which is actually one of the pillars to support the efficacy of a medicine.
Right, it's the thing that makes you know that it's not a statistical anomaly.
Exactly!
As you increase dose, they get better faster, viral clearance is faster, you know.
And so we knew there was a dose response.
And then the other thing about ivermectin, which is the point you were going to make, is that It's really hard to take a toxic dose.
I mean, first of all, in a massive review done by a French toxicologist, he came to the conclusion after reviewing the entire literature of ivermectin that no one has actually ever died from ivermectin.
No proven case was actually ever, he felt, provided credible evidence that ivermectin was the cause of death.
Now, there have been massive accidental overdoses, 100,000 times normal dose.
People do get sick, but it's self-limited.
They go to the hospital, they're a little bit neurologic toxic, you know, confused, disoriented, and they've all recovered.
Hydroxychloroquine, on the other hand, does have an upper limit.
And what do you know, Brett, in that system that you described, What do you know?
How did they do that big trial of hydroxychloroquine?
They literally used one of the highest doses, sublethal, that you knew was going to make these patients toxic, and they showed that people who got hydroxychloroquine did worse.
Yep.
They couldn't do that with Ivermectin.
If they tried that, people would have gotten better so fast.
Yeah, so I think that's interesting that these two drugs would have resulted in a different, you know, pharma had to play a different game with hydroxychloroquine.
But nonetheless, the point is, it took me a long time.
My point is that it took me a long time to go back and rethink hydroxychloroquine for no obvious reason.
It just didn't occur to me that I was harboring something that felt like it was based on evidence that actually, once I knew what had happened to the so-called evidence in the ivermectin case, of course I should have gone back immediately.
But I think a lot of people are stuck in that state where they know something was wrong here, but they haven't gone back and said, well then wait a minute, where do I need a fresh sheet of paper?
You know, so Brett, like you said, that you surprised yourself, I think, in that What you learned about ivermectin, you didn't kind of immediately apply and scrutinize hydroxychloroquine, which those lessons should have taught you to ask those questions of hydroxychloroquine, and the same thing happened to us.
You know, I would say with Paul and I on hydroxychloroquine, in the beginning, we both put a lot of value in the randomized controlled trials published in the high-impact journals, which all concluded that it was ineffective.
And we put a lot of weight on those trials for a while.
Paul would not recommend hydroxychloroquine.
I came around a little sooner than Paul because I would love to have a discussion on the differences between observational controlled trials and randomized controlled trials, but they're highly valid.
Observational controlled trials, I mean, yes, you do have to be careful on how you interpret them, but as a body of evidence, they're equal in their accuracy to randomized controlled controlled trials.
And when you saw the breadth of trials of hydroxychloroquine and the summary analyses of them, they all pointed to efficacy.
And I was impressed with the total body of evidence.
Paul put a little bit more, or he held on to putting a little bit more value on the high impact journal randomized controlled trials.
And he held that out as, you know, and I think that dissuaded him from recommending it.
But, you know, it took us a little while after ivermectin realized that they pulled the same stuff with hydroxychloroquine.
And I will tell you, you know what, you know what I think finally turned us and Paul?
Was actually chapter one of Bobby Kennedy's book, where he moves it out.
I mean, he tells that first chapter, I mean, he tells the story of what happened to hydroxychloroquine.
And when we read, you know, Paul became fully convinced then that we'd been lied to about hydroxychloroquine.
And we believed those lies for longer than we should have.
And, you know, Harvey Risch and Peter McCullough and a lot of the folks around the world who knew hydroxychloroquine was working, you know, I think they were disappointed in us that it took us a while to get behind hydroxychloroquine.
You know, and I've apologized to them.
I said, I'm sorry, we were so slow to figure that out.
And you know, that had really big implications.
I mean, that's also a massive loss of life around burying the efficacy of that drug.
And in fact, I think that created more harm than ivermectin because it was earlier.
Ivermectin was not really a strong candidate early on.
And some people, you know, there were a few who knew that was a strong candidate.
People like Robert Malone knew.
Robert had done, you know, years with him and his wife, consulting around identifying repurposed drug candidates for different pandemics and Ebola.
And in some of their throughput sequencing, they had identified ivermectin as number one, I think, against Ebola.
And so he knew a lot about repurposed drugs, and he knew all this stuff.
No, but I guess my point was that hydroxychloroquine, had that been deployed systematically in the prevention and treatment as it should have been from early on, that would have really saved the most lives because it was 2020.
It was right at the outset.
We had something that worked right at the outset.
You know, something in which we already had the manufacturing capacity to produce it in large quantities.
Yeah, so at one level, you have to look at this and try to extract the meta lessons.
Yeah.
Something that I still find it bizarre how comfortable it apparently is Depriving people of life-saving information and drugs.
Something decided to derail the right path for reasons that we can get back to in a second.
But there's also something about the lesson, the sociological lesson here.
You are finding yourself retraining in medicine.
Ironically because you're now freed from the very subtle controlling forces that exist inside the institutional structure of medicine.
Yep.
I've had the same experience in science where I find my Colleagues inside the system are constrained by things they don't even see in terms of what the bounds of responsible thought are.
And once you leave the system, it becomes clear how much nonsense is circulating.
And so, you know, the irony is we've got these Big hospitals full of everything you would need to practice medicine and these big beautiful medical schools that are perfectly set up to train doctors to think scientifically and to treat their patients.
And because this has all been captured and corrupted by pharma or whatever other force, and I, you know, it's at least pharma, maybe it's something beyond that too.
All of these structures Don't work.
They're actually counterproductive and you have this odd fact, you know, the people that you named, you know, McCullough and Malone and you and Merrick and Cariotti and you know we could go on and on Cole all of these people have been cast out portrayed as incompetent and they're the only people that you can actually trust
To give you an honest evaluation of the medical wisdom of something or the medical meaning of some pattern because they've already paid the price.
Right?
You have to stare down the accusations, and then yes, it does terrible things to you.
But at the point that it's done the terrible things, it's said, you know, literally, gee, I wonder if Pierre Kory might be schizophrenic, if that could explain why he thinks ivermectin works, right?
Once the system starts deploying that kind of outrageous slander against you, Then you are actually free to look at the quality of the studies, to look at the quality of the products, to look at the likelihood of these things improving health, to look at the obvious remedies that are sitting right in front of us that carry almost no risk and have huge potential upside, like vitamin D, and you can just simply say what is apparently true.
Now, it's interesting that you have the same experience, right?
You had to leave a system of science.
And I use the same term you use.
I call them system docs.
The patients who come to my clinic, the leading edge clinic, by the way, which is what we've called it, all of them have journeyed through the system.
And they've seen all the doctors.
And in particular, around vaccine injury and long haul COVID, You know, you're right.
The doctors in that system, they don't understand the constraints.
They don't understand how much information is being deprived of.
They're actively not being taught things.
There are so many things they don't know.
They don't know to question all the things that I now question, right?
Going back to that concept we talked about, like now, having had the experience of these three years, Now, not only did you say that I'm freed up to do all these different things, but I'm also, I've been trained now to ask questions at a level that I didn't know was that necessary.
I had a lot more trust and now I have so little and all I have is You can use the term skepticism or questions.
And the amount of questions of where the answers are disturbing, so like the history of SSRIs and statins and any number of things that are literally pillars of allopathic medicine, You're finding that we've been far too trusting of that system of medicine.
So yeah, not only am I free to practice what I think is good medicine now, and I can draw from so many different disciplines and approaches and mechanisms, many of which are extremely safe.
That's also the problem, right?
Because if it's really safe and effective, they don't want you to know about it.
So it is a very freeing thing, but also I'm intellectually free.
I'm much more inspired and questioning and open-minded.
I'm open-minded to the point I'd never been.
Literally, Brett, I mean, I hated vitamins before.
You know why I hated them?
And when I say hate, that's a strong word.
I was very troubled by the billion-dollar industry and peddling vitamins, which I didn't think were really adding to the health of people.
And I'm wrong about that, actually.
I'm not saying all vitamins are necessary.
I do think they're overused in generally healthy people.
But I was sick of reading trials showing that vitamins were ineffective.
The literature is so full of them.
I was just like, enough with vitamins.
Can we stop?
They don't work.
They're not good for anything.
That's literally what I used to think.
And even around some, you know, the way alternative practitioners are presented to allopathy.
I mean, allopaths are told, we're given this arrogance and these egos, right?
That like, we have the best science and medicine.
Like, a chiropractor is some lower form of practitioner, or even an osteopath or any other discipline is less than we are.
And actually, I'm finding There's another one.
I actually think the opposite is true.
Some of the doctors that I'm now working with and learning from are unbelievably effective at helping people preserve their health, treating illness in really safe ways using combinations of therapies I would have thought were uncredible before.
And I hope my transformation happens to a lot more because like we said before, this country is going to need a lot more.
The system of science and medical sciences is broken.
It's been captured.
People, we need to free more physicians from that system.
They have to know they have to be freed from that system.
And we have to preserve, I think, you know, I don't want to get really dark here, but we do have to preserve private practice.
Because, Brett, you know, if that system that you described, right?
What is your prediction if suddenly people flee the system and go into private practice?
And start doing things like I'm doing.
Oh, goodness.
What's the reaction there?
How is the system going to correct that?
That's a scary thought.
You know, you and I are both liberals.
And three years ago, I thought single payer was a great idea.
I wrote a thesis in graduate school basically describing Medicare for all.
That's literally what I wrote at the end of my master's degree in public health.
It pains me to think about that.
It's really humbling to think about that.
It's troubling because, I mean, I'm not even sure ... I think some of my listeners are going to have to listen very carefully to what I have to say.
I am terrified of things like single payer at this point because I understand the degree of capture that we face and the degree of power that that gives entities that are not interested in your health over the practitioners.
It doesn't mean that there is not, you know, were we to be able to rescue our governmental structure or build a different one that was resistant to capture, it doesn't mean there wouldn't be value in thinking about whether or not a single-payer system worked better than what we've got.
But, given the level of capture, I'm interested in changing the balance of power and having it be placed back in the hands of doctors who can handle it.
Um, and I now realize that all sorts of things, you know, um...
Insurance of any kind, whether it be a governmental program or private, the idea of standard of care, right?
All of these things become weaponizable.
Yes.
And the degree to which whatever it is that's doing the weaponizing is apparently comfortable with the atrogenic harm.
Yes.
Is spectacular.
So, I want to kind of emphasize something you said, because you're right.
I think you use single payer.
If you look at the structure and you look at it as a system, there are attractions, right?
There are efficiencies.
There's some comprehensiveness to it.
There's more inclusive.
I mean, there are real strengths that would on paper draw you towards a single payer.
And that's why I say it pains me when I think back to what I wrote when I was 20.
Seven years old, because the thing that I didn't understand was what you talked about, which is the fact that our system has been captured.
If you make it single payer, you're just giving them more power and control to really hurt.
It's actually bad for our health.
And I would also want to make the wider point, Brett, this is even bigger than medicine, which is one of the lessons I've learned in COVID.
Is the more you concentrate the power in a single entity or at a certain level, for instance, the federal government or the executive branch, the more that's concentrated, the more you put yourself at risk to that capture.
And and that really the answer is decentralizing it.
That's the only way to protect from that overwhelming concentration of because if you put your like you put all your eggs in one basket and that basket gets stolen, you're out of luck.
Right?
And that almost has political implications, right?
So for me, I'll give you another thing that I've had to rethink.
It's almost like I've had to rethink how I understood science, society, and life.
For instance, you said that we're both liberals.
So in a very simplistic way, I kind of always believed in what I thought was good government.
I actually thought government could be good.
And that it really was necessary to level the playing field.
And I sort of look back at some of the major policy improvements of last century and, you know, where you didn't have such a polarized society and all that.
I mean, I thought government did some really important things last century.
And I still believed I had a concept that that could still be possible.
But now I've had to almost rethink my political philosophy, because now Government is not government anymore, right?
It's really controlled by corporations.
I don't know if you want to go political here, but what's interesting to me, so like use the example of those doctors still in the system.
They don't know how they're being constrained.
They don't know how their thoughts and the information is being censored.
I had a recent experience where some in-laws came over, and I have a couple in-laws who are like, you know, diehard liberals, and they knew that I was liberal, and they, you know, they're very upset that I hang out with Ron Johnson, okay?
So like, that kind of liberal, right?
And, you know, as we were, I was having this talk, discussion, I'm listening to them talk, and I realized That I'm talking to someone who doesn't understand that the government's been captured.
And they were really highly supportive of the administration and the government.
And it was weird.
It's like, you know, I used to believe like you, but I can't anymore.
And I feel like actually liberals have now, they're not liberal anymore.
They're literally supporting corporations.
It's very strange.
They are captured.
In a way, rather like doctors who don't realize that they've been captured.
Yes.
Right?
And, you know, there's no more dangerous belief than blue no matter who.
Yes.
Right?
You're placing trust in a system that has zero claim to be trustworthy.
Yes.
Correct.
None.
So anyway, I...
Glad you raised this.
It brings us quite naturally to The Odyssey, which is a little book.
In the end of The Odyssey, Odysseus returns to the manor.
You will recall.
And he goes into the manor, you know, dressed in an inconspicuous, I think like a vagrant, and strings the bow and lays waste to the captors of the manor.
And I think the point is, this is not a liberal or conservative point.
This is a patriotic point.
Yes.
It is the moment at which Odysseus needs to string the bow and retake the manor so that we can have something like good governance, right?
Many of us have received an incredible education inadvertently and very painfully during COVID at what has actually dressed itself as if it was our government, but is actually acting against our interests.
- Yeah. - And it is that moment.
So sorry for the digression. - No, but I wanna say one more thing on that digression, because you talk about the manner and stringing the bow.
I have to say, so like my confusion and my stances on my thoughts towards government and politics have also been disrupted with this pandemic and learning what I've learned.
But you know, it was really kind of a very warm experience for me.
And I'm just going to speak plainly about it.
But, you know, I went to Bobby Kennedy's opening, you know, the opening of his campaign and that speech, that speech, Brett, I mean, Wow.
I feel like I'm going to get tears.
Literally.
I'm emotional about it, man.
Cause I listened to that guy and I just was like, I, I was so drawn to his message and his vision and his solutions.
Like he gets it.
He gets it in a way that's so deep and he's so pragmatic and studied.
And like, I was extremely moved.
He reminded me what I believed in.
You know, he reminded me where I came from and what I really think is true and right.
I found it very inspirational and very hopeful.
I hadn't had hope like that.
I hadn't felt true hope.
I felt a lot of despair, to be honest, Brad.
I'm kind of down about a lot of stuff, because this war's been hard, and I see so much damage and destruction, and it's getting worse, and I don't know, I don't want to make this about Bobby, but I do want to say that for me personally, it was a very restorative experience.
So, I'm actually thrilled that you saw that as the right follow-on point to my bizarre digression into the Odyssey.
Because it's exactly what I'm talking about.
There you go.
And not only is it exactly, I've tweeted out Odysseus 24 a couple times.
Nobody knows what the hell I'm talking about, right?
It gets no traction.
It doesn't land on anything that anybody recognizes.
But this is exactly what I'm thinking, is that, you know, And I don't mean to synonymize it with Bobby Kennedy, but he is certainly what I see in my mind when I look at Odysseus returning to the manor and stringing the bow.
Yep.
Right?
This is somebody who understood what we were, who has paid a terrible personal price and
Is in a position because he's so honorable and thoughtful and insightful to restore the world that no longer is.
And I will also say not only do I find his vision quite compelling, but I am deeply heartened by The extent to which it resonates across ideological lines.
Right?
Yes.
He is a liberal like you and I are.
He's in the exiled from the blue team group of liberals, of which there are quite a number.
But the degree to which people who see themselves as part of the red team Can hear what Bobby Kennedy is saying and resonate with it is very heartening.
Yes.
So I'm excited about it too.
Me too.
Me too.
For sure.
Wow.
If I can go back, you mentioned the vaccine schedule and the explosion in chronic disease.
I also see this the same way.
I don't know what the truth is of the vaccine schedule and its relevance, or the explosion in the vaccine schedule and its relevance to the explosion in chronic disease, but I do know that the implication of the explosion in chronic disease Implicates environmental exposures.
Yes.
And for any of the people who so smugly declare that it is not the vaccines, fine.
Why are you not obsessed with figuring out what it is?
Right, because the point is you're talking about generations yet unnamed, who we could save if we can figure out what it is.
And if it's not the vaccine, great, let's rule them out.
And let's figure out what else is doing it.
And let's stop doing it.
Because you're talking about crippling people.
Yes.
And so anyway, I, you know, but even bigger, I want to make a subtle, besides the crippling, you know, because we were talking, Brad, about the You know, like the system and what are those incentive, like how would that system behave, you know, which is really the opposite of our health.
But, you know, it's creating literally customers for life because those are chronic conditions that they have medicines for and got it.
And so, you know, you give someone, let's say chronic severe asthma or allergies or ADHD or autism.
I mean, That's a huge population of patients that you're creating over a lifetime.
And that's as disturbing to think about as anything.
It's physiological brand loyalty.
They are creating customers.
They're creating captive customers.
And it's, it's, um, You know, look, I don't know to what extent this is a conscious thing that pharma does.
I know that there will be elements of it that are highly conscious, and there will be other elements where the system doesn't even understand what it has evolved to do, right?
It just enriches people who advance the ball at public expense.
But the net effect Is diabolical.
Diabolical.
It's diabolical.
You're actually talking about not only just harming, maiming people.
You're talking about, in many cases, maiming children.
Yep.
Right?
And no healthy society can tolerate that.
And we have tolerated it too long.
I want to make a point about the about how diabolical it is.
Because here's another thought I have on it, is that the very extent of its evil and corruption and really the implications of it, how horrible those consequences are, I also think somehow protects the system in a way.
Because, Brett, to fully conceive of what we're talking, being able to admit into your mind that there is a system that's being run by leaders who know these things and yet do these things anyway, you then have to be able to countenance or consider the fact that there are literal sociopaths running industries.
And, and I think, you know, for some, like I can believe that now because I've seen that evil play out in COVID.
I think before I, I, I think I had a general sense that people are, but now, I do think the average person is benevolent and, you know, is kind and or capable of it.
And that I think there are few that are really capable of committing acts and behaving in a way where they know that the consequences of those actions can create immense amounts of death and disease.
I think those people are few, but they exist and they can get into power and they can convince others to do the same.
They have ways of rationalizing the psychology.
I think there are many people complicit in that system that don't go home at night.
I think they go home at night thinking they're part of a functioning system that is directed towards good objectives.
And I think that's another lesson that we've learned.
For instance, I'll give you an example.
I testified in the Wisconsin State Legislature with a medical freedom group that was really concerned because the Wisconsin State Department of Health wanted to mandate the meningococcal vaccine as well as the chickenpox vaccine.
We can skip the science on how just insanely terrible, just the science to support those mandates.
Just on a mandate alone, I'm sorry, there's just no... I'm done with mandates.
Anyway, I was testifying, and luckily for the first time, or not the first time, because Senator Johnson's committees were friendly to me, but this was a friendly committee.
They actually knew my work, they knew my organization, and the chairman of the committee really wanted to hear from me.
The point is this, is that They let me speak quite freely, and I kind of almost talked a little bit about what we've talked about in this conversation.
I just said, like, what I've come to learn in COVID and the things that I've learned.
And then I described the Unholy Alliance that you and I started, you know, this podcast with.
And when I sketched out that Unholy Alliance, there was this one Democratic member, a leading Democratic member, and when it came time for her to ask questions, Brett, you could totally see that I had, like, It was way too much for her.
She's like, you know, Dr. Corey, you're describing this grand conspiracy between these.
And like she could not get it.
And what was interesting is so and she said, so all of these people, you know, you're describing.
So you're saying all of the doctors and all of the journalists.
And, you know, she basically wanted she couldn't understand.
She basically, she couldn't believe The system or the world that I was describing, and she couldn't get her head around it.
And you know, I corrected her.
I said, no, I don't think all those people are evil.
And as part of the conspiracy, I said, they're victims.
They're victims of that information.
I said, you know, because it isn't that there's all part of it.
But the bigger point was that, like, you know, you have to be able to You have to be able to, I guess, accept the idea that this kind of behavior can happen and our institutions and society can behave in this way.
And I think for many people, they're not ready to accept that.
Even after COVID, their implicit faith and trust in the pillars and institutions of society have not been thoroughly shaken and or disrupted to the point that it should be.
Well, you know, you raise a very important point.
It's one I have learned to be careful, not only in how I speak about it, but how I think about it.
And let me, let me convey to you the tool that I think does as good a job of solving this problem as anything.
There are psychopaths out there and the ones who are both devoid of moral constraints and insightful about things, the smart ones, do tend to ascend to powerful positions.
Yes.
And it doesn't take very many of them in such powerful positions to have a wildly disproportionate effect.
Yes.
But the important part is to realize how much emergent properties can stand in for actual collusion.
Right?
If you were to teleport onto this planet during the height of COVID and you were to find doctors telling patients don't take ivermectin Don't consider having it around in case you're exposed.
Don't take anything early should you have symptoms.
And do take this experimental therapeutic Irrespective of the accelerated way in which it was tested, the small number of people on whom it was tested, right?
If you saw doctor after doctor dispensing the same advice, you could conclude, oh my god, these doctors don't care about their patients.
But you know that's not true.
I know.
You know that those doctors were in a very, an artificially created, impossible bind that they couldn't solve.
Yep.
And many of them did a poor job with the puzzle they were handed.
But it wasn't That these people didn't go into medicine for the right reasons or were cryptically sociopathic.
Correct.
None of those things were true.
The fact is something rearranged their incentives so they behaved on behalf of something that was de facto sociopathic.
Yes.
And so what I do, what I would encourage you to do, and what I think we need to say to people like the person who questioned you on this panel, is that we don't know the degree to which there is conspiratorial action.
We'd be fools to think it was zero, but it could in fact be the minor fraction of a system in which people responding to their incentives do the bidding of something evil without being evil themselves.
And this is something people have known, right?
The banality of evil That concept is about the idea that normal people who aren't bad can be dragged into very bad things without the awareness that that has happened.
Your point is really well taken and I would say that I agree with it and you're right.
The banality and good people are capable of participating in acts, either unknowingly, that really bring about great, great harm.
And, you know, one of the thoughts I had in listening to what you just said, you know, those doctors, right, who were put in this really difficult position, I would think that there was almost a psychological incentive to believe the vaccines were safe and effective.
Right.
So so I mean, if you want to start questioning and looking at the data around vaccines, you're going to make things quite difficult for yourself, meaning intellectually, morally philosophical.
Right.
I mean, so it's almost I mean, that system, that train was barreling down that track.
If you want to stay on the train, you know.
I think there was some sort of, you know, you want to believe that the system is behaving correctly, that the experts are giving good advice, and so don't question the advice, because you're going to find out stuff about the system and your role in it that's going to be very uncomfortable.
And I think, actually, if I look back at what I saw, it matches your description, and it matches the following pattern.
Doctors are told we have safe and effective vaccines.
They're the way out of this frightening pandemic.
The doctors know safe and effective can't mean totally safe.
And they're probably not fully effective.
But the doctors initially, just as you and I didn't initially see how far off the portrayed picture was from what turned out to be, the doctors all privately said to themselves, you know, every vaccine causes casualties, right?
But it's going to be a small number relative to the good that will be done.
COVID is tearing the world apart.
And so what they did is they held their tongue about the discrepancy between the claim that these things were totally safe, and what they privately believed about the level of safety, which was tolerably safe.
At the point that it became clear that they were not remotely tolerably safe and that they were being given to people who had no reason to be exposed to any risk at all, they had already started lying On behalf of the system, they thought they were telling a white lie.
Yes.
In fact, they were telling a gargantuan lie, much bigger than they would have contemplated had they had the full picture to begin with.
But at the point that you've done that, at the point that you've done the bidding of pharma at cost to your patient's health, and then you start to get the sense of what might be lurking in the evidence.
The instinct not to look at it has got to be quite strong because you don't want to know what you've been dragged into.
There's no question.
And that also, you know, what we just talked about, that really also explains The inability to talk about or treat vaccine injury.
I mean, look at where we are with that, Brett.
So you have academic medical centers around the country, many of them created what they call long COVID clinics, and they're absolutely useless.
It's endless referrals and testing, and unfortunately the diagnostics around That guide therapies for these two.
Testing is not very helpful, but so patients get a lot of tests, a lot of referrals.
There's no treatments, right?
There's no guidelines yet.
I'm sure that's a market that they're going to explore.
Actually, I do know that, right?
Because the 1.2 billion that the government is already devoted to research into long COVID, apparently there's five trials that they've set up.
Only one is ready to enroll.
They haven't enrolled a patient yet.
So there's only one trial and wait for it, Brett.
Do you know what they're going to study?
I guess we just maybe discovered the last little piece of my naivete.
You're better than that.
You could have guessed that.
I mean, we were talking about that system for an hour and a half.
I guess we just maybe discovered the last little piece of my naivetang.
Yeah, there you go, Brad.
But, you know, my point is being a specialist in treating COVID vaccine injury, you know, my patients come to me after journeying through the system.
And, you know, I would say the climate has changed.
But in the beginning, those early vaccine injured, what they went through in terms of gaslighting and abandonment and outright.
Like, I mean, I have stories from my patients where literally when they tried to talk to the doctor about the vaccine injury, the doctors, I think it created such.
Like, I think it was very disturbing for doctors, because they didn't want to recognize that now people are showing up with these severe chronic disabilities and debilities, and they actively fought against it.
Like, I remember one patient told me a story that when she was signing out of a doctor's office at the reception desk, the doctor actually came out there and told the patient, you don't need to schedule a follow-up, essentially telling the patient, don't come back.
Mm.
And not only that, so doctors were not writing vaccine injury in the chart for a long time.
I mean, the political climate and the victimization around vaccine, I mean, the height of the psychopathology around vaccines was, I mean, I will never forget what was happening in society.
And now it's better now.
It's better now.
I think vaccine injury can be discussed.
From what I know from doctors on the inside, it is written in charts.
People, doctors are now talking to patients a little bit more.
Now, they don't know how to treat it.
You know, because again, that's the other consequence, Brett.
You know, when we talked about autonomy and that tight control and coercion, it's really scary because this novel disease of long COVID and vaccine injury is really complex.
There's a number of pathophysiologic mechanisms.
There's a whole host of potential therapies, and I am learning as I go.
My protocol is ever-shifting in how I approach these patients, but picture a doctor in the system right now who, employed by some major health system, a vaccine-injured patient comes.
Maybe they know our work, you know, and our protocol on the FLCCC website.
And let's say they want to try to employ, you know, they have a patient before them who's suffering and they're like, you know, well there's this group who's done this work and they've put out this guide and maybe we can try a few things like that.
For instance, ivermectin is the most effective drug I've found in those two syndromes.
It doesn't work for everybody and in some people the benefits are modest, but far and away it's the most successful.
I would say 70% of my patients with long COVID and vaccine injury There's no review papers on vaccines.
It's literally verboten.
And again, the responses vary, but that's the other implication.
That's the other consequences of that change to the system is those doctors are waiting for a guideline.
They're waiting for a society.
And by the way, there's no society statements.
There's no review papers on vaccine.
It's literally verboten.
The only people talking about are like organizations like myself and similar organizations.
And so, you know, the implications are, you know, but we were talking about like the psychology of the doctor.
And I think that fueled the literally and I heard, you know, descriptions of you could see doctors were having a really tough time in in countenancing and in being able to see a vaccine per injured person for what they were, which is they were a consequence of that same doctor's descriptions of you could see doctors were having a really tough DR.
Well, That's certainly true.
I'm struggling.
There's a couple directions to go from here.
Heather and I did an episode a couple weeks back in which we actually looked at the Nuremberg Code itself.
And found that the COVID response appears to have violated not just informed consent, a double violation, because people were ill informed as a result of propaganda, and they were mandated and coerced, so it wasn't consent.
But every single sub provision seems to have been violated too, and not in an obvious way.
It's glaring when you look at it.
And so the One of the provisions involves mental anguish.
And I must say that there are a lot of facts If you paid attention to how the pandemic unfolded and the public health response and the coup against medicine and all of these things, there are these anomalies, right?
Just very strange facts that are very hard to reconcile with any normal process.
The most glaring of them, I think, the one that I stumble over most forcefully is the gaslighting of the vaccine injured.
Because these people, without exception, are people who did what they were told they were supposed to do.
And so the idea that if you were telling people you're morally bad, if you don't follow our advice, and you don't get yourself so-called vaccinated with these so-called vaccines, and then somebody gets hurt, even if the vaccines had turned out to be Very safe.
Which they did not.
But if they had, and these injuries were vanishingly rare, we should be dealing with the people who have these injuries with nothing but compassion.
Right.
Right?
These were people who were trying to do the right thing.
You can't, you know, the idea that these are anti-vaxxers is laughable.
These are people who got hurt because they took the vaccine.
And whatever, to the extent that the argument was that the vaccines are our collective responsibility in order to get us out of COVID, which was nonsense from the get-go because they didn't block transmission or contraction and therefore couldn't be an effective tool against the pandemic.
But to the extent that people accepted the argument that what they were doing was taking a small risk on behalf of the team, It is then our collective responsibility to take as good care of them as can be done in light of the fact that they got unlucky.
That would be, I think that situation is correct.
I think that would have been the, what you would think is the humane and ethical and appropriate response of a physician to an unfortunate, rare, you know, supposedly rare, but let me ask you a question.
So what do you, So maybe I'm interrupting.
So that you're saying that would have been the correct and humane response.
It's the absolutely natural consequence of the bullshit argument that was fed to us or rammed down our throats, right?
That you have an obligation to get these things as a member of the team.
Right?
So that means that to the extent that our obligation as members of the team came up bad for a small number of people because of bad luck, then those harms belong to all of us.
Right.
But let me ask you a question, Brett.
The fact is, you just used a hypothetical example of if they had been safe and just leaving a very tiny number, but the reality was that those numbers are massive.
So the fact that that's not what happened, do you think it was the massive numbers that somehow influenced the treatment and how they were treated by doctors?
Nope.
I think that we are, again, downstream of an industrial strength propaganda campaign whose purpose is not anybody's well-being.
It is the I don't know the shareholder value of the corporations that produce these things and any level of propaganda and lying and distortion that enhances the position of these corporations is tolerable to them for some reason.
But I guess my point is an average person who bought the story ought to now look at at the way the vaccine injured have been treated, and that ought to be enough to wake them up completely, right?
If you are somebody who said, oh, these vaccines are safe, what does that mean?
Perfectly safe?
Yes, perfectly safe.
Well, everybody knows they weren't perfectly safe.
So, that means there are some vaccine injured people.
Where is the place where these people are being compassionately embraced by the system, where we are trying to understand these very rare injuries and what might be done to alleviate them?
Doesn't exist.
Why?
Because what exists in its place is A propaganda campaign of its own that adds insult to injury.
You are psychologically torturing these injured people who were trying to do their part on behalf of a team because you told them that's what they had to do.
So my point is that is that is a sick system that would tell people this was their obligation as a member of a team.
And then when it didn't work out, pretends that they're not sick.
Right?
It's diabolical.
It's diabolical.
And, you know, one of the phrases I keep using is, it just seems like the world has gone mad.
And I want to refer that, you know, the world went mad in COVID and all these behaviors that we're talking about.
And I agree with you.
I attribute the madness that has descended upon all of us is from unrelenting propaganda and censorship.
We've been sickened by the the information that we need in order to live and live correctly and in harmony, right?
And yet the information is in poison.
We started talking about it at the level of the journals and all of this.
And you brought up another point, which is it was so bad.
The propaganda and censorship supporting this vaccine campaign was so horrible and powerful that you saw this phenomenon, because you kind of touched on it, where anyone close to the unvaccinated, I would where anyone close to the unvaccinated, I would call them vaccine-adjacent, We're attacked.
And the one example are people who got vaccinated and tried to speak up about their injuries.
They were literally immediately lumped in with the, you know, the ire and attacks were directed at them.
And, you know, for me, one of the most memorable and heartbreaking examples, I don't know if you've heard of this case, but there was a professional mountain bike racer, Kyle, I can't remember his last name, but He filmed himself in his car one day talking about how his career was over.
He was really sick.
And he was crying because he had been trying to talk about his injury, not only for help, but also, I guess, to tell others.
And he couldn't believe the amount of people attacking him and the amount of anger and ferocity directed at him for him just trying to talk about his experience.
And, you know, that's how bad that got.
You know, people who got vaccinated were being attacked.
Well, it's... I have become somewhat infamous for the catchphrase, it's worse than that.
But it's worse than that, because on the one hand, you've got this mountain biker, and I don't remember his name, but I do remember the case.
Who speaks out about just a fact of his life.
He was a mountain biker, now what is he?
Right?
He doesn't know.
He's understandably broken up about that and what's more, this has implications for his longevity.
It's a tragic case, and it is an exemplar of a pattern that is much more widespread.
But the other thing, you probably saw Rav Arora's recent piece about a journalist, I think an editor, at a publication, and the publication was decidedly enthusiastic about vaccines and mandates.
And the editor had a severe vaccine injury, an immediate one, right?
And these things get much more difficult for us to grapple with when they're delayed, right?
A delayed cancer, for example, the room to pretend that it's not downstream or the room for there to be statistical noise or whatever, but This was a case where somebody had an immediate and intense adverse event that was cardiac in nature.
It was myocarditis, I believe.
And anyway, the point is that person has apparently still not come forward.
And the publication that they worked for hasn't acknowledged that it was championing these vaccines and then right on their doorstep, had an event that ought to have caused them to think, hey, wait a minute, that seems pretty unlikely.
If these events are vanishingly rare that one of our own would have had it, maybe we should look into how widespread they are.
So anyway, my point is, our impression in the public of how common these events are, downstream of a campaign to punish and intimidate people who've had these events so that they will talk about them as little as possible or not at all.
Yeah.
Which leaves the false impression that they were much safer than they actually were.
Yeah.
I mean, I also think, Brett, you know, when you bring up the example of that editor and that outlet or whatever news source that was, You know, not talking about it, that seems very governmental and military censored.
I mean, it seems like everyone got the memo in the media, thou shalt not speak ill of these vaccines.
I mean, with very few exceptions, most media sources never even brought up the possibility that these vaccines weren't safe.
And, you know, the most The most absurd and dystopian are the thousands and thousands of reports of young people dropping dead.
Athletes.
Broadcasters on television comedians on stage.
I mean all walks of life many times caught on camera young healthy people out doing like once you're outside doing an activity, by the way, that's a pretty good comment on your underlying health.
Okay, like I mean sick people are not doing what these people do particularly athletes and so you have these and then the ages You know, I am an expert in sudden cardiac death.
As an ICU specialist, that was one of the patient populations I had to take care of, those that survived CPR.
And it's so incredibly rare for young people to drop dead.
And you have legions of newspaper reports, report after report after report after report of no anteceding event and the vaccine is never mentioned, never once mentioned as a possibility.
And the consistency in the consistency under which that is true.
And I used to read those reports, I literally would skim them to see if the journalist writing about this tragic and unexpected death of a young person at high school, or whatever the case is, I was just waiting to see if they would just, you know, I was just waiting to see if they would just, you know, Cause maybe, you know, could it be the vaccines or there's no mention in any of those articles that's a vaccine.
It's just a normal, rare occurrence.
Now, I'm glad you bring this up.
I've done a lot of thinking about it.
The problem here, I believe, is also obviously downstream of the same propaganda campaign we've been talking about.
Yeah.
The problem is, these events are extremely rare.
Naturally.
The vigilance about finding these events and pointing to them is now unusually high.
Right?
So to the extent that this happens very rarely, and you generally don't hear about it, but now it broadcasts an individual anomalous death, broadcast to a much wider audience, one has to ask the question, is what I'm seeing an artifact of sampling a much larger population?
Now I don't believe it could be, and you, as an ICU specialist, are in a much better position to say that you believe the level of this is unusual.
However, here's where I think this goes.
We have to be cautious because there will be deaths that we hear about that contribute to our sense that vaccines have created a lot of injuries in young people that actually They may be some other environmental exposure to something novel, but maybe it's not the vaccine.
But here's the important point.
This isn't a tough question to study.
No.
Right?
This is what science does.
And if we were really interested in the question of, well, Is there an anomalous pattern of young people dropping dead?
There is.
If there's that pattern, and it is downstream of the vaccines, we can find out if we want to.
And what we seem to be doing is avoiding finding out.
That's absolutely correct.
But let me speak to that, Brad, because in my mind, That question has been soundly answered with data.
And interestingly, or maybe unsurprisingly, it doesn't come out of the medical sciences, that data.
That data is coming out of the life insurance industry.
And Ed Dowd's work on this with his team I mean, when you hear these numbers, I mean, and how that story broke and how that data came out was really interesting.
You know, there was a newspaper article.
I can't time it.
It's probably over a year ago where a CEO of a life insurance company, One America, was apparently talking to a chamber of commerce, like it was just a meeting at a chamber of commerce.
And he lets it slip that they saw I think it was either 38 or 40% rise in death claims in the age group from 18 to 64 from 2020 to 2021.
So in one year, and he said in that same meeting that in his business, a 10% rise in mortality in that age group from one year to the next would be a statistically a one in 200 year event.
That's how rare 10% is.
And here he is telling a group of folks that this $100 billion, $1 million company saw a 38% rise.
And the timing of the rise perfectly matches the vaccine rollout.
The data showing how many people we've lost from the workforce, actually from death, is truly alarming.
And so it's like we already know.
I'm sorry, Brad.
I mean, for me, those vaccines are a humanitarian catastrophe.
They've caused hundreds of thousands of deaths.
And you're right, though.
We don't.
No one's talking.
Well, look, I don't disagree with you about what the most parsimonious interpretation of the evidence that I've seen is.
I think it's quite clear.
But the point I'm trying to make is, to the extent there are many people out there who still don't believe there is a pattern, there ought to be an obsession with doing the most deliberate and careful study possible to discover the nature of that pattern.
Right?
We're still giving these shots to people.
I can't understand that.
We're still giving these shots to young people.
Right?
That couldn't be a more medically irresponsible thing to do if it tried.
Healthy young people?
Why would you give them a shot for a disease that does not put them at substantial risk?
So, anyway, I'm not doubting the evidence from the insurance industry.
What I'm doubting is our ability to look at the reports of sudden death in people and to know the contribution of vaccines versus the contribution of the level of interest.
Yeah, and I appreciate that point.
I mean, you're right.
Anybody should be asking the question.
Yep, we should be asking a question.
And like we ask lots of questions in science, we have ways of answering it.
There's a process in which to do it, and it's not being done.
We have entire institutions full of people who trained to be able to answer such questions, and we are not pointing them at this one.
Nope.
Which is shocking.
All right, so we're going to wrap up here soon.
I have two points I want to get on the table and get your reaction to before we do that.
Great.
One of them is just an interesting pattern.
You now find yourself in private practice.
You were a teaching hospital doc, an academic.
You now find yourself in private practice, strangely liberated to think about therapies you wouldn't have considered before, to retrain yourself free from the influence of administrators and standards and all of that, which it turns out were much more destructive than you had known.
That's fascinating.
Heather and I have seen the same pattern as outsiders to academia, now free to think.
I mean, we thought independently before, and that's probably why we got kicked out.
But nonetheless, now the thing that threatens us are, you know, anonymous tech giants that don't like us speaking out of turn because it's very inconvenient to have evolutionary biology PhDs calling bullshit on epidemiologists anonymous tech giants that don't like us speaking out of turn because it's Inconvenient.
So, you know, tech is now trying to exert its influence.
But nonetheless, outside of the system, we have a degree of freedom that is anomalous. - Yeah.
You mentioned at the top of the podcast that our mainstream media sources are owned by a tiny number of corporations, which artificially synchronizes their viewpoint.
On the other hand, Their ability to garner audience has plummeted and that hasn't gone away.
It's migrated to this unregulated low production value landscape.
of podcasts and man caves and, you know, uh, you know, doing your own news broadcast from your living room or whatever.
And the point is that's not really the right place to be doing it much as the right place for you to be doing what you do, doc is in a hospital in which, you know, the system and the equipment and all of that is already there.
And the system for getting it paid for and all is built the right place to study science and to talk about it is not podcasts, universities, and they exist, but we're outside of them.
Anyway, my point is the structures are now a good proxy for the corruption.
Yeah.
Right.
Yeah.
You can look at the university buildings and think, oh, they're very pretty.
It's interesting that science doesn't work in there anymore.
You can go to CNN, and you can say, oh, that looks like a humming newsroom there.
That looks like a great place for them to figure out what the hell is going on and to tell the public.
But that's not what they do.
No.
Right.
You know, that is more likely to happen, you know, in Joe Rogan's studio.
Yeah.
So anyway, everybody is doing the job that they're supposed to be doing to the extent that those of us who care about these jobs are still doing them.
We're doing them in places that don't make sense.
Right.
We've been it's like a whole civilization in exile.
Right?
Where-- Yes.
Good point.
Yeah.
And it's-- anyway, I guess it just-- it's hopeful to me.
Because the point is, it isn't like they snuffed us out.
They just set us free and forced us to source our own equipment.
Yeah.
No, I agree with that.
I mean, I've sometimes made jokes that I've been excommunicated from medicine.
And you're right, we are sort of exiles.
But, you know, it's an interesting dynamic because our numbers are growing.
You know, I mean, you and I fit.
I mean, you before me, I mean, your career, your academic career literally ended and you were excommunicated.
And, you know, so we really were exiled.
But I think that the audience, the average citizen, you know, they are coming to listen more to people like you and me.
And, you know, yeah, it's I have hope there, because that's the answer, right?
And I love that you just said, like, the structures are synonymous with the—are emblematic of the corruption, right?
I mean, you look at a university, you look at a newsroom, like, that's literally a propaganda, you know, headquarters.
That's where they create the day's narratives, right?
And so—and for people to believe in those structures and institutions, it gives me hope.
Because really, when the system's been captured, we need a parallel system.
And that's why we kind of touched on the, we want private practice to continue.
And we need freedom.
We need a space to freely discuss things.
And you need people who are free to tell the news like it really is, you know, and what's really happening in the world.
And I'm happy to see that's happening.
Yeah, I think, and maybe we'll just leave it here, but I think the message of it is the power that was brought to bear to stamp out
Our ability to do a scientific analysis, to reach an audience and tell them what we thought, to practice responsible medicine, to respond to emerging patterns and sort through them.
The power that was brought to bear was absolutely Industrial strength, military grade, it was ferocious.
And the degree to which it failed to stamp out the actual discussion is, I think, remarkable and quite hopeful.
In other words, I do think the small collection of dissidents That did find their way to speak out about the absurdity of our COVID response upended the negative the narrative and most You know, most people are not awake.
Right.
But many people are at least somewhat awake.
Yeah.
And that is, that's a very hopeful sign.
It's very hard to stamp out apparently and hopefully only more, we will see more wake up over time.
Yeah, my point I would add to that is, You're right.
I mean, that industrial strength and trying to snuff it out, they did not succeed, number one.
And I think the brazenness and overreach of their attempts might even turn and backfire on them because of the amount of people that they've awakened.
I mean, Brett, I don't know that I would have woken up if they hadn't done this much.
You know, so much brazen departures from science and pragmatism.
Yep, I agree with you.
to make me question, why is this happening?
Who is doing this?
And why would they possibly do this?
I mean, that woke me up and so many people.
And so I think armed with that new knowledge, it'd be interesting to see where the future heads. - Yep, I agree with you.
And I think everybody has that moment where they see something that they just can't unsee.
Yeah.
And for many of us, it was COVID.
Yep.
And, you know, our numbers are growing, and I think it's time to string the bow.
Yes, love it.
Great way to end, but Brett, great way to end.
All right.
Back to Pierre-Corey.
It has been a real pleasure.
Your book, it is available already?
Yeah, it's in bookstores and on Amazon, and I just heard from a friend that they went to buy a book and it was sold out at Santa Barbara, so I was pretty happy to hear that news.
That's great news.
The title of the book is The War on Ivermectin?
Yes.
The War on Ivermectin for people and there will be many who have heard you on Dark Horse and realized that they might need your help for either long COVID or a vaccine injury or just simply to get Medical care that is out from under the thumb of Pharma and Fauci.
Where do they find you?
Yeah, we also take care of general medicine patients.
You know, we're happy to support you with non-conflicted guidance.
And that said, the easiest is drpierricorey.com, drpierricorey.com, or just look up my name with the Leading Edge Clinic.
If you just look up my name, it's going to be hard to find my clinic because there's a lot of other stuff that comes up, Brad.
Yeah, there's a lot of stuff that comes up.
And I must say, I have googled your name, and something's got its thumb on the scales.
You think?
Yeah, I do think.
The URL was drkory... No, drkory.com.
The URL was drkory.com.
So drpierrecorey.com.
drpierrecorey.com.
All right.
The War on Ivermectin.
This has been an excellent conversation.
I'm already looking forward to our next one.
Best of luck with the book.
And anyway, thank you for doing this.
All I can say is, you know, thank you for your support, for your audience.
I love the conversation and really thank you for your brotherhood in this journey.
It's been It's been rough.
Yeah, it has been rough.
Well, it's been an honor to fight shoulder to shoulder with you.
