All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 15, 2024 - Epoch Times
42:01
FULL INTERVIEW: Pierre Kory on Treating Vaccine Injury Syndrome & the Suppression of Early Treatment
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Science is ignoring this concept of a vaccine injury syndrome, and I will tell you, it is real, and it is common.
Dr.
Pierre Corey is one of a handful of doctors focused on treating people injured by the COVID-19 vaccines.
A pulmonary and critical care physician by training, Dr.
Corey and his partner have treated dozens of vaccine-injured patients since he opened his new practice in mid-February of this year.
Many of the people who come to me, they've been sick for a year and trying to get care.
As soon as they mention that the vaccine is the cause of their illness, the physicians get very upset and they think that they're crazy.
Tonight, we discuss his new iRecover treatment protocols, the attacks he's faced, and the corrupt relationship he sees between government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry.
There's never been a molecule or a compound more inconvenient to the pharmaceutical and vaccination industry.
This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Jan Jekielek.
Dr.
Pierre Corey, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.
Thanks, Jan.
Good to be back.
I've become very interested in a new protocol on the FLCCC site, which is titled iRecover.
You have these code names for all of them.
And it's very interesting because it's something that's supposed to help people who have suffered some kind of adverse reactions to vaccines.
So tell me about this.
Yeah.
So our protocol, iRecover, has been around for a while.
We first put one up last June, and it was initially intended for patients with long-haul syndrome, because we were starting to see a lot of that.
And we're trying to figure out how to treat that.
And on that protocol, we kind of had a mention that it applies to the vaccine injured.
But more recently...
The data on vaccine injury and the amount of patients who are now declaring themselves with vaccine injuries is really a very large number.
And we decided to kind of break up the protocol and have one really directed at the vaccine injury because although there's a lot of similarities, overlap to the two syndromes, there's also some differences.
So Paul and myself, you know, I see a lot of patients with vaccine injury and long haul in my practice.
And Paul is, I would argue that what I recover is the product of, it's really the first scholarly attempt to try to codify and organize all that we know of what the pathology is of the spike protein and the lipid nanoparticles.
And pathology means when something is a pathogen, it's something that causes illness.
And we're trying to understand as best we can the mechanisms under which the spike protein is causing illness.
And we think there's about six or seven mechanisms.
And then we're trying to find therapeutics that we know their mechanisms, pharmacology, to try to counteract or control.
And so we are collaborating with doctors around the country, even around the world, who are rapidly developing experience.
And I will say that this protocol is a draft.
It's a start.
We need to know a lot more about what we're treating and what's going on, and I'm humbled by these patients often.
They're extremely complex, very sick, but I will tell you, I get them better to some extent.
Sometimes large extents, I see robust responses.
I see the diminution or mitigation of lots of symptoms, and others are much more difficult.
And so we're employing a trial and error.
So we have kind of first line, second line, and third line.
And like I said, sometimes with first line therapies, I see great responses.
Some I really have to try a number of different strategies in order to help them.
But what I would say is unique about what we're doing is we're really focusing I'm trying to relieve suffering and treating patients because the vaccine injuries are being ignored.
There are long-haul clinics in a lot of academic medical centers.
There's no post-vaccine injury clinic, and there's no body of science.
I would argue that we are trying to, I wouldn't say invent, but we're trying to focus on what I think is spike-opathy, which is the study of the pathogenesis of the spike protein, right?
There's no one teaching that to doctors in the system.
They have no awareness of what the vaccine might do, how it might be leading to these symptoms.
They just see patients with these myriad symptoms that they don't understand.
Oftentimes the tests are negative for important traditional diagnostic categories.
And I think the physicians are frustrated because they don't know how to help these patients.
And I will tell you, the patients are frustrated.
They're being referred to many specialists.
Very little in terms of therapeutics are being offered.
And they're getting endless tests and referrals.
The first 10 minutes of every one of my visits, and I spend a lot of time with patients, the first 10 minutes is them regaling me with their journey in trying to get care.
And they tell me about what this doctor said and what this doctor said.
And then I hear really shocking things like, I told this doctor that it was a vaccine injury and he ended the visit and said, I can't help you.
And I've heard that more than once.
Like, the patients are learning, like, they have to be very cautious about what they say about the vaccines, because as soon as they mention that the vaccine is the cause of their illness, the physicians get very upset, and they think that they're crazy.
And most of my patients leave with diagnosis of anxiety or something called functional neurological disorder, which is essentially saying it's in their head.
And so it's a very troubling disease that We need help.
We need help from the system.
We need organized research.
We need more open recognition of the syndrome and more publications.
We just don't have enough data.
I mean, the science is ignoring this concept of a vaccine injury syndrome.
And I will tell you, it is real and it is common.
And so until the system starts to recognize it and marshal resources into studying it in an organized fashion, We're going to just keep doing what we're doing, which is we're learning from clinical experience and reviews of the literature, looking at papers, oftentimes in second and third tier journals.
They're often like in vitro studies, but we're using all the information that we can get our hands on.
So there's this recent reanalysis of data, this recent study in BMJ, which says that the serious adverse effects are something like 1 in 800, right across the board.
The data they used is not complete.
It's not the original source data, as I understand.
But you're talking about injuries that aren't necessarily as severe as that 1 in 800, something much more common.
Are there any estimates of how common, like credible estimates, rigorously studied, or is it just something that still needs to be discovered at this point?
The exact epidemiology, I don't think, has been as well investigated as it should.
But keep in mind, if you're referring to the Doshi paper, who's an editor of the British Medical Journal, That's on preprint, and that only looked at trials data.
And without going into the rabbit hole of what happened in those trials, there's a lot of evidence of lack of follow-up, lack of documentation of adverse effects.
So I would tell you what they discovered, which was alarming, is an underestimate.
If you look at VAERS, there's a catastrophic amount of injuries being reported.
And the only problem with VAERS is that it's underreported, right?
There's something called an underreporting factor.
And we're at a million adverse events just in VAERS. And if you multiply that by what some people say is an underreporting factor of 40 or 50, you're talking about adverse events in 40 million.
Now, how many have that chronic syndrome that I see where the symptoms...
Persist, often rendering patients disabled.
That's a lower number.
But in a recent third-party survey, 8% of respondents reported a vaccine injury.
8%.
And then a smaller percentage actually characterized the injuries as death in their family.
Because it was asked, like, have you been injured or have you and anyone in your immediate family been injured?
And I think that was the 8% number.
And And then a significant percentage could not work, and that's a mark of disability, and that's generally the patients I see.
They're not able to function like they used to be, and so you're right.
The true number is unknown, but I will tell you it's unacceptably high, and it's very common.
There are patients who've been injured for 15 months now.
Many of the people who come to me, they've been sick for a year and trying to get care, trying to get help, and they haven't been able to find someone to help them.
And just quickly, roughly, I mean, some people, it must be in their head, right?
Obviously, those people exist.
Like, from the people that come to you, how many of those would there be?
To be honest, Jan, I have not found someone that I thought...
Was inventing symptoms.
The reason why is the stories are so similar.
So as a physician, the way you become expert is called pattern recognition.
I define the syndrome as a constellation of symptoms that develop temporarily associated with the vaccine or with long haul with COVID. And the patterns in which they develop are reproducible, and I see two or three patterns.
And so the histories I get are remarkably almost predictable and recognizable.
And so one thing that complicates it is that they often suffer from anxiety.
And that's an interesting development is that we are seeing worsened anxiety in these patients, which is multifactorial.
So sometimes I see patients with what I call premorbid anxiety, which is amplified from the vaccine.
I've also seen a number of patients, their pre-morbid personalities were cool, laid back, and now they're telling me they feel a lot of anxiety.
They literally feel nervous all the time.
And we believe that's also part of the same syndrome.
It's inflammation in the brain that's causing all of these different neurological complaints.
The third form of the anxiety is so many are just plain anxious about what the future holds because they are suffering.
They are sick and disabled.
They haven't been helped and they don't know what the rest of their lives look like.
I would just call that general concern about what their life has looked like.
The patients that come see me, they're not anxious.
I mean, that's not why they're seeing me.
I think they have anxiety, but they have real reproducible physical symptoms that I'm seeing in similar patterns across patients.
And so, unless they're sharing notes on the side before they come to see me, I'm telling you, their histories, which are spontaneous, are completely understandable by me.
And we're beginning to develop an understanding as to why those symptoms are the way they are.
It sounds to me like the collection of symptoms or the patterns for long COVID are similar to the ones for the vaccine.
So how can you tell the difference really?
So first is the history of what started it.
Because you're right, it gets even more complicated because no one's actually pure anymore.
Because I have long haulers who then got vaccinated, things got worse.
I have post-vaccine injured who then got COVID and things got worse.
But their first constellation of symptoms happened after one of those events.
And it doesn't really matter to me which event triggered it because the syndromes are so similar.
Here are the things that are similar.
So the most common symptom that they have is this inordinate fatigue.
They feel more tired than they ever have.
They don't have the energy to go out.
They're limited by what's called post-exertional malaise.
And by the way, both syndromes have a lot of overlap with chronic fatigue syndrome.
Chronic fatigue syndrome patients, which have been associated with infections for decades, Have always complained of that.
Severe fatigue and an inability to tolerate exertion.
So when my patients exert themselves, even minimally, if they go to the store for milk, they come home, either they're in bed for hours or a lot of their neurologic symptoms will flare.
And so you can see that exercise triggers a lot of their problems, whether it be headache or these neuropathic symptoms.
So fatigue and post-exertional malaise and brain fog are the thing that I see in both camps.
What I see in post-vaccine much more than long haul is what I call neuropathic symptoms.
Electric shock-like feelings, tremors, shakes, jerks, way more headaches in that population.
Sometimes a little bit more brain fog, but these very weird neurological symptoms.
Some feel like their skin is on fire, or someone's pouring boiling water on their feet, or they have cold extremities, inability to control temperature.
And I see a lot of what's called POTS, which is postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, which is they'll be sitting here and they'll have resting heart rates of 110.
And by the way, you can't fake that, right?
So when I'm seeing a patient on telehealth and they put a pulse ox in their finger and they're just talking to me and I see a rate of 125, a young healthy person at rest should not have a heart rate of 125, not even close.
And so I see a lot of what we call autonomic dysfunction.
Autonomic is the nervous system that controls the automatic functions like our heart beating, our breathing, We see alterations in blood pressure and heart rates.
You can see all of these abnormalities, and some of them are definable and reproducible.
With the post-vaccine, I see much more of the neuropathic stuff, but those three cardinal symptoms are central to both.
How big is this population of patients by now?
So that I've seen or in my practice?
Yeah, that you've seen and you're explaining kind of generalization sort of patterns.
I'm just curious how big the sample is.
So I opened my practice in middle of February.
Prior to that, I treated kind of three or four or five long haulers before then that had come to me.
But in my practice with me and my partner, I would say...
100 to 150 maybe at this point.
And one of the things I tell my patients, I'm very humble.
I say, listen, what I want to know about this disease and what I know are two completely different things.
I said, everything I'm doing is evolving.
The way I was treating patients three months ago and the way I'm treating them now is very different.
I'm learning, I'll use the word, new tricks.
New compounds, new therapeutics that seem to work well.
I'm kind of using...
I'm using anticoagulation a little bit more in select patients.
I'm finding a lot of benefit from that.
I'm trying to learn as much as I can about this phenomenon called microclotting.
I work with a group in the UK where they have an expert hematologist who does something called live blood analysis.
And I'm learning a lot about what's happening in the blood of these post-vaccine patients because what she does is she takes live blood, puts it on a slide, And examine it within a minute in dark field microscopy.
And we're able to see all sorts of like platelet aggregations, like very stimulated immune and clotting cells.
And so, and we're starting to learn experience.
And some of those patients with very active stimulated platelets and or fibrin collections, we're finding tremendous responses to anticoagulation.
But, you know, again, I... Here in this country, I don't have anyone who can do that specialized test, so I'm much more reluctant to use it here, but we're just trying to figure out how to help patients.
I saw a hit job on me the other day.
They got the usual quotes from doctors saying they are using unproven therapies.
Of course I'm using unproven therapies.
Show me what's proven.
There's no organized effort to try to identify in a controlled fashion what's working.
And so we're left trying to doctor the way old school doctors did.
By observation, experience, knowledge of pathophysiology, and knowledge of pharmacology.
I mean, we're just doctoring.
And we're getting attacked because we're using unproven therapies and preying on patients.
And it's...
The farthest is from the truth.
We're trying to help these folks because no one else is helping them.
It reminds me, actually, I think I was speaking with Harvey Risch the other day, Dr.
Harvey Risch, and I think he mentioned to me something I wasn't aware of, just like how often drugs are used off-label, essentially in unproven ways, but with kind of a reasonable route of functioning.
Maybe you know the number.
It's very common.
Oh yeah, so 20% of all prescriptions are off-label.
So they're used for diseases for which they didn't obtain original FDA approval.
I think it's 20% now, patient about 30% in the hospital.
So it's very common to use a medicine that's available for a new purpose.
You don't always have a lot of studies to do it, but if you have good rationale and you quickly find that it benefits your patients, it's totally reasonable.
Like, doctoring is still...
Legal, I think, although it seems like it's not.
It seems like everybody wants doctors to no longer use any judgment or try anything with a patient unless there's some randomized controlled trial that proves that it works.
Now, there's no funds enough in the world to study every disease and every disease, nor can you study combinations of medicines and diseases.
It's too complex.
Evidence-based medicine is never going to...
It's never going to meet the demand for the knowledge that we need.
So you're always going to have to use clinical intuition, clinical judgment, your wealth of experience, your knowledge of the pathophysiology, and you try to do the best you can.
You do it with the informed consent of the patient, explaining to them what the risks and benefits are.
The one thing I'll say that's on our side is...
With the exception of anticoagulation, which I use sparingly, almost every other medicine I use is extremely safe.
It has an unparalleled safety profile, generally inexpensive.
So, you know, at least on the safety side, I think we're in very good hands.
Because, again, you don't want to hurt a patient, especially when it's a new disease and you're trying things.
Like, I would never want to try something that, you know, held the possibility of hurting them more than the chance of helping them.
You sort of hinted at this already, but you're being attacked for this.
Yeah, well, yes.
Most of the attacks on me have been accusing me of misinformation.
And nobody recognizes that I became one of the world experts in the clinical use of ivermectin.
I mean, I have first-hand knowledge of Almost all of the 88 controlled trials, all of the health ministry programs around the world that successfully deployed in early treatment, I know the drug works, and I've been disseminating that knowledge, but the narrative,
unfortunately, the narrative is that it doesn't work, and it's a horse dewormer, and they base that on a couple of trials published in high-impact journals, and then they try to dismiss the drug, and so All of the complaints are from physicians and pharmacists.
Not one patient has ever submitted a complaint against the care that I've delivered.
And that pertains to my entire career.
I've never yet had one patient complain to a medical board about the care I've delivered.
I've never been sued for malpractice.
I've always tried to exercise the best judgment and the best communication skills with my patients.
And I think they trust me as a result.
So these complaints...
I don't think they're substantive.
You know, my lawyer, you know, he looks at the complaints and he says, you know, the medical board really can't do anything.
I mean, I give huge data support in my replies.
They're like, defend yourself.
I'm like, okay.
And then I show them like multiple trials, summaries of the trials, examples of health ministries.
And I say, I've used it and I've used this drug for over a year and a half.
And my patients improve readily with when I begin treatment.
And so I don't know how else to defend myself, you understand?
But it doesn't mean that there's not going to be complaints, but I have to tell you they're completely baseless, and they're really from people who are not as well studied in the medicine.
They'll read a headline, they'll see one trial, and they'll say, see, Dr.
Corey's wrong.
It's not that simple.
It sounds like some people might even just simply believe deeply that you're wrong and submit the complaint based on...
And I think that's a great question.
I think there's a belief.
There's a trust in the narrative and the agencies.
I think people are unsettled when someone like me, even in a data-based, evidence-based argument, starts putting forth the idea that maybe our leaders and agencies didn't get this right.
I think that's unsettling because if I'm correct, where does that leave them?
Who can they trust?
So I think it threatens their whole perspective and where they sit and they've been looking for guidance from supposed experts and leaders and so I think I threaten that perspective and I think it's unsettling them and I think some lash back.
They want me to be wrong because I'm guessing that would help support them in making sense of the world.
I want to touch on ivermectin a little bit.
You definitely know a little bit about ivermectin.
You said on stage earlier that, this may be a direct quote, I'm not sure, but that any amount of it is actually still safe.
That struck me as a very strong statement.
So when I said that, the point I was making is with hydroxychloroquine, in the war on hydroxychloroquine, one of their tactics was they designed trials, which were heavily published, where they used sublethal doses.
So they used toxic amounts of hydroxychloroquine.
The patients treated with hydroxychloroquine in the hospital got sicker, and they died more commonly.
And that was used to fuel two narratives that it was a dangerous drug and that it didn't work.
If you were to design a trial using ivermectin, if they used twice the normal dose, three times, four times, five times, six times, there would be no toxicity.
Now, to say that there's no dose that could make anyone sick, well, let's talk about that.
So, in a comprehensive review by one of the world's famous toxicologists, a man named Jacques Descote, he's a French scientist.
In his review, certainly if you take 100 to 1000 times the normal dose, some have gotten ill, but they're self-limited.
No one's died.
They've gone to the hospital, usually with confusion or what we call encephalopathy, but with supportive care, they have improved.
In fact, in his review, he says there's not one confirmed or Proven death associated with ivermectin, even in massive overdose.
So not to say I would design a trial with 100-fold the normal dose, but what I'm saying is even if you doubled, tripled, quadrupled it, it would actually work better.
And so what did they do in their trials, Jan?
They underdosed.
Because they knew they couldn't...
I'm just speaking about the research fraud that I've had to witness in trying to disprove this drug.
And so they couldn't use that tactic with ivermectin, whereas they used that tactic with hydroxychloroquine.
And ivermectin, they did the opposite.
They shortened the duration as much as possible, they started it as late as possible, and they gave the lowest doses they could get away with.
Because they wanted to try to show the inefficacy of ivermectin.
It's almost like medicine turned around.
Jan, you sound like me a year ago.
When I came out of ivermectin, I thought this paper and our review was going to help the world.
Actually, we did help a lot of people, but I didn't understand what was happening after that.
The attacks, the dismissal, these narratives that it's a horse dewormer, that the studies are all small and low quality, they're not peer-reviewed, they're not randomized.
I can recite all of the narratives that I saw develop around ivermectin.
And what changed my life was the day that I received an email.
I received an email from one of the world's premier experts in vitamin D. And it was a short email.
I didn't know who he was.
And he wrote the following.
He said, Dr.
Corey, what they are doing to ivermectin reminds me of what they've been doing to vitamin D for decades.
And he sent a link to an article called The Disinformation Playbook.
And it's written by the Union for Concerned Scientists.
It's a short article and it lists the tactics that corporate interests employ when science emerges that's inconvenient to their interests.
The science around the efficacy of ivermectin has never been more inconvenient to the pharmaceutical and vaccination industry in history.
There's never been a molecule or a compound that threatens more of that industry.
And so when you think of it in that terms, what happened to ivermectin made sense.
And there's numerous examples of these disinformation campaigns.
And by the way, you want to know who invented disinformation campaigns?
The tobacco industry.
They perfected the tactics for 50 years.
And ever since, numerous industries have borrowed that when science emerges.
So for instance, the NFL. When chronic traumatic encephalopathy, when those researchers started to highlight the fact that these retired football players were developing severe mental illnesses, rashes of suicides, and were becoming disabled because of tiny hemorrhages along the brain, What did the NFL do?
They embarked on a disinformation campaign and they used all the tactics.
They had bogus studies saying that it didn't exist.
They attacked the researchers who were trying to bring this forth to the public.
And they did a number of things trying to suppress this evidence that was inconvenient to their goals.
That's the NFL.
Now think of a global marketplace for vaccines and therapeutics.
And that is what my life became.
I had a front row seat to endless pervasive disinformation around ivermectin.
And I will tell you, they largely succeeded.
In most of the advanced health economies around the world, it's not recommended.
Most of those agencies, which are under the influence and control of the pharmaceutical industry, specifically do not recommend.
But get this, 25% of the planet lives in a country where ivermectin is broadly available, widely used, if not recommended by those governments.
So it's not the whole world, but I would tell you the advanced health economies of the world, they've done a really good job by controlling media and the agencies to dissuade doctors from using.
And they've done even more.
Now, if you try to prescribe it, first of all, the hospitals removed it from their formularies.
Jan, this drug was so toxic that they had to remove it from the formularies.
It's one of the safest drugs known to man, and yet they removed it, just like they remove hydroxychloroquine.
And so what I got to witness is not only the tactics that they deploy, but the power in which they hold, like how it rippled down, it rippled down to retail pharmacies, would not refill my prescriptions anymore.
No, it's not FDA approved.
By the way, as you mentioned, FDA doesn't have to approve it.
But now I have pharmacists parroting the fact that it's not FDA approved.
And I said, I know, it's a repurposed drug and I'm using it for COVID. And they say, I won't fill it.
It's too dangerous.
And that's the war that I've had to fight.
I'm just going to have to comment, because I've said this before in interviews, but how many billions of people have taken ivermectin for river blindness?
I think that's the use that I'm familiar with.
I mean, didn't someone win a Nobel Prize for it?
Well, yeah.
I can't believe we're still talking about this, and I'm still flummoxed.
Well, I'm glad you understand some of the perversions here.
I mean...
One of the safest medicines known to man and the government and the agencies and the pharmacy boards and the medical boards have to punish anyone using it?
You know, the funny thing is none of the studies show that it doesn't work.
Even the big trials that they used to say it doesn't work, if you actually look at the data, they all show benefits, just not statistically significant.
But when you summarize the trials, they all show benefit.
But there's no evidence to show that it doesn't work.
Yet they won't allow you to use it.
So even if I were to give them, okay, let's say it's undetermined as of yet.
There's some data showing it's working, some that's not statistically significant.
Let's say it's not settled yet.
Is it okay that I use it until it's settled because it's so safe?
You would think on a risk-benefit analysis you'd be supported in that.
But that's the tell, though, Jan.
That's the tell.
The fact that they are absolutely...
Suppressing and basically making it illegal to use a risk-benefit approach in treating, it tells you that they're frightened about ivermectin.
Their goal is to make sure it's not used.
And that's not about the patient.
And the only way they can prevent patients from using it in this country is by going after the doctors.
And so we've become targets.
I just wanted to add, I learned recently that it actually was considered by the WHO, at least was, I don't know if it still is, one of the top ten most essential medicines.
I mean, again, one would think obviously.
But, you know, these are...
Jan, when ivermectin was discovered by Satoshi Mora, Professor Satoshi Mora in Japan, and they purified it, he discovered ivermectin, which was produced by a streptomyces bacteria, and they noticed this compound that the bacteria produced, it killed all the parasites in its circumference or in its area.
And then they tested it in the lab, and they found that it was killing parasites.
Yeah.
Then they purified it to avermectin and Merck produced it.
And that discovery won the Nobel Prize because it transformed the health status of a huge portion of the planet that had been suffering and been riddled with disfiguring parasitic infections.
And they basically eradicated river blindness, lymphatic filuriasis, elephantiasis, all of these terrible parasitic infections, restoring the site of many communities across Africa.
And that one discovery literally transformed the status across the world.
Now, that was against parasites.
Well before COVID, 12 years ago, in vitro studies started showing antiviral properties against dengue, West Nile, herpes, measles, even HIV. And so there was 10 years of antiviral research on ivermectin.
So we already knew it had a basis and a plausibility to be an antiviral.
And so it really is, as Satoshi Mura calls it in his Nobel Prize winning address, he called it the wonder drug.
Because it really is.
It has a lot of potential.
It's even used and has a lot of anti-tumor properties.
I mean, I could go on for hours about ivermectin, but it really is a drug for whom it's I think its potential is as yet unrealized.
And then its potential in treating COVID was attacked.
And there was a war on ivermectin.
I'm writing a book about that war, by the way.
Do you see the tide shifting at all in this, both in the ivermectin side and the What we were talking about earlier, which is just sort of the admission of the existence of vaccine injury in some greater than extremely, extremely rare frequency.
I'm not employed in a system anymore, in a hospital or a health system, and so I'm not regularly around folks who are working in the system.
I have a private practice with my partner.
A lot of my colleagues are those who understand the scope and scale of what had gone on and really, unfortunately, the fraudulence and corruption.
So I don't really know what the average physician or provider in that system is thinking.
However, I do have contact with a few people who trust me and have been telling me the things that are going on.
So a couple of things.
I think ivermectin, at least in this country, it's done.
The people who are going to use it, the doctors who have used it, the many patients who benefited, that number is probably at a plateau.
And it's a significant number.
It's a significant number.
I mean, we know that from the prescription data.
I mean, even last August at its peak, there was 90,000 prescriptions written a week for ivermectin.
However, I just think with the latest fraudulent trials being published and the headlines, you're not going to get new numbers of doctors adopted.
So I think ivermectin is done.
The one thing that I think is changing is I think that the ability to suppress the scope and the scale of the vaccine injuries and deaths is starting to slip.
The ERs, the neurologists, cardiologists, oncologists, they're seeing too many diseases in young people that they've never seen before.
Heart attacks, strokes, sudden death, and cancers.
And you cannot suppress that.
You cannot continue to suppress that.
And from what I'm hearing from my colleagues who are still working in systems, they're saying that they're seeing some shift.
They're seeing some doctors now openly pushing back against leadership, openly even talking about the vaccine as a cause of injury.
And so I do think that there is a slow recognition that not everything is as they were told it was.
The safe and effective narrative now I think is being questioned.
The amount of people who are showing up for their boosters is at a plateau if not decreasing.
And so I think the truth about the vaccines might come out sooner than the truth about ivermectin.
I just want to go back to you mentioning that most of these attacks on your license, your lawyer says, are not really something you need to worry about.
Are you concerned?
Can they do something against you?
So let's talk.
I probably didn't mention the other source of attack.
So one is on my medical license, which resides at the state level with the state of Wisconsin.
Those, I don't think, will ever rise to the level of them taking my license away.
I mean, I'm an expert, and everything I've disseminated about ivermectin is based on that expertise.
So unless they want to become as expert as me, I think it's pretty hard for them to tell me I'm wrong.
But...
And even if I was, I can't see how that would make removal of my license.
But anyway, that's one source of the attacks.
The more recent one is something called the American Board of Internal Medicine.
So I'm board certified in three different specialties, internal medicine, pulmonary, and critical care medicine.
And they're what's called a certifying board.
And to be board certified, it used to just be like a kind of a badge of distinction or honor.
It means you passed a specialized test and you showed some sort of higher level of knowledge.
And so you became board certified.
You paid money, you took a test, and you got board certified.
So they have enacted a misinformation policy.
And someone wrote to them complaining about myself, Dr.
Peter McCullough, and Dr.
Paul Merrick.
Basically, listing statements that we've made in interviews or things that we've written or said on our webinar, which whoever submitted this felt was clear examples of medical misinformation.
And so the board forwarded on those letters and said, please defend yourself for not being a misinformation.
They said, we're meeting as a committee.
We're going to review this.
We're going to review your rebuttal letter.
And we're going to decide whether any sanctions are in order for being medical misinformationists.
And I just got to remind people, Dr. Peter McCullough is the most published expert in cardiorenal medicine.
Paul Merrick is the second most published doctor in the history of our specialty, which is critical care medicine.
And I was well-known and highly published in another subfield of critical care medicine.
And so I find it absolutely shocking that some of the most highly published, academic, research, data-driven, evidence-based medicine experts are being accused of misinformation.
It's...
It's shocking.
And what Paul and I did in our reply is if you look at the ABIM, American Board of Internal Medicine's misinformation policy, they actually outline a process.
And the process is if they find one of the board-certified members To be guilty of misinformation, they need to provide us with a letter detailing, showing why what we're saying is misinformation.
They did not do that.
They simply sent us a letter of our statements and asked us to defend what we said.
That's not how it works.
They need to show how we're passing along misinformation.
The definition of misinformation is knowingly passing on false information.
You can argue with my interpretations of the data.
You can argue with the sources of the data.
However, I still have data, reasoning, and logic.
There's no way I'm knowingly passing along wrong information.
And so they're really, I think, coming from very thin ice, and they're not following procedure.
And I think it's very transparent.
And I find it almost laughable in their attempt to go after us.
I don't know what would prompt them to act on that complaint.
I find it shocking.
I find it shocking what they're doing.
And I'll tell you, they're going to lose in the court of public opinion.
I mean, politicians have written to them.
Letter-writing campaigns have sprung up.
I will tell you, there's a lot of people in this country that do not want us attacked because they trust our expertise and they trust our interpretation, compilation, and dissemination of the data in which forms our opinions.
I'm wondering how you imagine this ends, because you said you think ivermectin is done, that public opinion isn't going to change.
For example, you're obviously very closely tied to said drug.
It's your thing, right?
There's these attacks.
Of course you have your defenders and of course you have your patients, right?
But how do you see this ending?
This is what I hope.
And I'm just going to be blunt here, Jan.
But I think that the condition called regulatory capture, which has been described in multiple governmental agencies, Department of the Interior, Environmental, Transportation.
When you talk about health care, I believe that these two and a half years now...
is one of the most shocking examples of total regulatory capture of our health agencies by the vaccination and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
I think it has been a colossal fraud and is exemplified by massive corruption on almost every aspect of COVID. That's what I've come to learn.
It's not what I believed in the beginning at all.
I looked for them for guidance.
I became expert on a number of errors, and I realized that they weren't based on science, that there was something else going on.
So what I think is going to happen is I do believe, let's call it a scandal.
Call it the COVID scandal, the COVID fraud.
I do think that people are going to understand what happened.
They're going to start understanding that the health agencies did not act with the public health interest as their primary consideration.
And it was largely in service of the pharmaceutical and vaccination manufacturers.
I think once people recognize that, they're going to start questioning everything.
And I think the truth might come out.
About a number of things that I've been talking about.
So that's both a prediction and a hope, Jan.
I'm fully aware that I could be totally wrong on that.
And the history books are not going to say what I think they should say.
And this is going to be some sort of story of everything was done according to science the best they can.
But conditions on the ground shifted so we changed strategies.
That's not what happened at all.
They knew what they were doing when they destroyed hydroxychloroquine.
They knew what they were doing when they destroyed avormectin.
They knew what they were doing when they were burying adverse event data around the efficacy and safety of the vaccines.
And I want that truth to come out.
And I think when it does, I hope that the larger population has an understanding of what regulatory capture means, what its consequences are, and how to try to correct and defend ourselves against that.
We cannot let industry profiteers guide public health policy.
This is what happens when you do that.
This is what happens.
It is a crisis at this point and has been for two years.
It didn't have to be this way.
Well, Dr.
Pierre-Cory, it's such a pleasure to have you on the show again.
Thanks, John.
Good to see you.
▲
Export Selection