[FREE EPISODE] Dr. Paul Marik: Spike-Related Diseases and the Suppression of Early Treatment
|
Time
Text
You have the spike causing inflammation, the spike causing clotting, and you have the spike causing all of this autoimmune disease.
Today I sit down with Dr.
Paul Merrick, the most highly published critical care physician in the world who is still actively practicing, and co-founder of the FLCCC Alliance.
If we had adopted, as a number of countries have done, early, widespread, early treatment, we could have controlled and ended this pandemic in the middle of 2020.
We discussed Dr.
Merrick's views on the corruption of medicine, from the suppression of off-label drugs, to the manipulation of safety data, to the gaslighting of the vaccine injured.
I used to think that what you read in the medical journals was the truth.
We know now that it's completely false.
This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Jan Jekielek.
Dr.
Paul Merrick, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.
Thank you, Jan.
It's an honor and a pleasure to be here today.
Well, it's an honor and a pleasure to sit down with you.
You were one of the very earliest people Who were doing early treatment of COVID. I mean, this is back in March of 2020, when you were leading the ICU at the hospital in Norfolk, Virginia.
Why don't you tell me what was happening at that time?
Yeah.
So obviously, you know, I was in Norfolk.
New York's not far away.
This was March, and we knew that COVID had come to the U.S. and had come to the Eastern Shore, and that we were going to get COVID. And at that time, if you remember, in New York, the standard current of care was really no care.
The NIH and the WHO said there was no specific treatment.
It was supportive care.
And if you couldn't breathe, you were intubated, put on a ventilator, and you died.
And that's completely and utterly preposterous.
It just goes against the basic foundation of medicine, that you would have a disease which had a high fatality rate, and you wouldn't try something, something.
Just to treat these patients.
And we thought, this is extremely bizarre.
What the NIH was saying at that time is, there's no treatment.
If you get it, just stay at home and see what happens.
And if you go blue and you can't breathe, go to the hospital.
I mean, this was absurd.
What we did is, you know, it was myself first and then a number of colleagues, Dr.
Corey, Dr.
Verone, Dr.
Maduro, we said, you know what, let's come together with a treatment protocol based on our understanding of the disease.
So this wasn't random.
It was basically based on our understanding of the disease at that time and clinical observations.
And what we figured out...
Well, there were two major components of COVID pneumonia because COVID attacked the lung and these people died of lung failure.
And the two components were inflammation.
Patients were developing profound pulmonary inflammation.
The second is they were developing clotting and we know that then and we absolutely know it now.
So it wasn't rocket science so what we decided we needed a drug for the inflammation and the most potent anti-inflammatory drug we have is corticosteroids and the best corticosteroid for the lung is methylprednisolone.
So we added methylprednisolone and heparin, which really formed the foundation of our protocol.
And we developed what was called the MathPlus protocol for the treatment of the hospitalized patient.
And people thought this made sense and adopted it around the world.
At that time, we were heavily criticized, you know, for firstly using corticosteroids and then heparin.
People said, you can't do it.
It's a viral disease.
You're going to kill people.
They were outraged.
But, you know, we saw it worked.
You know, we were at the bedside.
You know, there's nothing like being a doctor at the bedside seeing what happens.
And then, of course, you know, six months later, the recovery trial came around and showed, believe it or not, Corticosteroids save lives.
So unfortunately in that study they used the wrong steroid in the wrong dose.
But steroids are so potent that it actually was able to reduce mortality.
So we were vindicated.
It's absurd that the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine publicly said in response to this that we got lucky.
It wasn't luck.
It was we understood the disease.
We were bedside clinicians who were observing what was happening, and we used common sense and basic science to treat these people.
And then obviously we know that the spike protein activates clotting, causes profound activation of clotting, and that's why we added an anticoagulant, heparin.
And it took maybe a year before.
Again, there were really good studies proving that heparin saved lives.
And so, looking at my data, People can argue about the data which my hospital has done, but in my hands, and even using conservative data, our hospital mortality was around 10%.
It was probably a little bit lower.
Dr.
Verone, who had complete control of his hospital in Houston at that time, his mortality was about 6%.
The hospital mortality, and we know this because we've published data on it, around the world was around 20%, sometimes up to 30%.
So, you know, conservatively we have the risk of people dying.
And so that's how we got involved in this.
You know, what was frustrating was that we were in almost pushback we got and why people couldn't see what was happening.
This was so obvious.
You didn't need to be a rocket scientist or a noble laureate to actually see what's going on.
This is basic clinical medicine.
You have a problem.
We have a solution.
Just treat the people.
Stop the nonsense.
And even to this day we're being attacked, even though the data is overwhelming that our protocol saves lives.
And ours wasn't the only one.
There are similar protocols across the world using very similar approaches which have shown the same thing.
So before we continue, why don't you tell me how you came to be running the ICU in Norfolk, at the hospital in Norfolk, and your background.
Yes.
So I'm a critical care doctor or intensivist.
I trained in South Africa.
I did a critical care fellowship in London, Ontario.
And basically I've been in an academic setting in various teaching hospitals, you know, since the mid-1990s.
And my interest is obviously ICU. One of my particular interests was sepsis, which is one of the biggest killers on this planet.
Maybe 40 million people die every year of sepsis.
And so they were very...
Obvious overlaps between sepsis, which is a profound inflammatory disease, and COVID. So that's maybe how we got onto our protocol because we adapted our sepsis protocol to COVID. Tell me a little more because I think what you're describing to me is a little bit understated.
You were very well known already before COVID hit.
Yeah, so I think for two reasons.
One is I challenge the status quo.
That's just what I've been, the way I was taught, is that not to believe everything you've told.
You know, science is about challenging the status quo, you know, pushing the bar forward, you know, asking sometimes inconvenient questions.
And so, you know, many of the The procedures and protocols which we followed were completely bogus.
And this is before COVID. This is looking at various protocols in different realms of medicine.
Yeah, this is all pre-COVID. So probably one of the most interesting is that there's a thing called the central venous pressure.
So people measure the pressure in the right atrium.
And somehow this was used as a standard of care to direct fluid therapy in the ICU. And it was completely bogus and based on completely bad information.
But it was a standard of care and many protocols insisted that you measure this Parameter and direct therapy and you know I write a pivotal paper on this basically questioning this and saying this is completely bogus and in fact the only study to support this was a study in seven standing horses that that was the basis the scientific basis of this widespread I've
done almost every single ICU. People thought I was a rattle rouser, but I follow the science and I follow the truth, and wherever it takes you, it takes you.
Sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm right, but I think science is questioning.
You can't just follow blindly.
You have to question everything.
And I think that's become even more important now with COVID, is that, you know, science is based on, you know, challenging the status quo, asking questions, having a debate, looking at the data, looking at opposing data, and then, you know, coming to some kind of consensus.
And it's self-correcting.
You know, that's the nice thing about science is it changes, it evolves as our understanding evolves.
This is quite an amazing thing.
I'll be honest, I didn't fully grasp the significance of this Don't treat until the disease is extremely serious approach, which was taken initially.
You also developed what's called outpatient treatment before people come into the hospital.
And it's just so strange that there was no directed effort to figure out what that would be how to keep people out of the hospital because once you're in the hospital that's a that lowers your likelihood of a good outcome dramatically right so you know there's lots of theories about that but tell me what what do you think so you know we obviously figured out pretty soon that You know, by the time patients come to a hospital, they're pretty bad off.
And, you know, your risk of landing in ICU or ventilator is high.
And we realized right very soon that the key to controlling this pandemic, the key to ending it was early treatment.
Which is such an obvious thing, is that what you want to do is treat people day one, day two, day three of their illness with repurposed drugs that work.
This is common sense because it prevents the disease progressing.
So they don't get sick, they don't go to hospital, they don't die, they don't use hospital resources.
Secondly, they don't spread it to the family members.
And thirdly, they don't spread it in the community.
So if we had adopted, as a number of countries have done, early, widespread, early treatment, we could have controlled and ended this pandemic in the middle of 2020.
It was the only way out, and it currently is the only way out.
As we know, there are lots of repurposed drugs.
People have focused on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, but if you look at the data, there's a group called early C19. There must be 20 repurposed drugs that work very effectively in reducing The disease, the severity of the disease, the risk of hospitalization, and the risk of death.
But nobody knows about it, because they don't want you to know about it.
It's part of their agenda.
And there's no question of doubt, if we had adopted a policy of early aggressive treatment, this would have been in our rearview mirror, we wouldn't be discussing this today.
Well, so, of course, that's a bold thing to say, you know, given the kind of, let's call it the mainstream consciousness around COVID. So justify it for me, please.
Yeah, so...
You know, the obvious thing to do is to treat people early, because it prevents the spread of the disease, it prevents the transmission.
And there are multiple drugs we work, and there are examples.
For example, in Uttar Pradesh, they have a very progressive administrator.
So Uttar Pradesh is a very big province in India, about 200 million people, so it's really the size of a country.
And for reasons that are truly astonishing, he decided to adopt a treat and spread policy where they basically treated everybody in this province with ivermectin and a number of other drugs.
They abolished COVID-19.
The mortalities plummeted.
And there are many other examples in the world, in certain provinces, in Mexico, in South America, in Asia.
So we have very good epidemiological data that if you aggressively treat early, that you can get rid of this disease.
What's also astonishing is the U.S. is one of the highest mortality rates from COVID, which is astonishing, if not the highest.
We're the most progressive country.
We have more resources than any other country.
We have all of this brain power.
Yet, if you look at countries in Africa, their risk of dying was infinitesimally small.
And I think there are many reasons for this.
One of them is, which is fascinating, First, ivermectin is used for prophylaxis of parasitic diseases, so much of the population is exposed to ivermectin, and there's very good epidemiological data, maybe four or five independent studies that have shown that those countries that have mass distribution programs for ivermectin actually have a much lower mortality.
Secondly, people live outdoors, mainly, not indoors like we do, so they get something called sunshine.
Believe it or not, sunshine is such an important curative factor in terms of improving your general health, your immune system, your vitamin D. And obviously they don't have the enormous crowding like we did have in New York City or maybe in Italy.
So I think there are multiple factors that led to this anomaly.
But why didn't we look at You know, the epidemiological data to see, okay, what countries are doing well and what countries are doing poorly?
We did really badly.
And I think there are multiple factors that, you know, led to this.
I can think of a couple.
I mean, probably these are younger countries also, I would guess, and also the rate of obesity is probably a lot lower because those are two highly correlated with bad outcomes, right?
Age and obesity.
Yeah, so you're absolutely true.
So that, astonishingly, over 30% of the American population are classified as obese.
And obesity is a major risk factor, if not the most important risk factor for getting severe COVID and dying from COVID. And many of the young people who actually died from COVID were obese.
And it seems to be that fat tissue has a high concentration of ACE2 receptors, So that may be one of the reasons.
And then the fat tissue acts as a source of these inflammatory proteins.
So you're right.
I think it's a terribly unhealthy lifestyle.
You know, Americans, not only are they overweight, but they are sugar and starch addicts.
So they have uncontrolled blood glucose, which again increases your risk.
So we have this combination of obese people who are unhealthy, have unhealthy lifestyles, and then whom we locked them down.
So instead of letting them go outdoors, get some sunshine, get some exercise, we locked them down indoors where all they would do is eat.
So we perpetuated this problem of poor diet and starch addiction.
There's this other element.
You're talking about sunshine, right?
And I was reading quite a bit, and I think our mutual friend Dr.
Ryan Cole actually put me onto this first.
Maybe a year ago, that basically a vitamin D deficiency was also correlated with bad outcomes.
And this seems like the most obvious thing that you could do as a public health measure would be to tell people, hey, just make sure your vitamin D is good.
Yeah.
So there's overwhelming data concerning vitamin D. The federal government and state agencies do not want to admit it, just because it's such an obvious intervention.
It's so obvious.
And the data actually shows that if your vitamin D level is above 50, that your chances of dying of COVID are close to zero.
Zero.
And so we know who are at highest risk of vitamin D deficiency.
It's elderly people.
People in long-term care facilities.
Because they're indoors, they don't get outdoors.
Obese people.
People of color.
So it was such a simple and obvious intervention.
Just let them take vitamin D Also, tell them to go outdoors.
If they live in a part of the country where there's sunshine, get sunshine every day.
Sunshine has enormous curative properties, both in terms of making vitamin D, and also sun has infrared rays that are enormously curative.
So I think the best thing is just go outdoors and walk.
You get exercise.
You get sunshine.
It's good for your mentation.
And supplement with vitamin D. I think if we did that simple intervention, we could have saved tens of thousands of lives.
But, you know, we still can at this point, you know, do some of these things, right?
Because it's at the moment, you know, while, you know, many people would argue this is absolutely not an emergency anymore, it's still with us.
Oh yes, COVID is here, and it probably will be here for a long time.
So people need to empower themselves.
They need to do what they can do to improve their immune system such that, firstly, they don't get COVID, and secondly, if they do, it's a very minor infection.
And so there are some very simple things that people can do.
Vitamin D being the most obvious.
There are other things such as vitamin C, melatonin, sunshine, Nasal spray.
So we know, where does the virus replicate?
Where?
In your nose.
So if you want to kill the virus, it's simple.
Use a viricidal nose spray.
So if you're exposed in a crowd, you're in a situation where you're exposed to a lot of people, and maybe potentially exposed, just spray your nose with a Nasal spray.
I particularly used providone iodine, a 1% solution, which kills the virus in seconds.
It kills it in seconds.
And you know, this is not made up.
There's a very good study, a randomized controlled trial, where they randomized people with COVID. They had COVID. These were people who were scared of going to hospital.
Imagine such a thing.
People with COVID being scared.
And they randomized them to a nasal spray or placebo.
And the nasal spray significantly reduced their time of viral shedding, reduced the hospitalization rate, and reduced death.
So this is such a cheap, simple intervention, and yet nobody wants to talk about it.
It's an outrage.
So, you know, we have many different forms of prophylactic, which is prevention, and early treatment protocols to limit this disease.
But then I want you to know about this.
I want you to stay home.
Get sick, and then go to hospital.
It's an outrage.
So you do have an early treatment protocol that's been honed over the years now to something that's, you know, a number of people I know have taken it and have, you know, kind of swear by it.
Why don't you just briefly tell me about that?
Yes, so we have a prevention protocol and then we have an early treatment protocol.
Early treatment protocol, we use Ivermectin, which is not a horse dewormer.
So that was a propaganda campaign which was orchestrated by the FDA and is a complete and not a lie.
They claim it's a toxic horse dewormer.
So let's be clear.
3.7 billion doses of ivermectin have been given to human beings.
And after penicillin, it has had the greatest influence on the health of humanity on this planet by almost eradicating a whole number of parasitic diseases.
It is completely safe.
I don't know how to stress it enough.
It is completely safe.
So you're more likely to die from Tylenol.
You're more likely to die from Tylenol than you are from Ivermectin.
So, you know, we could argue about its efficacy.
We believe it's an effective drug.
But, you know, if you have very few options...
What is there to lose?
If you have a sick patient, you have a drug that's completely safe, a drug that is cheap.
What in the heck have you got to lose by trying this drug?
And we know from really good studies, so there are studies that are designed to fail.
But recently, there's a very big study out of Brazil, over 100,000 patients for prophylaxis, showing that there was a 93% reduction in the risk of getting COVID. So, you know, people say, well, I'm cherry-picking.
Well, you know what, I think it's a good study.
What we do is we speak to patients, believe it or not.
And patients tell us over and over and over again how their disease changed course completely once they started ivermectin.
So our early treatment protocol involves ivermectin.
We sometimes use hydroxychloroquine.
We use a number of nutraceuticals.
And it seems very effective.
So the biggest problem, though, is we're using these drugs off-label.
And I think there's a big misunderstanding of what off-label actually means.
When a drug company develops a drug, they then apply to the FDA for licensing, but it's for a specific indication.
So, for example, if you have psoriasis, the drug will be approved for psoriasis.
However, many drugs have Applications beyond what it's originally licensed for, and that's called off-label.
And about 20% of drugs used in the hospital are used off-label every single day.
It's common practice.
And in fact, the FDA promotes, the FDA themselves, if you go to their website, promotes the use of off-label drugs.
And what they say is that doctors are fully entitled to use FDA-approved off-label drugs at their own discretion, the discretion of the physician.
But suddenly, with COVID, the rules changed.
You couldn't use an off-label drug.
And you have to ask why.
And obviously they don't want people to use off-label drugs.
They want you to use their, firstly, their expensive drugs.
And it obviously would compete with the The mandate for the vaccine, because if there were cheap effective drugs that could treat COVID, why would you want to be vaccinated with an experimental vaccine whose safety has never been established?
So it was a valid alternative for people who wanted a choice.
You know, it's called personal freedom and choice and consent.
And so people could have chosen, you know, I don't want the vaccine, I'd rather be treated with this protocol.
But, you know, this was denied.
You've made me aware recently of a number of papers that were published, one I believe in 2004, another one in 2014, of use of Repurposed drugs for related diseases, SARS and MERS, and studies funded actually by the NIH itself, amazingly enough.
That was shocking to me.
In 2004, there was a study from Belgium looking at the use of Chloroquine for SARS-1 showed it in a culture medium to be highly effective in killing the virus and limiting transmission.
In 2005 there was a paper by our CDC The Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, America, which showed exactly the same thing, that chloroquine was very effective for the control of SARS-1.
And then astonishingly in 2014 when we We were having the MERS outbreak.
There was a paper published by the NIAD, which is the NIH controlled by Fauci, which was entitled The Use of Repurposed Drugs for the Treatment of MERS. And they listed 26, I think, repurposed drugs.
Number two was chloroquine.
So, you know, the scientific community and the NIH were perfectly aware that there were repurposed drugs and repurposed drugs could be used for SARS and MERS and SARS-2.
But somehow when COVID-2 came around, That didn't apply anymore because you must ask why.
Clearly there were severe conflicts of interest.
It was inconvenient.
It was inconvenient for them to be a repurposed drug.
Not only does it tell me that these agencies would have been aware, but it also tells me that the doctors who tried these drugs had a really good basis to do it on.
Absolutely.
I mean, there was good biological premise of why these drugs worked.
That's why they did the studies, which actually showed there was a whole host of drugs that worked.
If you kind of think about a pandemic, what you want to control it is Or repurposed drugs, because by their very nature, these are cheap, inexpensive, easy to manufacture, and since this is a global issue, it then is very easy to distribute these drugs around the entire world and control the pandemic.
Which was the obvious answer, is the use of cheap, repurposed, effective, safe drugs.
And you know what I mean?
Hydroxychloroquine is safe if you use it in the right dose, which is really important.
And ivermectin is exceedingly safe.
You could use 10 times the recommended dose and it's safe.
Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Nigella Sativa.
There's a whole host of medications, melatonin, that are highly effective as a repurposed drug for controlling this disease.
But it went against the narrative.
So, you know, I've been recently looking at this new Lancet Commission report looking at the response to COVID-19 and, you know, it points out some huge, huge flaws.
But one thing that's kind of starkly missing is this issue of repurposed drugs in there.
What are your thoughts?
We now know that the WHO, the NIH, the CDC, the FDA, all these agencies are captured by Big Pharma.
Big Pharma controls the agenda.
And it's obviously not in Big Pharma's interests for cheap, effective repurposed drugs to have a role in this disease.
It's just not going to make money.
Unfortunately, you know, you have to follow the money.
But I think COVID has shone a bright light onto the mischievous behavior of big pharma.
And so let's be clear.
Big pharma, they are not in business to save lives or improve the quality of people's lives.
They're in business, for one thing, to make money, even if they sell a drug which they know is harmful.
You just have to look at all the multiple, multiple lawsuits that have been filed against them.
Now that we're talking about this issue of big pharma, we're going to have to talk about the issue of these genetic vaccines and the response to them and the harms associated with them.
In fact, we're here at this conference to discuss treatment of spike-related disease, I think is how it's called.
So I guess before I go there, This is something I've just been made aware of as well.
I've been reading Dr.
Joe Latipo's book.
He said that the way in medical school they are taught, including him, are taught about vaccines is just very, very different than the way they're taught about almost everything else, other types of drugs, frankly, treatments, everything.
And he describes it as almost like an indoctrination, which he himself was in, he says at one point.
What are your thoughts?
Yeah, so he's a very smart man, I have the utmost respect, and he's absolutely right.
I mean, I was taught that vaccines and vaccination was the most important development, the most important medical intervention ever, that it changed the natural history of almost every infectious disease.
We taught this blindly.
We've never given data to prove it, which just assumed that vaccines are highly effective and very safe and have changed the natural history of almost all of the infectious diseases.
But when you actually look at the truth, it's very far from the truth.
So if you look at most diseases, measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, Almost all of these diseases had declined significantly before the introduction of vaccination.
And this is because of simple things as clean water, sanitation, better hygiene.
So those interventions had a much greater effect on infectious diseases than vaccination.
Now, sure, you know, I think the smallpox vaccine did make a difference.
So I think there are some vaccines which were very important.
But, you know, our kids are exposed to, I don't know, 30 different vaccines.
We know many of them are not effective.
Many of them are not safe.
And what's remarkable...
And what is truly remarkable is none of these vaccines have ever been tested in a randomized placebo-controlled trial.
So their safety has never been evaluated.
Never.
And what they have in the vaccine is aluminium compounds.
So the reason they add aluminium is many of these dead vaccines, if you inject them, they don't mount an immune response.
And you're talking about just traditional vaccines.
Traditional vaccines.
Before we continue, you're telling me no vaccine has ever been tested this way?
No.
Well, yes.
The gold standard.
The gold standard is randomized control.
So it actually is...
So there is two studies.
The one is the Gardasil vaccine, but they lied.
What they said is patients were randomized to the active vaccine and the adjuvant, which was aluminium, or placebo, which had saline.
So that's what people thought.
But what actually they did is the placebo group got the aluminium adjuvant.
They didn't get...
To placebo.
And it's the adjuvant which causes all of these autoimmune and inflammatory diseases.
So when you then look at the side effect profile of the active Gardasil versus the placebo, The side effects are exactly the same.
Why?
Because they've both got aluminium.
And Merck used a novel kind of aluminium compound that had never been used before.
And there's very good data that it actually is the aluminium in the vaccine which is profoundly toxic.
There is one completely randomized controlled trial in which they gave participants the active vaccine, the adjuvant versus saline.
One trial.
This was done in a hundred sheep.
Okay?
This is sheep.
And which vaccine is that?
So this was a special, this was a vaccine for sheep.
It had to do with blue tongue disease.
So they wanted to actually see the effects.
Basically it was to test the aluminium.
In the vaccine.
And what they found was the aluminium was toxic.
These sheep became very sick sheep.
Their behavior changed.
They became unsociable.
Many of them died compared to the sheep that got placebo, real placebo.
So as far as I know, that's the only true randomized controlled trial ever done with a vaccine in sheep.
It's an astonishing thing.
So people think these vaccines are safe and effective and have been tested.
That is not true.
And the presumption that the aluminium as the adjuvant in many of the vaccines is safe is just unfounded.
It's never been tested.
And it's got to the point where the FDA and the CDC just assume it's safe, but it's never been tested.
And now we're talking about the previous vaccines.
We're not even talking about these new experimental jabs, let's call them.
The problem with them is they were not adequately tested for side effects, for the ability to cause cancer, their effect in pregnant people, their effect in children, their effect in people with multiple medical diseases.
They just bypassed every single safety measure.
There were no good animal studies.
We don't even know what's in the vaccine.
This is the most astonishing thing.
We're not sure what's in the vial because it's a secret.
It's a secret.
So, I mean, it's astonishing.
You know, as a physician, when I prescribe ampicillin, I know exactly the molecular structure.
I know how it works.
I know its kinetics.
I know its pharmacodynamics.
I know its side effects.
I know everything about it.
But with these vaccines, it's a secret.
They don't want to tell us.
We're not even sure what's in the vaccine.
There was a group in Germany that actually looked at, that did electron microscopy, and they found all kinds of heavy metals, which shouldn't be there, in the vaccine.
So we have no idea what people are being injected with, never mind their safety.
And we absolutely know now, categorically, definitively, that they're not safe and they're ineffective.
Well, so there was this recent bombshell admission in an EU testimony where a Pfizer official basically said, No to the question of whether their genetic vaccine had ever been tested for transmission.
I mean, what's your reaction to this?
I mean, they've lied about everything in terms of the vaccine.
We were told that when you get the shot in the arm, it stays in the arm.
We now know that that's completely false.
It distributes throughout the whole body.
A recent study actually showed mRNA present in breast milk.
So we know It goes throughout the whole body.
So that was a lie.
We were told that it prevents transmission of the disease, which we know is not true.
We were told it reduces the risk of hospitalization, which we now know is not true.
Wait a sec.
This is the one thing I thought was true.
The risk of hospitalization reduction, no?
So if you actually look at the data now, it's part of the lie.
So if you look at the national health system, you look at the data in Scotland, the double vaccinated, the triple vaccinated, and quadruple vaccinated, they had a higher risk of being hospitalized than the unvaccinated.
So, I mean, this is truly astonishing that it actually, because of its effect on the immune system, and this is data from Israel, this is data from European countries, this is data from the UK, the more you get vaccinated, the greater your risk of getting COVID and being hospitalized for COVID. And I'm not making this up.
So I was aware of this negative efficacy in terms of contracting the disease, getting the disease, but Severe outcomes was supposed to be the last thing that these vaccines actually did in the way they were supposed to be effective.
Yes, so we don't know.
The bottom line is that, you know, maybe with the original Wuhan variant in those with severe comorbidities, maybe it did have a benefit, which we don't know.
But now, this vaccine is completely ineffective.
So, I mean, it's the ancestral strain.
They're using a virus which is gone.
It doesn't exist.
They're vaccinating you against a virus which doesn't exist.
And the idea that it reduced mortality is highly questionable.
But now there is this new bivalent vaccine which is supposed to work on the Omicron variant.
Yeah, so fortunately it was widely tested, my understanding, in eight mice.
And in fact, all the eight mice got Omicron.
So it caused an antibody response, but it didn't protect these eight mice from getting Omicron.
So that's the extent of the scientific evaluation of these vaccines.
How is this even possible that You know, this new vaccine platform that hasn't been tested thoroughly, that we don't know the contents of apparently, is approved based on injections of eight mice.
Yeah, I think if anything tells you that these agencies are captured, this tells you that basically the agencies do what Big Pharma wants them to do.
I can give you another example.
So there's a drug called Remdesivir.
Remdesivir doesn't work.
We know it doesn't work.
We know it's highly toxic.
The WHO recommend against its use.
So they just bend the rules to Follow their masters, which is big pharma.
And this is why we have to change the structure of these regulatory agencies, because they're meant to regulate the industry that's controlling them.
And this needs to change.
There needs to be complete financial and no conflicts of interest.
So Dr.
Ashish Jha, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, has said there have not been any serious side effects of the vaccines.
That's a direct quote.
What's your reaction?
Yeah, which is astonishing.
I mean, that somebody of that stature could actually provide such misinformation is astonishing.
So I'm considered a misinformationist because I'm trying to tell the truth.
And that's obviously a lie.
So how do I know it's a lie?
Well, actually from Pfizer's own data.
So under the Freedom of Information Act, the release of the data that was hidden for 75 years with the first release, we know that in the first 90 days, there were 1,124 deaths directly related to the vaccine and over 42,000 42,000 adverse events, many of which were serious adverse events.
And so they list the conditions associated with the adverse events.
It's eight pages long.
So to claim that there are no adverse events is a lie.
I mean, we knew three months into the rollout of the vaccine that they were neither safe nor effective.
It's very serious adverse events.
And at that time, there was enough information to shut down the program.
Which is what they've done previously with vaccines which proved to be harmful.
But yet this data was hidden.
And so there can be no question of doubt.
This data now is in the public domain for anyone to see.
And the data is there categorically.
The number of deaths and serious adverse events related to the Pfizer vaccine.
So what are the most common harms that you've been seeing?
Yeah, so that's actually a very interesting question because the adverse events from the vaccine differ somewhat from long COVID. So there is a commonality in that it's mainly due to the persistence of the spike protein.
And the spike protein is probably one of the most toxic proteins the human body has ever seen.
It seems though, and we have really good data from a number of groups, so firstly from Pfizer's own data, and then there have been two independent surveys looking at vaccine injured, both in the US and in Germany.
And over 80% of the adverse events are neurological, which is what makes this such a devastating disease.
So these people are neurologically impaired.
The commonest is Overwhelming severe fatigue and tiredness.
Then brain fog.
So it appears with the ability to think clearly, to do cognitive tasks, to function normally as a human being.
So it's these overwhelming fatigue, overwhelming tiredness, brain fog, And then they get what's called a peripheral neuropathy, in which they develop antibodies against the nerve fibers.
So they get terrible shooting pains, paresthesias, numbness in their legs, Terrible pain, burning pains, which can be enormously disabling.
And that seems to be pretty common.
And then obviously we have the myocarditis.
They can't hide that.
So we know this particularly affects young men who seem, for whatever reason, to be particularly vulnerable to developing myocarditis.
And then there are a whole host of other diseases.
Patients get severe ringing in their ears called tinnitus.
They get visual problems.
They get problems with walking and ambulation.
So it's a spectrum.
In fact, there are over 2,000 published peer-reviewed papers describing different medical conditions associated with the vaccine.
But unfortunately, the most serious are the neurological, which interfere with people's ability to work, to function normally.
To ambulate.
So these are really serious complications.
So from what I've heard, some of these symptoms of long COVID, as it's called, are also brain fog and fatigue and so forth.
So there's an overlap.
And then, of course, there's this potential interactive effect where people that are vaccinated are now more likely to become vaccinated.
To get COVID, so it could be a double whammy.
I don't know if this is something you've observed, or is there a way to measure it?
Absolutely.
You're absolutely correct.
So it's basically related to the load of spike protein you have.
The more spike protein you have, you're greater your risk of complications, organ failure, and death.
So how do you get more spike?
The more you're vaccinated, The more spike.
But obviously, if you get COVID and you're already vaccinated, you get spike some more.
So basically, the bottom line is don't get vaccinated and avoid getting COVID if you're vaccinated.
And if you are vaccinated to be, I mean, sorry, if you do get COVID to be treated early, because one of, again, the reasons for early treatment is that if you treat early, you limit the load of spike protein.
So it's the spike protein, the load of spike protein, that determines the complications.
So you're right.
There was this misinformation that if you had long COVID, you should be vaccinated.
But that's the worst thing to do because it further increases your load of spike protein.
So if you have long COVID, you absolutely want to avoid being vaccinated.
Okay, this is fascinating.
Explain to me the body of evidence that exists that shows it's the load of spike protein that's responsible for all of this disease.
Okay, so what does spike protein do to the body?
So it does a number of horrendous things.
The one thing is it's profoundly pro-inflammatory.
So it's taken up by what's called phagocytic cells, and these are cells in the brain, cells in the heart, cells throughout the body, and it causes profound inflammation.
It's taken up by the cells lining the blood vessels.
So, you know, Dr.
Cole, who's a really outstanding pathologist who's going to be at our conference, has obviously done pathology specimens.
And what he finds is if you look at the endothelial cells, and these are the cells lining the blood vessel, they're absolutely packed with spike protein.
The cells are packed with spike protein.
So this idea that the spike stays in the arm is false.
The spike circulates and it goes to the professional, what they call professional phagocytic cells, so you know the microglia cells in the brain, and it causes inflammation.
It goes to the endothelial cells and it does some really bad things to the endothelium.
So the endothelium lines blood vessels.
So what does it do?
It causes the blood vessels to constrict and it causes clotting.
So it interferes with blood flow.
And when it interferes with blood flow, you have what's called infarction.
It kills the blood.
The tissue which the blood vessels supply.
So we know that people who have been exposed to spike have micro-infarcts in their brain if we do high-sensitive MRI. So that's one of the mechanisms.
The other is that, believe it or not, they manufactured Spike to have both two foreign proteins.
One is an amyloid protein and the other is a prion protein.
So prions are mad cow disease.
They added, when they designed this vaccine, they added a prion to the receptor binding domain of the spike protein.
And they did that because it then binds more avidly to the ACE2 receptor.
So people who get the vaccine are at much higher risk of getting prion disease, which is mad cow disease.
And indeed, there have been many cases of mad cow disease being described.
As I said, it has amyloid protein.
So what we know about these clots that form is that these are very mysterious clots because they're very fibrinous, they're very resistant to breakdown, and they have amyloid.
And this is likely from the amyloid within the spike protein.
So that's one of the mechanisms.
The other, which is very common in the vaccine injured, is what's called autoimmunity.
So some of the domains in the spike protein look very much like the host's antigens.
So it's called molecular mimicry.
So what happens is when the host mounts an immune response against the spike, At the same time, it causes antibodies directed against the host's own tissues.
So the host is attacking itself.
So you can see that this is a complete onslaught.
You have the spike causing inflammation, the spike causing clotting, the spike causing amyloid and prion disease, and you have the spike causing all of this autoimmune disease.
So it's a total onslaught from every angle.
And that's just the beginning of what spike does.
And it seems the more spike you have, the more inflammation you have.
So I think that the data, you know, the pathologist never lies because they can see the tissue.
And, you know, I've seen the slides that Dr.
Cole shows, and it's astonishing to see The spike protein, it's just packing the endothelial cells, which means it affects the blood vessels.
We also know, and this is frightening data from Dr.
Patterson, who's looked at circulating white cells.
He's found 18 months after long COVID or vaccination, circulating white cells still have spike protein within the cell.
18 months.
So...
The effects are devastating and long term and we don't know.
It goes to the ovary and it probably kills off ova.
You know, women are born with a finite number of ova.
It's not like sperm which divide.
You know, you're born with your set of ova and that's it.
And we know I mean this is well researched data.
The fertility rates in 2022 in multiple European countries have plummeted significantly.
A 20 to 30 percent decrease in sudden decrease in fertility rates, live births, presumably because of the effect of spike on the ovary.
So the spike goes everywhere.
It goes to every organ in the body and it does devastating things.
So how many vaccine-injured people and how many long COVID patients has your group treated at this point?
Yes, so I personally don't treat it, and the FLCC really is an informational educational organization.
Our goal is to inform patients and inform doctors and educate doctors.
So we don't directly treat patients, but we have colleagues associated with our group who do treat patients, Dr.
Corey being one of them.
But if you actually look at conservative statistics, and this is why it's frightening, is firstly, the federal government doesn't recognize the vaccine injured as an entity.
So, you know, these poor people who are vaccine injured, there's no question, have limited resources, and most doctors will say, you know, I don't know what's wrong with you.
It's puzzling to me, but I can tell you it's not the vaccine.
That's what they all told.
So they denied health care, they denied compensation, and they denied treatment.
So, you know, the numbers are difficult to know.
If you look at the VARS data, we're looking at over a million.
If we look at Pfizer's data, we're looking at over two to three million.
If we use this, there was a survey called Polefish, which independently looked at vaccine people to see the incidence of a 6.8 percent So if you extrapolate that to the number of people vaccinated in this country, in this country alone we're talking about 10 to 15 million vaccine-injured people.
So this is a humanitarian catastrophe.
Whether it's 1 million or 10 million, I think we're facing a massive medical catastrophe because there are these massive numbers of vaccine-injured people Who are ignored and shunned by the medical community.
Most of the time they're told, it's all in your head, there's nothing wrong with you.
Even though we have objective evidence that they are injured.
So the consequences of vaccine injured, I think, are going to far exceed those of long COVID. So obviously long COVID is a big problem, but I think the severe severity, so long COVID generally gets better and is self-limiting.
As I said, most of the vaccine injured are severely neurologically compromised.
And many of them are wheelchair bound.
And, you know, that's why we're putting on our conference.
You know, our conference is basically designed to teach physicians how to manage spike-related diseases.
And, you know, we go across the board.
Well, you know, obviously there are no randomized controlled trials.
So much like our math protocol, you know, we've taken...
Basic science, clinical observation, patient responses, and put together what we think are a rational approach to the treatment of the vaccine injured.
Obviously, this will evolve with time as we get better data, but you can't ignore these people.
I mean, how can you do nothing?
How can you say, well, you know what, I don't know what this is, we can't treat you.
I mean, that's inhuman and that's just cruel.
We have to treat these people.
These people took the vaccine without true informed consent, believing that they were actually doing a service to society, and these people have now been injured.
And society owes them some kind of compensation and owes them treatment.
Yeah, I mean, at the very least, acknowledgement that what's happening to them is real.
Yes.
I mean, absolutely.
I mean, the comment of Joshi Shah that there are no vaccine injuries, I mean, is a complete, I mean, it's laughable and it's disgraceful.
I mean, I think, you know, we have to face the truth.
These people are not faking it.
They're not making this up.
These people are severely injured.
And we have objective measures to test them, and we can just look at all the autoantibodies that they develop.
Normal people don't develop all these weird antibodies, so there's something very sinister and bad happening.
And then, of course, they've got all the spike protein in their body.
Well, and as we briefly discussed earlier, this kind of brings us full circle to early treatment protocols, because as it would happen, There's a lot of commonality.
So this early treatment protocols that you designed back in March of 2020 and have been honing since, inform a lot of the treatment today.
So, yes, part of the problem with early treatment is inflammation and the virus.
As I said, with the vaccine injured, inflammation and autoantibodies is a big deal.
Fortunately, you know, ivermectin is a remarkable drug.
You know, people who poo it talk about it as horse dewormer.
I mean, which is completely absurd.
So, if you had to design a drug for COVID, It would look exactly like ivermectin.
It has all the properties that any drug would want.
It's antiviral, so it works against a whole host of RNA viruses.
This is indisputable.
It is anti-inflammatory.
We know this.
There are multiple studies showing that ivermectin is a very powerful anti-inflammatory drug.
We know that what it does is it stimulates a process called autophagy, which is very important in the process of healing, and it's one of the main mechanisms that we use to help patients get rid of spike protein and ivermectin.
Believe it or not, stimulates autophagy.
The other thing it does which is important is it changes, improves the microbiome.
So we have all of these bacteria in our gut and what happens is COVID and the vaccine changes your microbiome in a very unfavorable manner, very unfavorable.
It causes profound changes in the microbiome.
And this in itself has serious consequences.
Ivermectin helps restore the microbiome.
So it truly is a multifunctional drug which is safe and it works both for Early COVID, and it also is very effective for the vaccine injured.
So it really, and it's not, you know, we're not making money selling ivermectin.
No one's going to make money.
People ask, well, you know, you've got a conflict of interest.
Are you selling ivermectin?
No.
You know, this is a cheap generic drug.
The WHO actually had access to ivermectin at two cents a tablet.
Two cents.
I mean, how can you possibly make money off such a cheap drug?
As we're talking here, you paint a picture, a very disturbing picture of the medical establishment.
I could ask a number of questions.
One is, why are there so few doctors thinking along the lines, at least, of what you are?
Yeah, so it's a very puzzling question to me.
You know, why?
I mean, because I have no reason but to tell the truth.
I mean, what do I gain by promoting misinformation?
In my entire career, I've sought the truth and that's what we do.
We tell the truth as best we understand the truth.
And it is astonishing to me why there's so few physicians who actually prepare to open their eyes and see what's going on.
And I do think about this often because, you know, why is it just a handful of doctors?
And it's perplexing to me.
I think maybe that in an era of medicine where doctors just follow, this is part of the training at medical school, is that they become lemmings.
They're just followers.
They've lost the process of independent thought.
And I see this in our residents.
They can't think.
The material between their two ears is not utilized.
They just regurgitate what they're told.
They follow protocols.
They don't think.
So I think that could be part of it.
I think also there may be an element of fear, that maybe they suspect that something is wrong, something isn't right, but they're fearful of their career because we know that the agencies and medical boards have gone after people that have spoken against the narrative and physicians have lost their license.
And obviously that's, you know, for a physician to lose a license basically it ends their career.
So it may be an element of fear.
And then the third could be just ignorance, is that they just don't understand, don't want to know.
And I think they're also misled by the medical journals.
So I used to be in that category.
I used to think that what you read in the medical journals was the truth.
And that the highly revered medical journals spoke the truth.
We know now that that's completely false.
That you really can't believe what's in the medical journals.
And so this is a terrible statement I'm making because, you know, if you can't trust the medical journals, who can you trust?
And so I think you have to be, physicians have to have an open mind and have to begin to think critically.
And, you know, what they often do is just, well, Read the concluding paragraph of the abstract of a paper, and that's what they base their assessment of.
And the conclusions are always contrived and don't really reflect the paper.
So I think you have to be very suspicious of what's published.
Particularly when there's a conflict of interest.
We know pharmaceutical companies manipulate data, they hide data, they have ghost writers who write these papers.
You really can't trust the medical journals.
Marcia Engel, who I think is a hero, she was the editor of New England Journal for many, many years.
She wrote a book In 2004, basically saying that you can't trust the journals, you can't trust the medical committees and organizations just because they're captured by Big Pharma, which is a terrible indictment of the system.
I think it's a combination of factors why so many doctors are so silent, but I think they need to face the truth, they need to speak the truth, and they need to stop hiding behind this facade of misinformation.
What sorts of consequences have you faced for very early stepping out, probably not even realizing what you were getting into?
Yes, what you say is absolutely true.
When we started this in March 2020, I have to admit I was completely naive.
I had no idea what was going on and where this was going.
But, you know, obviously with time, you know, it became obvious, you know, that there were other agendas and that there were some evil forces.
And for me, I was silenced.
You know, eventually, you know, I had to quit my job.
The American Board of Medicine is going after me.
The Virginia State Board is going after me.
The medical journals are going after me.
So if you try to speak the truth, they'll go after you.
So I'm considered a misinformationist.
My only goal is to speak the scientific truth.
I guess I have to ask about, you know, how you imagine this state of affairs is reformed because there has to be a way out.
So I think there are a few avenues.
I think that we need to spread the truth so that more people, the people of the world, our fellow human beings need to know what's going on.
We need doctors to be educated as to what's going on.
And I think what's going to emerge is an alternative healthcare system, because this one has completely failed.
It's failed in so many ways.
So I think there are going to be alternative ways of providing healthcare.
And then I think the most important is the way the agencies are run has to be completely reformed.
And I think the, you know, Congress has to change this, that the profound conflicts of interest, the rotating doors between pharma and the agencies has to stop, and that these agencies should do what they're meant to do, is regulate, not being controlled by the agencies they're meant to regulate, is that if there are any perceived conflicts of interest, it should disqualify you from working for any of these agencies.
So I think, you know, it has to be multi-pronged.
I think we need to educate humanity.
We need to educate doctors.
We certainly need an alternative healthcare system which is more designed in promoting health and welfare and well-being rather than being driven by pharma.
What's astonishing is the US makes up 5% of the world's population, yet we consume 50% of the world's prescription medication.
50%.
We consume 80% of the opiates.
So we have an obsession in this country with the use of prescription drugs, which do not cure disease.
Let's be clear.
What they do is they keep people chronically addicted to medication.
So rather than focus on lifestyle changes and healthy eating and healthy living, which can make a major impact on disease, we're so obsessed with using medications which do not work and may have side effects and people are addicted for their life.
So I think we need to change the way medicine functions.
Yeah, I mean, you know, you mentioned sunshine early on, right?
And it's not just about vitamin D. There's this mitochondrial activation that happens with the infrared sun.
I've just recently learned about that.
That's amazing.
My mother was right about the sunshine.
No, this is, you've raised some very, very profound issues here.
We have to get back to basics.
Eating whole, real food, not processed food.
Getting exercise.
Walking outside.
Walking in the sun.
Being kind, compassionate human beings.
We need to restore humanity and we need to get back to the basics.
And that seems to have been lost.
And there's simple lifestyle changes you can make.
Just hug somebody.
Just show affection.
Social distancing is an oxymoron.
How can you be social if you're distant?
We need to show love and caring and affection and care for our fellow human being.
Finally, if there are people who believe they're vaccine injured or know somebody who has, where should they reach out?
Who should they reach out to?
What I would say is that on our website, flccc.net, we have a whole protocol for the treatment of the vaccine injured.
And I think that's a starting resource.
They need to find a clinician who will be receptive to treating them.
I think that's most important, is that most of these patients get shunned.
They get dismissed.
They're told, okay, this is not due to a vaccine injury.
So we need to educate physicians.
And that's our biggest goal of this conference, is to try and educate physicians as to the breadth and the depth of the vaccine injury and how to treat them.
And so, you know, like most things in medicine, the longer you wait, the more difficult it is to treat.
And many patients, it's truly astonishing, do not make the connection between the vaccine and the change in health status.
I mean, I had a colleague I was speaking to who's Wife was vaccinated and he's telling me, you know what, her thinking process and her thought process is just not the way it used to be.
I think she's becoming demented.
And I said, well, do you think it followed the vaccine?
And he's, you know, thinking about it, yes, you're right.
So I think many people have health problems.
You Cardiac problems, mental problems, that they really don't associate with the vaccine.
So I think people need to look at the temporal trend between the change in their health status and getting the vaccine, and they are more than likely not vaccine injured.
And is there a way for someone who doesn't have access to a doctor who might understand these details to be connected with one?
On our website, we don't treat patients directly, but we have links.
There are many physicians across the country who will manage long COVID and the vaccine injured.
So what I would recommend is to go to the website and look at the links for physicians in their area to try and find a physician who's prepared to manage the vaccine injured.
That's probably my best advice.
You know, there are a number of groups.
I think REACT-19 is probably the most active in this country.
REACT-19.
It's a non-profit to help the vaccine injured.
That's what they do.
REACT-19 can help you link with a provider.
Well, Dr.
Palmerik, it's such a pleasure to have you on the show.
Thank you kindly, and thank you for understanding the issues involved.
And it means a lot to us that, you know, we could even have this discussion.
Because, you know what, I don't know everything, and I may be not right on everything, but at least we can have an open discussion.
And I think that's what's important.
Thank you all for joining Dr.
Palmerik and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders.