Video URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmLnvBmX5b8
Joe Rogan podcast check it out The Joe Rogan Experience Train by day Joe Rogan podcast by night all day so this is the first of I've never had to do an emergency podcast before but I feel like we do and Brett you and I have been in communication about this and this seemed like something that we have to do quicker than later um let's explain what's going on uh you guys have had conversations uh first of all uh Dr Corey please explain who you are and introduce yourself yeah sure so I'm a lung and ICU specialist um who's part of a group of um other ICU Specialists we came together early in the pandemic uh to develop treatment protocols for covid um we first developed a hospital treatment protocol back in March um and then more recently we have an patient treatment protocol centered around the drug Ivor macton and I'll just say through our work um I would say we are probably the foremost experts on the use of icted in Co in the world and how did you uh Brett how did you get involved with Dr Corey and how did your initial conversation get get started what well Heather and I have been podcasting on the developing covid story uh for quite some time we started very early and we actually I just took the Dark Horse podcast which had been just me talking to people and Heather and I started live streaming twice a week at First and at first we were just simply looking at the evidence on covid what it is how it transmits how it should change your behavior you know in those early days it was scary we didn't know if it was transmitted on surfaces or what so Heather and I just uh did our analysis live or not live I guess it was live but in any case the two of us just uh had discussions about what we thought the evidence meant and we presented papers that we were reading in the literature and we should explain your credentials like what I'm a I'm a biologist I'm an evolutionary biologist um the importance of evolution here is that a all of the things that we're talking about with covid are evolutionary obviously the virus is evolved epidemiology is an evolutionary uh process the immune system is both a a product of evolution and it evolves in time when you have an infection so evolution is a kind of good generalist toolkit to apply to something like covid but in any case as we were
working through the various emerging evidence and figuring out what we believed and what we didn't and why we ran into ior mechon and there was this indication that it was effective against covid and we didn't know what to make of it we didn't know whether or not there was something where was the initial indication from I I can't recall actually Pierre might have have some idea where we would have encountered it in you know April or yeah 2020 um you know just also Joe just for a little bit more background I I do want to emphasize that you know although I'm here today talking uh my group The the five of us we call ourselves the the Frontline covid-19 Critical Care Alliance uh we're led by Dr Paul marrick very famous guy in our specialty in fact he's the uh most published intensivist in the world that's what we are IC docks and um people came to him to develop protocols and he grabbed his his four closest colleagues and Friends of which I'm honored to be one I'm a good friend of his and um he's a mentor to me and we've studied we basically started put together protocols that we took from other critical illnesses that we're expert at and we applied them to co and we learned everything we could around Co we just read papers and papers and papers and we followed all the Therapeutics that were being tried and tested around the world and I've maon the first uh paper was last about March or April but it came out of a lab it was just like what's called a cell culture model it wasn't tested in humans but this cell culture model showed that if you applied ivaan to these it was actually monkey kidney cells the virus was essentially eradicated within 48 hours they could find almost no viral material um when they used iacon in the cell model some places around the world took that bench study and brought it put it out into clinical use and I call that you know the bench to the bedside and if you know anything about medicine development very few what we call molecules make it from the bench to the bedside um and so but it was an emergency right it was a pandemic and so there were areas around the world that they s just said you know it looks like it might work it's a safe drug it's a very well-known drug right so people used it and so that that was
the first signal was just from a cell culture model so it was a it's a well-known drug it's been in use for 40 plus years and uh the issue became that discussing this and discussing what you just said on YouTube Led to your channel getting now one strike on one channel and is three strikes on your Clips Channel no we have and YouTube has behaved very bizarrely with respect to our channels they've delivered one strike to each Channel One warning to each Channel and they removed many videos but they've played a game with their accounting system where they've removed multiple videos filed them under a single warning so it's not clear what they are doing or why but it is clear that they don't want certain things discussed and um what has been their explanation we actually got an official explanation from YouTube maybe we should read that maybe we should just read what their response has been because the the response has essentially been they they have one is it the CDC that they'll tolerate or that they'll they'll agree to listen to them because obviously it can't be everybody now because we have the who is now saying that you shouldn't vaccinate children they're not recommend you vaccinate children or pregnant people right is that that but we should be clear about this right that's correct right well there's a number of different agencies like you just mentioned right in the US um and actually I don't know which agency those different social media channels are basing what they're considering approved therapies or unapproved I think I think it's the CDC isn't that well yes is that what it is what YouTube quoted say the CDC FDA and other local Health authorities right but if you up until recently if you said I don't think children should get vaccinated they would pull that right right but now the wh is saying we don't think children should get vaccinated I've also seen recent recommendations that say that women uh that it's completely safe if you're pregnant to get vaccinated the who does not say that the who says you have to contact your care provider which is a weird sort of way of like saying just ask your doctor but your doctor theoretically at least should not know any more than anybody else knows like this is a weird like when people say
what what are what is the science well there's a lot of science going on here and there's science coming from different directions and depending upon who you listen to you're going to get a different set of protocols right there's no question you know the way I talk about this is that you're seeing just this inconsistent standard especially around Therapeutics the the the the drugs that they favor and the ones that they don't really it's very hard to follow consistent scientific principles being applied there in fact there seems to be other principles being applied but what you just highlighted is this Discord between guidance from major agencies are are completely different right so so now they're diverging around vaccines what is the Divergence could you explain to us what so diver meaning so the who no I mean but what is the what's the specific uh Divergence in in other examples so number one remde severe $3,000 uh uh dose drug right who does not recommend in the hospitalized patient in the US every single hospitalized patient gets r that severe that would be but why is that that's what I'm just saying an inconsistent application why why are they giving them REM REM Desir is it based on any studies well it's yes there are studies so there are studies showing some support but it doesn't show really what we would call important patient center outcome so yes it could get you out of the hospital a little bit sooner there is some signal that it might actually reduce mortality so it might save some lives but it its impact is actually minimal and the the studies vary and so the who does not recommend they did a big trial of they showed it did not help anyone and so they don't recommend it and is REM Desir something that's patented the thing about one of the things about iveron is it's been around so long there's a generic version of it available is that correct that's a key feature of iveron there's no money to be made off ion and no one can kind of control it it's not it's not like any pharmaceutical company can manufacture out of patent and not not high profit this becomes part of the issue with highlighting it right so I I think we probably need put a bunch of things on the table otherwise we're going to end
up I just wanted to be real clear about the YouTube situation with you because the reason why we're here is your Channel's in Jeopardy and it doesn't make any sense so YouTube has done a couple things the first strike was for me try to remember the language I think it was spam deceptive practices and scams what was specifically spam obviously there was no spam right but how can they say spam if you're just having conversations well that's the thing they can say what they want cuz they're YouTube and basically although uh a majority of my family's income comes through our two YouTube channels my contract with them is effectively an end user license agreement and so there basically is no recourse yeah um other than making a public stir which has apparently gotten their attention in this case but the um so the first one was for spam deceptive practices and scams and what specific video was this for that was actually that was for my video with you um you spammers deceivers the second one uh the second strike on the other channel was for I hope I'm getting the details right I'm not sure that they actually matter there are two issues in question and the various strikes and warnings apply to one or the other either my podcast with Corey and the clips from it or my podcast with Dr Malone Who is the ventor of mRNA vaccine technology and Steve kersch who has been looking into vaccine hazards um but the second one was more specific it was clearer and what they said was uh deceptive medical information so part of what we should discuss today is what it means for a YouTube to decide that something is deceptive uh or misinforming on a medical topic that is rapidly developing right so and they also I would point out have a feature in their uh their Community guidelines which allows them to break their own rule against misinformation what they categorize as misinformation if one presents counterveiling evidence they don't say that they are required to break their rules so in essence what all of these things look like is a set of guidelines that if you read them carefully and attempt to adhere to them you don't know where the line is you find out where the line is when YouTube decides to warn you or strike you and it's it's an untenable
situation as I said the majority of my family's income is in Jeopardy because YouTube has decided that some things that are very strongly supported by evidence are misinformation and their basis for claiming that is that the who or the CDC has said otherwise but this raises a question if the who or the CDC were to be captured right if influence was to be exerted over one or both of these bodies surely we would be uh we would need to talk about it on the various podcasts that are on YouTube in order to figure out what to do about the fact that an essential set of organizations that are supposed to be protecting the public health might be doing someone else's bidding instead podcasts would be a natural place for doctors and scientists to get together and say what we're seeing doesn't add up right but to take what they're saying as gospel and anything that contradicts them as misinformation rather than saying actually the evidence is with the people you're saying are are spreading misinformation and the evidence is most definitely not with the CDC and the who right what do you do in that case right well uh Dr Corey where what's where do they vary where where does the CDC and the World Health Organization not agree so we talked about vaccines already REM death ofe another important one was this idea of whether the virus is Airborne transmitted right so there's three ways that you can trans transmit a virus right one is uh direct contact surfaces like hand hand to mouth right like spittle or whatever you touch your mouth and goes that way droplet so large droplet transmission from like a cough and then you you know lands on your face or you rub it into you know the mucus membranes or Airborne where it's actually inhaled and just sharing the air with someone with covid you can catch it um that's what tuberculosis is that's why there's so much uh infection control practice around TB cuz that's an Airborne transmitted disease the um it took them a year all of the agencies to figure out whether was Airborne transmitted I already wrote an oped that was accepted by the New York Times last May saying this is an Airborne transm you could see it who disagrees does so so right now the CDC finally came around and admits that it's Airborne transmitted the wh still does
not what yes really legitimately to this day they say it's not insufficient evidence that's the cry insufficient evidence so how do they feel it's transmitted well they think that it's all three are possible they don't think it's predominant and they just the at least the way I've read The Who uh is they just don't feel that it's it's a important mode of transmission it it may be possible but they really minimized it where the CDC says that it is it seems to be a definite mode of transmission is this debated in science or is it only debated in these organizations like is it debated amongst practitioners it was it was debated and the the problem is it took time for it to become clear that this was uh transmitted in this Airborne form and part of there's partly that we've got a confusion right so what's happening is co is highly effective at transmitting in part because it just saturates the air right it it gets into these very little particles which don't do what the initial model said right the initial model had in large droplets which only spend a little bit of time in the air right and so the air clears because they hit the ground due to gravity hence the 6ot social distancing but you know and actually this is one of the places where Heather and I were way ahead we were beginning to detect that there was something about there was something about the fact that time spent in a room in which somebody had had covid was creating these super spreader events which was suggesting that this wasn't highly proximity dependent that that basically you know there was a clock ticking and the room filled up with the stuff and if the window was open it filled up a lot slower that kind of thing right so we were building this in real time from what we were reading in these papers which frankly mostly had not been peer-reviewed because there was no time these were pre-prints right so you could begin to see this story develop and you could begin to see the dawning awareness and what Pierre is saying is effect I forget which of the organizations does not is not yet up to date on uh Airborne transmission uh the who is not yet up to date the the CDC did about a month ago uh they did make a formal statement that they believe it's Airborne is it safe to
say that they're waiting for a preponderance of evidence the who um that's a that's not a short answer the who is a very complex organization I don't know what I I think there's so many influences at the who I think there's other factors that are making them reluctant to call Airborne transmiss because the implications that would have around infection control resources n95 that the this is just me theorizing I'm I can't pretend to understand the who I know that that organization has been well described now over 20 years to be highly susceptible to many outside influence economic political want evidence of that just look at that one video where there was a journalist was trying to get the person from The Who to even say Taiwan to even talk about Taiwan and they literally disconnected their computer and then came back on and would not say the name Taiwan because China does not recognize Taiwan as a country and then they said I think China is doing a great job let's continue let's move past this and they wanted to quickly brush it away and it it's glaringly obvious that there's an influence in that regard it it is and also I think the question that you're really asking is is there a defense of being cautious about this conclusion and the answer is no that that ship sailed yeah um the better part of a year ago this was obvious and the fact is it's it's crucial people need to understand that their masks are not you know going to be perfectly effective if you're in a room with somebody breathing out covid then the the point is there's a clock ticking you know and you have control over this if you get into the Uber and your driver is sick and they've been breathing the stuff out they've saturated the air right you need to understand that saturated air is a thing and you need to start thinking in terms of rolling down Windows limiting your time in that space those sorts of things so this is this is actionable and so for them to be behind the evidence here is actually potentially very I mean I hesitate to say it but it's deadly and this problem that we're highlighting here is that all this stuff is developing over the course of this pandemic and the rules are changing and the the agreed upon facts are changing in the beginning of the pandemic if you
just go back seven eight months ago if you said that it leaked from a lab you get lumped instantaneously into a conspiracy theorist and a trump supporter and you get dismissed and you get you get censored from Facebook and you get censored from YouTube right this is all we all agree upon this that's not the case anymore now because of a lot of people's work uh because there's there's a lot of people that have stuck their neck out and risk being labeled as a conspiracy theorist or as a trump supporter just to point out the science and now the consensus is it's very possible that it leaked if not likely that it leaked from the from a lab in fact this John Stewart clip that's been going around is it's hilarious to watch Step coar panic and try to try to dismiss what he's saying or try to pretend that it doesn't make any sense interrupting a comedy bit on a comedy showing this is how strong The Narrative is at a corporate level because he's on this big time t telion show so there's you know it's you're you're on a network there's a probably a lot of pressure to stick with the conformed narrative and John Stewart literally is in the middle of a comedy bit and cober is trying to handicap it he's trying to hamstring the comedy bit because he doesn't want him to continue saying what he's saying and to saying it in a comedic way is actually even worse because it's actually funny how stupid it is to dismiss instantaneously that it came from a lab when literally is the same exact disease they work on in the lab that's in that City and three people from that [ __ ] lab got sick in 2019 with the exact same symptoms that you're seeing and one of their spouses died from the exact same symptoms right is that all safe to say I think I think um I don't know about the particular story on the at the end of what you just said I think it's pretty the please Google that because um in 2019 in November of 2019 three workers from the Wuhan Institute this is all from from memory came up sick and they were hospitalized with the exact same symptoms that you're seeing from covid-19 patients and I believe one of their spouses died I do not know about the spouse having died I think I just didn't read it carefully enough but you're right about the three the three workers and the and the belief
that this happened but let me just say my point is that this keeps evolving and this keeps this so to like to stop conversations it's very dangerous because you you might be censoring something that's absolutely 100% true so there's people that would have gotten that information and it would educated them and and expanded their understanding of it us Intel reports identified three Wuhan lab researchers who fell ill November 2019 um P look at this but but the evidence is far from conclusive like why' you put that in there insufficient evidence but isn't it funny the way they wrote that but see if you find the thing there I just want to be clear if it's about the if the spouse died just I want to make one point also that you know when you talk about yeah so you bring up this point about the Wuhan lab leak and how that was discredited right uh not enough evidence and and basically you had that discussion suppressed I want to bring that into the larger context which for me that's an example of what's called disinformation so when the science runs counter to the interests of whoever it is a political body of someone with large financial interest would they do to counteract inconvenient science is they employ tactics of disinformation so I want to be clear that misinformation is what I'm being accused of which is I'm a medical misinformation is because I'm providing information that is not supported by the establishment right so anything that doesn't agree with them is misinformation but what they do is disinformation so the science around the lab leak was inconvenient to a lot of people and so that was distorted suppressed and debunked right but now we're finding out that if you really do look at the science the truth is a little different I'm going to say it's very similar to the Ivor mechon story The Science around Ivor maon is up against one of the largest and most powerful disinformation campaigns I think almost ever and we should be real clear that you were one of the very first people to point out that the characteristics of the virus seemed to indicate upon closer examination that it was engineered you were one of the very first you did it on my show and we both got labeled again as conspiracy
theorists and leaning or dog whistling to the right or whatever and so uh the molecular work was done by uh or the investigation into it was done by Yuri Dagan who I had on my show I came on your show and talked about it and yes we were both uh dismissed as dist as uh trafficking in conspiracy theories it's a tell when and this was about somewhere around like April of last year correct it was April of 2020 was when I uh did this on my podcast the first time I can't remember exactly I think it was around the same time um but one of the things about this story that's so bizarre is that at the point that it suddenly shifted nothing changed right there was no new piece of information the only triggering event uh appeared to be Nicholas Wade's piece that he came out and laid out the same information in large measure that Nicholson Baker had already laid out right uh so the point was this there was no there was nothing that caused the story to suddenly make sense where people had missed it before it was just like they couldn't sustain the LIE any longer and so they decided to back off a bit and come up with some new posture that they felt they could defend so this was a question of disinformation this was a question of actually stigmatizing people who were simply reading the evidence and you're right the exact connection people need to draw is why is it that we are going to the very same people who got that story wrong and are now not only embarrassed by the fact that they blew it but also um it is clear that behind the scenes they knew better right you can read this in Fouch emails with Christian Anderson it is clear that they also saw the signal in the genome that this did not look like a fully natural virus and so anyway what I don't understand is why we don't simply apply the lesson of the lab leak which we have just learned which is that the authorities do not know what they're talking about inherently just not to say they never do but in that case they got it dead wrong they used the very same censorship tactics in order to shut down discussion and now we know who was right so why are we listening to the same people making the same sorts of strange postures in public and shutting down using uh censorship to shut down discussion when in fact the evidence is
very clearly supportive of that discussion that that is the anomaly here right and we should say that this uh Christian Anderson in particular has deleted his Twitter account upon the release of these emails which is generally not a good sign it is an indication that he does not feel like defending himself on Twitter presumably because he can't defend himself it's not even just that he's not defending himself he doesn't exist on it anymore he pulled his entire account correct that's not good we should also say that here's one of the most important things about what your podcast does you and your wife are incredibly careful and precise in the language that you use you site science you're you you're not you're not hyperbolic you do not exaggerate for effect there's no entertainment value to it in terms of like exaggerating or putting a bunch of emotions to things or screaming out and you're just talking about the what is known in terms of what researchers have discovered here's the conclusions that can be drawn and you're very careful in the way you say it which is so infuriating that you're being censored because you will always say the majority of evidence points to or it's entirely possible that we're incorrect but here's what the the evidence points to this is so important in this day and age where people are trying to figure out what's happening in real time that you have people that actually understand how to read the science actually understand how to read these papers and then take that data and give it to people in a very consumable way which is what you and Heather do on your show and to see you get censored by people who I don't know what's going on if they're just if they're just trying to manage it scale and it's overwhelming and I assume that's got to be part of it because I think there's no way YouTube or any organization that deals with that money that many user uploads can really pay attention to everything it's Insanity the sheer volume of uploads they get on a daily basis is insane and it may very well be that they've been given a series of guidelines and you have a bunch of people that are working for the company that are using these sort of subjective measurements as to what's what's okay and what's not okay hence the spam title
right doesn't make any sense like they're just throwing a bunch of charges against a wall like a bad cop and then pulling your video and for someone like myself who needs to know that there's people out there that are objectively analyzing this stuff regardless of what the narrative is and this is where it's important because we've seen the narrative be wrong multiple times over the last year and I don't think it necessarily has to be wrong because of a conspiracy or some some weird nefarious intentions I think there's really a possibility that there's a lot of confusion during that confusion you need educated voices you need people that are and that's why it's insane to me that you're getting censored and drives me [ __ ] nuts your podcast is one of my very favorite I listen to it or watch it all the time and it's an amazing source of rational thinking by educated people to talk about things they understand which is exactly the opposite of what I do it's not it's not the opposite of of what you do but Wuhan lab research's wife died of covid like illness December 2019 okay so it's real so I want to I want to put some uh context here okay Heather and I are doing two things which I think work and do mean that it is I I don't want YouTube censoring anybody frankly I don't think the censors are ever right but um what we are doing is we are showing our work and when we get something wrong we are dedicated to going back and correcting it so that people who are trying to track our model of things get the update right yes and that is the right way to do this work now what is happening in officialdom is the opposite and the key thing to track is this word consensus right scientific consensus is two almost opposite things in this case scientific consensus a normal scientific consensus looks like you know plate tectonics right plate tectonics was an absolutely heretical idea when it was introduced the idea that the continents are moving wow that was mindblowing blowing and almost nobody got it at first right today everybody gets it we all understand the continents move and we understand how right we know about subduction zones and these things and we've got a model that makes it make sense and you could present something that would challenge plate tectonics you
could do that but you know you got an uphill struggle because we have arrived at this through a lot of study right and the evidence is really strong and so there is a consensus about it consensus that shows up like that in the middle of an emerging pandemic right where you've got a brand new pathogen which we know very little about I I remember going out of the house wearing sacrificial gloves cotton gloves that I knew I could touch things and then when I got home I could throw them away or I could wash them right I stopped doing that almost instantly as it became clear that actually although many viruses do transmit from surface surfaces this one doesn't right it's not to say can't happen ever but almost never right that's not its mode of transmission correct so the point is is the consensus arises from the work from people challenging each other and discovering that yeah that thing seem to make sense but it doesn't add up when you look at the evidence right that's how the consensus happens these Consensus These consensus that we are being handed about how this virus Works what works to fight it what doesn't work to fight it what you should do in order to protect yourself these things are being handed down from on high and then they are silencing the people who are saying hey wait a minute that thing you just told me from on high doesn't square with all the stuff I can see right so they are shutting down the challenge to a consensus that has no right to be labeled as scientific because it isn't it didn't arise through the normal process it isn't what most people think it is it is an official position right that is not a scientific consensus and the lab leak is the perfect example of this because behind the scenes a lot of people understood that the story they were being told wasn't right that there was something very consp ous about The Coincidence of this virus emerging in Wuhan on the doorstep of the Wuhan Institute of virology lots of people understood that very few are willing to say it in public and so that leads me to the thing that I think you need to track which is you've got a bunch of Heretics who are saying things about Ivor mechon about the hazards of vaccines about all of these topics who do you believe you going to believe the Heretics well the
Heretics actually are an interesting group and the thing that unites them seems to be their independence of the structures that are controlling others right so what what do you make of it when the people who are free who don't have to answer to their department chair right are saying one thing and the people who are signed up for some system that holds their well-being in its hands are saying the other thing right and in this case YouTube is playing this weird role right I'm free I can talk about scientific evidence but in order to talk about it with my audience I have to go through YouTube right so YouTube is playing like it's my department chair and it wants me to shut up about certain topics and it's going to turn up the heat on me until I do which I won't but nonetheless that's the point is something would like to limit the discussion so that we are all on the same page on topics where we couldn't possibly all be on the same page not only that they're trying to limit the discussion when if you watch your videos and you listen to either Heather yourself or Dr Cory or any of these other guests that you've had all you are going to see is rational discussion of the facts and the facts presented with real data and when you censor that we have a real problem and it's never good and there's this weird sort of dismissive uh air that people have about these things this the the propaganda in this regard has been so effective um I was having a conversation with someone the other day and they were discussing different treatments and how videos are being pulled uh and and they brought up ican and this other person that was with them said good because you know there's too much bad information out there they should pull that stuff and he had to explain no this is actually Iver mechin there actually is some evidence to support its use and it could be extremely beneficial to people particularly in early stages of the disease and the only way we're going to know about this is if it gets discussed if more doctors hear about this more people hear about this more studies emerge and then that may become the new consensus if we're allowed to look at the facts not we but you guys are allowed to look at the facts and discuss
them openly if you're not we have a real problem because now we're relying only on the organizations that have already shown that sometimes they're wrong so if that's the only way we get our information we we may be wrong and lives are in danger if we're wrong absolutely we will lose lives if we cannot sort out where I mean even if those agencies were perfectly immune to capture we have to be able to figure out where they've got it wrong so that they can get smarter right and the more intelligent people that understand the data looking at it and discussing it openly the better for everybody again absolutely we're when we're talking about you guys we're not talking about crazy conspiracy theorists that are discussing Hollow Earth we're we're talking about some real stuff I want to emphasize one thing that Brett said which is the sorry do you have Co don't lie no I don't I just have a little just kidding we already Ted catch in the throat no the the um this a terrible thing to have the a cough in a room yeah it's bad I've actually done it a couple other interviews and everyone's like you know Dr Cory's coughing are you sure you doesn't have Co so thanks Joe you want to show whiskey actually that might be exactly what the doctor ordered um the you know what what Brett's saying about the independence that's what I've noticed you know the ones that seem to get it right they they don't have Masters to answer to I'm I'm I'm I've learned unfortunately throughout the pandemic I I've I've had I've developed a lot of sinicism and suspicion around some of the agencies because it doesn't comport with good science and sometimes it's blatant the ones we're making sense are like you said transparent with the data analyzing openly expert at the data amassing all the data and having Frank discussions when you said like Brett said you know these consensuses come down and when they're so blatantly don't match reality so again I don't want to retread old water but like this Airborne transmission you know when you have a super spreader event like someone goes to choir practice and 59 people come home with covid when this when they were socially distancing and one person was singing like you don't need to be like a highlevel scientist to know that
probably that was Airborne transmission there was numerous examples of that and yet the official them was that it wasn't airor B so like it was basic stuff that didn't make sense the lab leak also just on the face of it I mean even if you didn't go down to the genome level when I heard that the lab was across the street from the wet Mark as a physician I mean I often times have to figure out how to do things on very little information and that to me was so powerful um I mean but some so the some of stuff is really really clear and yet it doesn't comport with what's coming down and so when you look at the independent objective experts so I think you need cuz here's the other thing I feel so bad in what we're talking about cuz the average person who the heck knows what they should believe right right they're hearing newspapers and television and right and left and everyone's saying different things and you know what some of the political Spectrum they're getting some things right other things wrong like how do you believe anymore and so and and this idea of capture is is is a real one and so like I'm very suspicious I'm very skeptical of everything I'm being told i' I'd like you know for some like ground rules for the lay person to follow like how do you know who's talking truth and I think openness transparency lack of external influences like for instance our organization we're a nonprofit We took an oath as Physicians to help patients when this thing came come to our Shores all we wanted to do is learn as much as we could about disease to figure out how to kick its ass how how to treat this thing and that's all we've done we have we don't make any money off of it we're just trying to doctor and I think I think that makes us a credible source of information at least I hope so we should also be really clear as to what information has come out over the last few weeks that might be at least uh some indication of why there's been uh a misinformation campaign ABS absolutely you want to handle that yeah I do but I want to I want to clear up one thing I think we have actually made an error that we should clear up right now which is we've been talking about uh aerosolized transmission and I think we've been calling it Airborne
transmission the point is it transmits both ways and it took a long time to realize that it saturated the air rather than hanging in the air briefly and you're right that that does explain the six foot in the hospital when we say something's air this pull in in the hospital you can move it towards your face if you want to sit in that um in the hospital Airborne means aerosol it it's impes the same thing that's what we call anible the other thing I would just point out is the way you know what to believe and nobody knows what to believe right what you do is you build a model that gets more and more predictive over time but the thing that you can tell is good about the Heretics is that we agree on a lot but we don't agree on everything right there are places where you and I disagree Dr Corey there are places where I disagree with uh Dr Malone the inventor of the MRNA vaccine technology the important point though is that those disagreements are about discovering what's true right you you want as a member of the group of people trying to figure this out in real time you want to find all the places that you're wrong right your model gets better as you accept those things and so that's sort of the Hallmark of how consensus is properly built is the openness to push back right we push back on each other we don't pretend to all agree to the same stuff okay to the to the question you asked me though things that have emerged of late so first first of all we should talk about the evidence on Ivon and we need to be careful right the evidence on Ivon is a vast landscape there's lots of evidence on its Effectiveness with respect to SARS K2 and the evidence is noisy right there is clear signal within it one of the things that is absolutely maddening about trying to talk about that evidence is that the response is a incoherent the response pretends that there is no evidence that it works rather than a noisy data set in which it generally does appear to work but the degree to which it works and in what way it should be administered there's variation around that so we we there's this this monolith that says we don't have the evidence and what we need is large scale randomized controlled trials and in a sense this is uh this is an obvious tell right randomized control
trials are good if you've got them there are quite a number of randomized controlled trials with respect to Icon they may not be as large as you want but in general very large trials are necessary when you're looking for very small effects right what we do have is several metaanalyses a meta analysis is an analysis that takes a bunch of different studies that were done and figures out how to pull the data from them to look for a signal it makes a big study out of little ones and it has a huge advantage to it right you can do a large study and let's say that you got the dosage 50% what you needed to in order for it to be effective right that large study would say molecule X does not show any evidence of being effective against disease why because you got the dosage wrong right it's not evidence that the molecule doesn't work it's evidenced that something about that protocol with that molecule didn't work whereas if you take if you do a meta analysis and you group together a lot of little studies then you will have some bad studies that will fail to show an effect and you'll have other studies that will get it closer to right and so the net effect of all of them tells you what direction to go and in this case we have meta analyses and they're very clear this molecule which we've seen work in vitro that is to say in the lab in culture also is effective in patients and it's effective in two different ways right this is Dr Cory's area of expertise but let me just say I want to divide icon into two things so that we're always clear what we're talking about let's say ican a is prophylactic ican you take it to prevent getting the disease right I and this is an it's an anti-parasitic drug was discovered uh in Japan by Satoshi omura um who got a Nobel Prize for it with William Campbell a Merc scientist the Nobel Prize was awarded in 2015 but it was discovered in 1970s yeah I mean the first the first organism was in the 70s and the the molecule was pure ified in late 70s early ' 80s yeah this molecule has cured uh river blindness and elephantitis to very devastating diseases it's regarded by The Who as an essential medicine safe for children um it has been administered 4 billion times uh it's a highly effective safe drug for these parasites
and so this the thing that was mentioned earlier where it was found in cell culture to work there was this desire at the beginning of Co to figure out well what molecules are affect where might we look for a drug that would work and so they you know basically they weren't looking for protocol they were just throwing a bunch of molecules at the disease to see which things showed some sign of usefulness and from there we get to all of these studies which when compiled in a meta analysis tell a very clear story let me add a couple of things because this cool story about so Ivor mton already won the the Nobel Prize for the discovers cuz it literally transformed the health status of huge portions of the globe in eradicating parasitic diseases the one called river blindness is it's a really moving story because you had populations villages in Africa where men by the time you were 40 you were blind and so you had like these communities where the children would lead the elders around like with a stick because they were all blind from this parasite and so basically this drug restored the sight and transformed the lives of millions of people around the world so I I find that a really moving story just its history in terms of parasites you know and then Brett brought up viruses you know that study that we already talked about in Australia that study actually comes on 10 years of studies in the lab on other viruses so it's been shown to be effective against zika Deni West Nile HIV even influenza again all lab studies we don't really have clinical trials in the other viruses um but when this pandemic came it wasn't really a crapshoot to try out iorc in an RNA virus and so um it I didn't realize that yeah it already has 10 years of of antiviral effects in the lab so in fact I'm going to foreshadow a little bit it's my secret belief that as we go into the future 10 20 years my hope and what I guess is that it actually will prove to be a really broad antiviral against other viruses and so I'm like really optimistic about the future of this molecule and other viruses we can talk about Co still cuz you know the the data that that Brett brought up is is um it it in my mind it's profound and I think Brett's being very cautious which is correct but as a guy who's been immersed
in this data who's been living with it who's a physician who's been using it I mean I've been using it for eight months I am part of a network of Physicians around the world that I talk to re you know regularly many of whom have treated in the hundreds to thousands of patients um we know how effective it is and so um you know I I have I have pretty strong opinions on this data but the points that Brett brings up is very true it's you know this this obsession with this large randomized control trial is um it's fraught with error when you do that it's not appropriate for a pandemic and it's also a tool that's being used as a disinformation tactic so some of it is scientifically based we all like big randomized control trials when you can get them even though they they prone to error um but what I try to remind the world is that when you look at the strength of medical evidence to prove something in medicine you start at the bottom which is an anecdote right so let's say you got sick Joe and I gave you atin the next day you felt better and I'd say I found the cure for covid that's not strong evidence right especially with a virus people get better without it right so you have anecdotes case Series right then you have like observational trials where you just follow a group of patients or you look at a group that you treated versus who you didn't maybe retrospectively and it's called this pyramid of medical evidence the top of that pyramid is not a large randomized control trial it's actually what Brett said it's a metaanalysis of randomized control trials the reason why because any individual trial can have an error or a flaw or a dose in or a timing problem it might lead you to the wrong conclusion but if you have a whole collection of Trials and then you put them all together and you look for the signal out of that it's much more robust because it corrects for any individual flaws that you'll see in studies and so when we talk about that there are metaanalyses of randomized control trials 24 randomized control trials thousands of patients that's fairly unsalable evidence to show massive impact of this drug against Co are there any credible critics of these conclusions are there any are there interesting criticisms of the use of ior meon I I want to I want
to say something there there is room for skepticism on Ivor mechon but it does not explain the behavior of the Skeptics right in other words if we look at the standard of evidence that they appear to be applying here I don't think it's defensible in the end but reasonable people could potentially disagree the problem is when you've got a drug that's this safe that does appear to work in many of the studies that have looked at it and you're not giving it to patients who show up and test positive for covid even when you know that for viral disease diseases treating them early is the key to helping them that doesn't add up because if you know the hypocracy you haven't harmed them but if you failed to give it to them and it would have worked you have so I would just point out the strange obsession with large randomized controlled trials is actually cryptically an attack on several things if you're going to insist that that is the only kind of evidence you will accept before prescribing this drug you're signing up for new expensive drugs over cheap repurposed ones you're signing up for unknown risks over known ones we know 40 Years of history on this Ivor maon for example you're signing up for shareholders over patients because these large scale trials are very expensive and the drug companies have to pay for them so you're basically saying any drug that's out of patent and therefore nobody is going to uh you know Lobby for it isn't going to be able to find the money to do the trials and you're signing up for effectively phase three information over phase 4 now phase four is an formal designation for the phase after a drug comes to market right the point is you don't really know how dangerous something is until you've seen it in a large population that has lots of variation in it and has enough time for problems to develop right that's phase four but what we've done is we've effectively suspended a lot of the rules of evidence for things like vaccines that were brought to uh Market under emergency use authorizations and then we're setting a stupidly high standard for things that are very safe and appear to work and I would just say by analogy what's the best kind of evidence for a crime right I would say video evidence of people committing the crime
Right video evidence in which you get a clear sense of who the person who's committing the crime is okay let's all agree that that's the best evidence what if we said that's the only evidence we're going to accept because we have really high evidentiary standards right there's no crime if it get recorded on video where you can see the person's face okay well then the point is all right now effectively lots of stuff that we would like to make illegal isn't illegal because all you got to do is make sure there's no camera around and you can do it that's what they're effectively doing here right by insisting on that standard and ignoring all of the very high quality evidence that has come in some other form they are effectively setting a bar so high that it can't be met and why they're doing it we can speculate about but the fact that it makes no logical sense is AR well let's speculate all right this is part of some of the things that I was discussing earlier when I said things that are coming to light new information that we know over the last few weeks so uh Jamie could you bring up that New York Times article can I emphasize the the point I like what Brett's saying about I'm sorry I keep I'm a rookie here no worries you you guys like veterans man but this thing moves so just pull it just grab that handle and just get towards you yeah but the problem is when you turn your face towards him that's get a drop off um so when Brett talks about Behavior I think it's really important because let's say there is skepticism around the data the behavior is really odd right so Brett's talking about you have one of the world's safest drugs you have nothing but positive trials even if the opposition wants to say they're low quality and small which they're not um the precautionary principle would tell you to uh recommend it but here's another more clear example of abnormal behavior when you look at strong liasis right which is um uh or that's actually enorasis is river blindness but the two um other parasitic diseases for which ivin was approved as the standard of care worldwide 10 trials with 852 patients right now iveron is sitting on 24 randomized control trials with 3,000 patients and it's not being Rec come in it's a how what are the results of of
those trials the Aon trials so in the Met most recent met analysis is that what you're bringing up no but Jamie has it he could bring it up in so just published this weekend by um uh yes by uh Andrew Bryan Tess Lai um uh Scott Mitchell actually who's a member of the flccc but um this is a group of researchers who for decades their main job is to review medicine medical evidence to formulate guidelines for the big national International healthcare agencies let's go back to that term I used before they did this work independently no one paid them to do this work they did it because they saw they looked at my paper and they saw my testimony and they immediately got interested and they started researching and they found consistent positive reproducible signals and so this metaanalysis which was just uh uh published basically found that there was a 62 on average an 62% reduction in death when you used Ivermectin from all of these randomized control trial so basically you'd save two out of every three people that you treated and I would also again argue that's the minimum of what Ian is capable of because not in every trial were they treated early when you look at the early versus late they do so much better and so I you know what are the results for early do we have so early around 80% reduction uh and sometimes even higher in in in hospitalization and death so if you treat patients and even in those early it's not my early so my dream my dream is that every household has has iacon in the cupboard and you take it upon development of first symptom of anything approximating a viral syndrome especially in the context where I mean it you should be assuming any sort of viral flu like illness that you're developing right now is co until proven otherwise and take it and even if it's not Co it's safe to take and it's probably effective against that virus are there any side effects so so there are uh they're all what's considered minor and transient and that's another example of weird behavior when the who put out their guideline on Ivor macton they put in a lot of language questioning the safety of Ian which is known as one of the safest drugs in history it's been Mass distributed across continents billions of Doses and
they want to bring up cautions around safety while there are other guidelines for the other diseases that ican is from the who they all they'll write in there that billions of doses been administered the side effects are minor and trans so they're inconsistent dependent upon what disease they're talking about hron being prescribed with Co they are off the reservation what is what are the criticisms in terms of like when they're when they're talking about the possible and potential side effects what are they saying so the uh so right now no they what they tried to do is they're trying to suggest that there's there's uh more side effects when you use ican versus placebo but there's really nothing important so you get a little nausea some people get a headache um some people can get a little bit of dizziness um but they generally go away with stopping the drug um and they're also reasonably well tolerated and so you'll tolerate a little bit of an ill effect from a drug if it's going to help you prevent hospital and death and so it's an extremely well tolerated drug and the last thing I'll say on the safety is a famous French toxicologist reviewed 300 50 studies on ior macton and uh he was contracted to do this and he put his report out about a month and a half ago and in the executive summary he writes that severe side effects from icton are unequivocally and exceedingly rare unequivocally and exceedingly rare it's a very very safe drug all right couple things um one Jamie can you put the abstract of that paper back up because there's this thing so the world is very focused on using icon to treat covid which I understand but we miss this other thing so scroll down a little bit therapeutic advances there it is sentence in the middle okay this might be one of the most important sentences written this Century low certainty evidence found that ican prophylactic prophylaxis reduced covid-19 infection by an average of 86 % 95% confidence interval between 79% and 91% so that sentence actually is a Hallelujah sentence because what it means is even if icton were completely ineffective at treating people who have covid that number is high enough because it is over the number uh that we understand herd immunity to be for this
disease and any number that has been proposed uh as far as I know because that number is so high what it means is that icon alone if properly utilized is capable of driving this pathogen to Extinction and we should discuss what the what the word prophylaxis means because many people may not know they think about it as a condom right Joe Joe I've been told multiple times when I talk about icum to use um preventive yeah because you're absolutely right A lot of people don't understand the context all it means is to take the drug to anticipate that you may get it so if you're in a high-risk area you take it and it's it'll protect you to from infection prevent you from Contracting so I should say uh I was a little I was very encouraged by that number that number is high enough to be uh independently the end of Co if we decide to make it so I was concerned at the beginning of that sentence starts with low certainty evidence so I contacted Tes lorri and I asked her what that meant and it turns out it's part of a categorization scheme within the data science that is used to do these meta analyses and low certainty means that there is an expectation that if you had more information the number would move a little bit it doesn't mean that it's uncertain whether the effect is there that that the identifying the exact number is liable to be sensitive to more information but nonetheless again this is the issue of iveron a is prophylaxis iveron B is treatment the evidence that it as highly effective as treatment is I would argue overwhelming you can see it in this meta analysis the signal is very clear and my experience has been when you look at the papers in which it's disappointing you very frequently see a reason right in general they treat late we know that that is an obstacle to it working um the last paper I went to gave it on an empty stomach this is one of these things where you tell me if I'm wrong Pierre but uh if you're treating parasites you may want to keep the drug in your gut and therefore you don't want it to dissolve and cross into your blood if you're treating or preventing covid you do want it to cross into your blood and the fact is the molecule is fat soluble so if you're taking it as prophylaxis you should take it with fat but they
don't like to do stuff like that in these trials because empty stomach is the way to get all of the patients to be the same if they've eaten something they will will have eaten different things and it creates noise so anyway there's a there's a bias there in some studies in which they block the effect in part by not letting it cross into the bloodstream yeah two two more points on this abstract um so the two most important words right so so Brett emphasized this finding of 86% protection against infection uh if you take it preventatively right and that low certainty evence means it could be higher than 86% protection it could be lower um I maintain I want to really emphasize this is that if you look at the trials that make up those preventative trials right the ones where you take it weekly cuz they had some what you took weekly some where you actually just took it once a month and these they they actually had profound uh benefits but the ones that you took weekly led to like near Perfect protection like 100% protection in a large uh population of healthcare workers now in that trial they also took it with um like a seaweed called carageenan it's more common in South America it's it's considered to be verdal it's been shown to be verdal and so they sprayed that inal verdal meaning uh can kill uh like homicidal but virus mean kills viruses right so uh a virus murderer right so um um and so they they kind of used to and actually Trials of that seaweed spray are actually also positive so so the best Trials of prevention really had two molecules that were probably working in concert but it led to near to perfect PR prevention and in in 1,200 healthcare workers 800 who took this uh regimen uh 400 who didn't not one of it was 788 healthcare workers got covid over like a 4month period well wait but not one of them got Co not one of them but that's that's not the thing that's most impressive here because these were Frontline workers who were so thoroughly exposed to covid that 57% of the people in the 400 person control group who didn't take Ivor and did get Co right that's a huge distinction so yes I agree that to the extent that this evidence is low certainty it suggests strongly that a proper protocol with
this a protocol in which we've dialed in the steps of it is liable to be much closer to 100% effective but I want to emphasize it doesn't matter that number is plenty High to drive Co to Extinction and I would also say and this is my wheelhouse Evolution we are dealing with a limited time the more time this virus has to experiment with humans the more likely we get stuck with it forever so our failure to apply Ivermectin and frankly it isn't just Ivermectin we now have a series of repurposed drugs for which there's not a large profit to be made because they're out of patent but have shown High Effectiveness in the treatment of of covid our failure to use these things properly in a coordinated way that is actually evidence-based is is putting Humanity in danger of getting stuck with this pandemic forever absolutely I mean I the key thing that I want to communicate is that this is a treatable disease we do have an outpatient treatment for it it's not just ivac Brett mentioned a number of other molecules uh that are effective ion has the most data behind it and it also has the longest experience especially when you're talking about population wide distribution so you can't think of a better drug that already has a track record eradicating a scourge of disease across continents right the best thing it has going for it is that Trump never brought it up there is that so there's not a resistance on the left the only resistance right the only resistance is the resistance because of the authorities the authorities not backing it or what's happening with YouTube censorship so I want to bring up the second most important word on that abstract and this is the key of kind of what you just said Joe is that the the trial I'm I'm just so blown away by the evidence behind I so as a physician I've I mean that's what I do I read I look at therapies I'm always trying to figure out how to treat my patients better you know I'm an intensivist right so I deal with the sickest of the sick depending on the month or the unit about 20% of my patients will die and so I'm taking care of a lot of dying patients and a lot of patients who are near death and there's nothing more satisfying than bringing
them back a lot of those therapies are time dependent dose dependent and they're synergistic and so you really need to be um you know you need to be constantly trying to figure out better ways to treat your patients right when I look at the uh evidence for Ivan I've never seen a collection of Trials so consistently and reproducibly positive they line up in a way it's almost visually beautiful in that the treatment effects are always so large now I am so moved by this I'm so amazed by this and and in this process and I've been fighting this fight now for eight months when I first came out in public as you know people know I gave the Senate testimony which a lot of people watched I was shocked at the resistance that it met like I I I put all these trials I showed all the evidence and I it was just getting dismissed and they were like basically I almost felt like I was being condescended to and lectured like oh you don't know how to read evidence and I was saying I can't think of in history trials that are lining up like this randomize observational prevention treatment early late okay have you had any debates or any conversations publicly with anybody who disagrees I just had a debate with what I call an ivory Tower academic last week it'll be up on uh uh trial site news uh trial site news is a a website where uh which have been very uh played a big role in the pandemic because they have been following and Reporting on icton efficacy since last April in fact a lot of different developments and things that I've learned about Ivon I've gotten from trial site news there it's a website where they they follow everything Pharma so anything that comes out of a drug trial or related to pharmaceutical industry and really Therapeutics and trials it goes on trial site news but they've been a really uh very close Observer of ior maon and so um the thing about what happens though when you bring this evidence forth is and this is why I get back to this abstract is that the opposition to ior mechon they're faced with right now 60 controlled trials showing benefit maybe one or two didn't show a benefit 58 out of the 60 show benefits and they say this is low quality evidence poorly designed trials small
trials and that's been the same thing they've been saying for six months now when you grade the quality events there's actually standards there's definitions there's a way to do it so Tess laori and her group who did this that's what they do they're experts at grading quality of evidence they grade the quality of evidence for survival with Ivon so the the 62% reduction am is actually graded as moderate level certainty I got to emphasize they did the work they looked under the hood of all these trials they looked at things like allocation concealment and randomization and you know all sorts of these terms of how you conduct a trial they grade the trials evidence as moderate and the reason why that's important is that cortico steroids which are the standard of care worldwide for the treatment of the hospitalized covid patient that was adopted immediately overnight based on one trial and that's moderate certainty it's very rare that you get high level or strong certainty it's very hard to get there you need like massive trials done by big Pharma over years so moderate is actually quite strong so the level the quality of evidence so no longer should we listen to our agencies or these leaders trying to dismiss ican evidence as very low or low quality that's what the who did in March they dismissed the evidence as very low quality and they dissected it they removed many of the trials they threw this one out for this reason it it's this is where I'm getting back to and I hate talking about this stuff but this disinformation like there's effectively it's a dishonesty there's clearly there operating on what I call a nonscientific objective their objective is to not have iin adopted worldwide they ion is seen as an opponent to whatever policies they're trying whatever policies or product or pharmaceutical products they want to bring forward now does this resistance exist in a vacuum is there evidence of this resistance in terms of like emails that have been leaked where people go back and forth and discuss whether or not iveron should be promoted reports so all of the a agencies and I can bring you a stack so from the Canadians and it's all by the way North America and Western Europe those so it's the EMA which is European medicine and
Asian cheese which is all all of Europe and then you could look at France Netherlands like all of those Western European countries Canada the US the NIH just look at their reviews of Ivor mechon they just constant they it's almost like they've copied and paste all around the world every every agency that's reviewed it has said that it's lowquality evidence small trials poor control groups different doses which actually are strength of of the trials evidence but it's like they've copied and pasted it and and and it's really tiresome and it's incorrect and I think they're all acting on a different objective they're not credibly assessing the data around what what's promoting them to behave in this way like what is is there can we can we get the New York Times piece up the Carl Zimmer piece yeah so I've been wondering about this for the longest time there is obvious resistance to looking at the evidence which is clear enough why would they be and I should point out there's another interesting piece of evidence which is not only was the safety of ior meon challenged by the CDC was it uh well the who suggested that it may not be safe but MC itself MC which was the manufacturer of this drug MC which has given away millions of doses uh in Africa attacked the safety of its own drug said that it wasn't safe and shouldn't be used in this case which was strange but then here it's crazy has that ever happened before well here's the thing I was waiting you know what don't we know and there are a certain number I mean I you know I don't know how much this is a Merc Centric phenomenon but there are a couple things about um mc mc has announced that it has a new drug that it's very excited about for covid and is m m new P BR the tongue all right so this is so this is the article this is the article scroll uh let's see I want to there's some paragraphs here go back up back up there's a paragraph about uh what happened when they looked for drugs that would be effective against covid so this is Carl Zimmer this is one of the world's Premier science writers writing in the New York times back up more that's the top oh that's the top want to talk about the the three billion uh Brett you want well we're going to get
to the three billion here in a second but keep going stop uh at the start of the pandemic researchers began testing existing antiviral virals in hospital hospitalized patients with severe covid-19 but many of those trials failed to show any benefit from the ant antivirals in hindsight the the choice to work in hospitals was a mistake um okay go down a little bit uh down a little bit more stop uh so far only one antiviral has demonstrated a clear benefit to people in hospitals REM Des severe that's the $3,000 a dose drug that uh is authorized originally investigated as a potential cure for Ebola the drug seems to shorten the course of covid-19 when given intravenously in patients in October it became the first and so far the only antiviral drug to gain FDA approval to treat the disease yet rem's performance has left many researchers underwhelmed um weak yeah I'm missing the there's a paragraph in here where he says that the search for drugs that work didn't turn anything up in any case people can find it on their own I guess but this is this news report came just before Anthony fouchy sorry glasses do not interface well uh before uh an Anthony fouchy gave a press conference about a $3 billion initiative to find drugs that work against covid now of course these drugs that they find will all be under patent and therefore highly profitable so what you've got is uh drug companies MC is involved in molu P this new drug uh it is also involved in an agreement with Johnson and Johnson to distribute their vaccine and strangely we are ignoring the evidence that is right in front of us that we have multiple drugs that are highly effective for covid and one that I would point out again is highly effective as a prophylactic so I don't know anything about the business side of this I do know what fiduciary responsibility is I know that the shareholder value must be driving things behind the scenes I know that these companies have been immunized from live ability with respect to harms that might be done by the vaccines that they're Distributing so there's a question about do all of those things add up to explain the many anomalies
about the recommendations of how to treat patients uh who have covid I believe they do well let's put it this way I can't come up with anything else that makes any sense well it's a perfect storm right you have a generic like what what is the expense of iveron oh it's uh actually I've I've seen it estimated like in large bulk quantities you could make it for less than a dollar like a dose um in in the United States there's FDA regulated uh product which so it's more expensive but um around the world I mean in India they were Distributing it in many regions and we should talk about India in a second but um it it's extremely cheap it's a very low cost that's a problem so extremely effective extremely cheap and generic big problem yeah but look but is it how I don't what what I can't get myself to is what do these conversations sound like on the other side who decides to shut down in the middle of a pandemic where you have a drug that's actually good enough to end the pandemic at any point you want it right who decides to prioritize business interests ahead of that I find it hard to imagine so I I'm what I'm what I'm actually guessing is going on is this you've got a pharmaceutical industry which frequently has obstacles the development of a new drug is extremely expensive it can be you know it can go bust you can develop a new drug and it doesn't get through the trial so there's a lot of risk and so the pharmaceutical industry has engineered mechanisms to get their drugs through this process right they've corrupted the system and my sense is that their ability to force the system to accept certain things and to ignore other things is so welldeveloped at this point that it must have just gotten applied on autopilot and somehow we're stuck in the situation where the evidence that we have a effective tools is overwhelming those tools do not excite anybody in the pharmaceutical industry because there's no profit to be made and somehow that autopilot has us facing the possibility of getting stuck with this this pathogen permanently because there's nobody at the helm that's about what I would guess yeah I mean this is you're seeing you're seeing this is a system at work right so we we we live in a public in a health system which
favors for-profit medicines over nonprofit it's the for-profit medicines that can create can that can uh hurdle over those bars right to get those big farmer trials no one's going to fund that around ior macton um actually philanthropy is funding a a relatively big trial right now we're waiting on I think the world is waiting on the results I actually think that trial is unethical um I I could not as a physician knowing what I know give someone a placebo right now um for I then the evence is too overwhelming um but you're in a system where where clearly the the things that are favored are those with financial interests and so that's who gets the ear of the agencies that's who gets attention by the FDA and Iver maon is really ignored there's there's no one championing iveron except for like my little group of uh nonprofit doctors who became expert at iveron and I will also say though we're not alone there's like you know our organization we call ourselves the flccc uh for short but there's little flc's in countries all around the world that we're talking to who are also advocating and going to their governments and their agencies and finding very similar resistances it's like it's like the same play over and over again the influence of the pharmaceutical companies is a real thing it's Global it is but I think what what keeps stopping me in my tracks is the magnetude if you just simply extrapolate from what is evident in that meta analysis about the capacity of iveron to address this the amount of needless human suffering is almost incalculable inal it's incalculable and that that we would allow it to continue I mean fouchi was very excited in his press conference about this new initiative and it sort of sounded like well we're settling in for a very long-term uh situation with this pathogen right we were told that the vaccines were a solution to this but looks like they're just really gearing up for you know this and of course that will create profits for a long time to come Brett can we say just stop for a second and call attention to the absurdity of what that article just described you're talking about they're
committing $3.2 billion doar to develop a better ior mechon we already have ion it is already a profoundly effective anti it is cheap widely available could be produced in mass quantities and delivered to the masses and population yet our government in the middle of a pandemic is giving $3.2 billion to the pharmaceutical industry in a program to develop a new oral antiviral pill it's almost it's so transparent you wish you just say look okay I see what you're doing will you do me a favor just adjust one of the molecules on on icton put a patent on it we'll give you the money well that's mold so mold doesn't share a molecular structure with itin but one of its purported main mechanisms of action is the same is a similar one uh it's identical to one of the main mechanisms action Vin so it's a different drug but it's kind of doing the same thing now it's not as good so it it it interrupts one of them is there's these enzymes that the virus uses to replicate and one of them is called uh RNA dependent polymer polymerase thank you um and it interferes and binds with that and so if you don't have that enzyme you can't replicate and so it's thought to uh uh that's that's one of its mechanism now the thing about mol new is they've already tested it in hospitalized patients and it's failed it hasn't worked in the hospital where we know ion works in the hospital even in late phase we know ion's working they're now testing an outpatient which is the Holy Grail CU right now the NIH which determines the treatment guidelines for this disease in this country besides Tylenol and wait till your lips turn blue they offer nothing to outpatients so that is a ripe Market to try to find the covid killer icon is the covid Killer and should be the main stay of any early Outpatient Treatment regimen and yet it's not the one thing I want to bring up and this is talk I want to go back to this I love the example that Brett brings up is just look at the behaviors like even just ignoring some of the signs look at the behavior so when you look at some of the trials around their favored medicines like REM dese they kind of do funny stuff with
the trials they change end points they use weak outcomes like okay two days less of a hospitalization for $3,000 doesn't save lives doesn't reduce mechanical ventilation when you have other drugs that do but another absurdity is Mexico Mexico out of all of the countries that we just talked about they did something that I think is unique historic and needs to be recognized so what happened in Mexico is they have uh an agency called the imss it's basically their Social Security Department which covers a large part of their Health Care system and they had they went rogue in Mexico back in December at a time when hospitals were full they were getting inundated they're almost like at that crisis Peak like we were in in this country around December and January remember when like La was running out of oxygen and like like India was last month so Mexico was in terrible condition back in December the imss and I would say I would like that our paper and our advocacy was part of what made them pay attention ion they implemented a nationwide test and treat program every outpatient testing center if you tested positive you were offered icon and you got two days you got 12 milligrams which is not a high dose in fact I consider that to be somewhat of an undertreatment but what happened within two weeks of that hospitalization rat plummeted death rates plummeted and over the next 3 months they have basically rid Co open bars open restaurants at a time when the vaccination rate was like 1 to 5% so it wasn't the vaccines it was all related to this and then three weeks ago maybe it's three weeks now that agency put out their paper their paper looking at the data of their program and you know what they reported is that in many thousands of patients those that accepted the medicine and took it their rate of hospitalization was up to 75% lower than those who didn't and and and that's not the only agency or country reporting that now why isn't that front page news in the major media United States you have a large country like Mexico who just put out results of a a a nationwide program centered around icin where hospitalizations were reduced up to 75%
in those given I and in your opinion an insufficient dose uh what i' like to say is it's the minimum of what it's capable of if had I you know with hindsight had you done more of a weight based right because we're not all the same bigger you are you probably need a little bit more and so and also a longer duration I think they could have gotten that number higher so it's it's it's my opinion it's the minimum of what that program was capable of but even in that form form in that dosing strategy was incredible what they did you know how many lives they saved by reducing that hospitalization and they emptied the hospitals they emptied them that is incredible and I always wondered like how's Mexico partying so early ah now there's your answer and and the the hospitalization date is so cool we have an analyst that works with us a guy named Juan chier who I think when all is said and done a couple years will be a historic figure he's a guy who helped teach me what I mton was doing in the world he's been tracking areas and countries and regions and states which have adopted Ivor meton and he's been looking at the numbers and we have many dozens of what's called temporally Associated decline so temporally associated mean you know u in the context of time so when you initiated a point a what happens very close in time after that every time icin is deployed or adopted you see these rapid declines now everybody's curves around the world have been fluctuating right we have these Peaks we have these you know the the iological curves of cases and deaths but when you look at the Ivon initiations it's always reproducible it's literally within one to two weeks you see these drops and how are these results being re received uh crickets so so the Mexico preprint this is how crazy the world is so the Mexico pre-print I thought would be Front Page News across Mexico that they'd found a cure the federal health Ministry in Mex Mexico really was against the imss so it's almost like the CDC and the ni were fighting I was trying to come up with an analogy because I don't know Mexico that well but I do know those those are two large preeminent Healthcare region but the federal health Ministry was against this program insufficient evidence da d
d da and I think they were partly because they were captured um but these Rogue sort of clinical experts who are trying to act in a humanitarian basis using a precautionary principle which Brett brought up which is like safe Med seems like it only got upside let's just do it and they did it and it worked but in the papers there's still discussion insufficient evidence and then some people now they're planting things in the papers as I understand it's saying that it's political that that paper in which they reported their results some people are excusing this because that's how they want to get reelected so it's like again it gets devolved into like political controversy and so but the fact that our government isn't talking to the group of doctors that headed up the imss and carried out initiated this program to learn how they did it is it's it's unforgivable why aren't we talking to these leaders of the imss program in Mexico they they're just to the they're not far from here right Joe pretty close yeah they're pretty close right like little we could probably drive down there today can we can we bring them days you walk have them on your podcast but but that's just Mexico and I I I could probably talk all day long but just uh 10 days ago the state of La Pampa in Argentina Southern Argentina they did a similar program where they gave icton to patients who tested positive they also reporting there they had 40% less hospitalization 30% less death and uh 40% less ICU uh use and so in that small program out of Argentina and then when you look at India remember how crazy how India was the headlines for for a while and like literally there was smoke over all the cities from the funeral Pires cuz so many people were dying well in a number of the states that aggressively adopted Ivan maon you saw those curves and they plummeted to near zero in states that didn't you saw the curves go up so there was almost like there was a natural experiment in India uh around nron and so you know just to finish you know Brett talked about the preventative trials the treatment trials early late now you're also getting data from Real World that's a really credible in fact to me that's probably the most powerful source of evidence is you're seeing it work on a populationbased
on a population basis around the world so I would like to I think it absolutely the data suggests that it works for treatment that it's highly effective there are several different protocols you could use but I I want to go back to this issue of prophylaxis because again to me we're not just dealing with the costs in the present we're dealing with how much cost will Humanity experience in the future if we don't drive this thing extinct while we have the chance and we do appear to have the chance so um if you would put up the graph I sent you I apologize for the complexity of this but actually hold up for just a second Jamie I so I I've been talking to various people about whether or not the data on ION suggest it could drive uh SARS K2 to Extinction and I became convinced that it could uh when uh this uh meta analysis came out I talked to Tess Lori she said she believed that it could I believe is it fair to say Pierre that you believe that it could oh absolutely okay um but not everybody agrees and actually on my podcast with Robert Malone the inventor of of the MRNA vaccine technology he actually he said he hoped I was right but he he doubted it um and anyway we've gone back and forth about it a number of times and I tried to focus him on a couple of things and last night he contacted me and he said Brett you were right it'll do it and then he said let me show you and he sent me this graph you didn't send me I didn't send you the graph oh damn no worries we got time all right um so Robert came around he did come around and those classes by the way are Preposterous they they do not work well with headphones I should have remembered that um you know I see they're supposed to make it more convenient they they do when you're not wearing headphones Let's uh if we can make a note so um and this is where the story just keeps getting like more and more amazing right so Brett is rightly focusing on the preventive as aspects right because it's it's great to treat and make sure you stay alive and don't go to the hospital much better to just not get sick and to eradicate the the virus but we save definitely large number of people if we drive it to Extinction make a note that the body of evidence which is the weakest but it's
some of the most compelling long Co so let's talk about that after I want to talk about our experiences with long Co okay okay so this is incredibly complex and I must tell you it's complex enough that I have had to stare at it and talk to Robert about what it means and so I'm going to take you through the highlights here explain it to people that are just looking at the or listening only so what we've got is a graph uh in which we have some curves that descend through the graph and the curves these curves are parallel to each other and the basic idea is do you guys remember what R not is from the beginning of the pandemic so R not is the reproductive rate of the virus at one each infected person tends to infect one other person so the amount of infected people tends to stay the same over time above one you get one of these explosions of new cases it's it goes below one you see a a decline in cases and anytime you have a decline in cases anytime R KN is less than one you are headed towards the extinction of the pathogen and lots of pathogens do go extinct SARS and Ms are both extinct as far as we know now they can come back but Extinction is what we're shooting for now the point of this graph is remember IV iveron shows itself to be about 86% effective at preventing contraction of covid that means that uh so if you so R not for covid is somewhere between two uh it's a little bit above two so the green line there is just below the line that we would draw for Co this graph was not drawn with Co in mind what this means is and uh can you scroll up so we can see oh the bottom there it says uh critical boundary for Combined a Subs a sub uh s is the rate at which uh people exposed do not come down with the disease when treated that's on the Y AIS I mean the x-axis on the y- axis we have a subi which is the rate of reduction of viral shedding and the basic Point here is that uh for a disease like covid with an R knot of about uh a little over two with 70% of the population uh compliant with the prophylactic protocol we would drive R notot rot becomes R subf in the treatment so the reproductive rate under treatment is r subf and it will be less than one if you get 70% of the population to take uh the
prophylaxis so the point is that level of prophylaxis is more than sufficient by a lot to drive this to Extinction if you only had 70% compliance is there any evidence uh of the efficacy in variance uh yes I do well we don't have trials testing you know where they really measured the variance and and showed but we do know um this epidemiologic data so if you look at India lots of De Delta variant from looking at the epidemiology of what happened there ior meton was slaying the de Delta variant South Africa and Zimbabwe especially Zimbabwe when they were getting hurt earlier in this year they basically eradicated covid with widespread adoption of VI and they were doing dealing with the South African variant Brazil is a bit of a mess in the sense that there's so much controversy around the different treatments and there's political overtones that there's no uh systematic use of Iverton but there have been pockets and cities that first didn't adopt it and then did and we know in that P1 variant out of Brazil totally susceptible to IR so from what we've seen and then the UK variant we saw in Slovakia and Czech Republic same thing responsiveness to itin so just by looking at sort of epidem epidemiologically seeing these Varian pop out I have gotten no data to suggest it doesn't work against any of variance and that's what we would expect because its mechanisms of action are multiple um and they don't really will change to the outer surface of the spike protein we we think that it to to evade ican you'd really have to have a very very different virus and so I I don't we don't think that uh we have no evidence to suggest that it's not going to work this sounds like a gigantic ior meon infomercial sponsored by ior mechon well you know what I mean I mean it's lot of money to be made there Joe but not really not really mean sarcastic there's no money to be made there's just lives to save I'm sorry but it is it's it's so funny this is one of the best examples of something that is almost too good to be true but turns out actually to be true right and it's the problem is it's actually putting those of us who can see it in danger right because as people ignore this evidence with this much at stake this many people needlessly
suffering and dying people losing their loved ones right the desire to just simply get people to look at the evidence and then extrapolate what would a reasonable person do faced with a safe drug with noisy data that has a very strong signal of efficacy that works both as a treatment and as a prophylaxis what would you do if you were in charge and what you hear back is the most maddening well you know I'm I'm evidence-based and if it isn't a large scale randomized controlled trial then it is an Evidence to me and it's like only a crazy person would say that in this case and yet you hear it all the time especially all these different countries that you've outlined that have adopted treatment South Africa here's the key though is that the the reasons for the opposition I think are multiple you know I hate talking about the sin Sinister stuff which is the disinformation aspects where they're literally making concerted efforts to get leaders to inject doubt around the science some of it is just intellectual skepticism like this what we call evidence-based medicine um it's gotten a little perverted and I think it's it's not always practiced correctly and so you you have a lot of resistance to the to the science around Ivor maon um now I lost my train of thought that I wanted to say about that um go ahead well um want me to help you because we we were just talking about profitability we're talking about the fact that it's in all these different countries like it's kind of too good to be true well the profit part is I mean I agree that's that's one of them the oh the other point I wanted to make is that and this is so maddening is that the other resistance is What I Call Ivory Tower syndrome or this evidence-based I call it manism which is this obsession with this big randomized control trial but part and partial of that Obsession where they won't believe anything until you do that trial is that they don't do the work what I've seen is a lot of intellectual laziness and just Flatout laziness like when I see people reviewing the evidence and I'm like they clearly either didn't read the trial didn't look at all the trials they it I just find it's a very curs R viiew now whether they're doing it on purpose or not and I'm going to call out one
particular body which is the idsa which is the Infectious Disease Society of America and they like all of the other agencies there are professional societies of infectious disease experts and in their review of icton they don't recommend use outside of Tri uh outside of clinical trials and they also say that the evidence is low quality small trials but they also say something else which is absurd they wrote that of concern is that almost all of the published trials are positive and so they suspect publication bias want me to repeat that so they literally in their review they say you know we we noticed that all of the studies are positive so we think there might be a publication bias I want to ring someone's neck you think there might be a publication bias so if you don't know what a publication bias is is that in medicine when people do studies let's say you study a drug and it f you find out it didn't really work right your motivation for finishing the manuscript submitting like it's a lot of work to submit and publish uh papers and scientific journals might flag and you might not publish negative trials and so there's something that happens which is a publication by the where you only see positive trials and it gives you only a one-sided view of the efficacy so you might wrongly say oh man this drug Works cuz all the trials say it works but you're not accounting for all the trialists who AR in't publishing now there are ways of investigating and looking for publication bias and I will tell you that the lead researcher for the unitate who who he used to collaborate with he he's no longer doing the work now um he did look at that and he found no publication bias and the the reason the the the way you combat publication bias is when you do a clinical trial of a medicine it's been standard now is that you're supposed to register your trial in a clinical trials registry before you do the trial and most journals will not publish your trial unless it was pre-registered and the reason why is they want to make sure if you register a trial on Ivor maon and then never publish they can find you and say what happened what happened to your trial did you find out it didn't work and didn't publish like what's going on anyway long story short there's no
publication bias so let me ask you this if there is proven to be no publication bias the people that initially were skeptical because of a publication bias when proven that that's not the case why is there not a corresponding enthusiasm because their part because their objection wasn't a real objection it was it was stalling and I would just point out it is lovely that we have a registry that tells us there's no publication bias but you don't need it because the experience in Mexico in utar Pradesh in Goa in all of these places where it's been tried is perfectly consistent with the result that you see in the studies right so the observational uh studies are are consistent you've got um you know the Argentina Frontline healthcare worker study that's a that's an unambiguous result that would be essentially impossible to you know this is the one where uh what was it 237 out of 400 uh who didn't take it didn't take it got 58% Joe that that who didn't take none of the on zero of 788 that's wow 237 of 407 got covid 58% that shows you how high risk these people were and how well protected those that took that regimen of Ivon and the car so let's be real clear here none of the people who took it prophylactically in that study got covid 58% of the people that didn't take it got Co correct that's crazy and the and and the point is that you know that is within a study yes if the study is not outright fraudulent the chances of getting a result that skewed are effectively zero so it's just insane that these calls for or these criticisms of potential publication bias aren't met with once the evidence has been established once you've looked at it and they they' say no there's no publication bias why aren't people going well this is amazing news then right cuz this is what we've been searching for so again I want to just point out the evidence that the molecule works is overwhelming right figuring out how to use it best is a question that reasonable people could disagree over but it's something that we would find out if we applied it and collected the the information um but that uh that graph which I realized I forgot to say where it came from that
was work done by uh Ira lini at the University of Florida and his postto uh Natalie Dean and what that uh I think I forgot to say the um the Y AIS on there is the one fly in the ointment which is that those curves are drawn based on an effectiveness at preventing viral shedding and an effectiveness at preventing the contraction of the disease and although there's every reason to expect that Viral shedding would be low with the use of Icon I don't think we have that data yet um but anyway assuming that that comes out the way one would expect based on what we do know what that graph says is that given an R not of the type that we believe we have that we have a single tool that even if it didn't work to treat sick people is effective enough to rid the world of this disease and the farther below uh one the uh the effectiveness is the more rapidly we can drive it to Extinction but why we are not even considering this why we are instead of applying this drug good enough today to do the job and instead going to invest $3 billion to see if there are any drugs out there that we can come up with that might work it really does suggest that what is driving here has to do with uh profits I hate to say it let me bring up the principal investigator of that trial so his name is Hector carvalo he's this lovely lovely this is the Argentina yeah he's great he's um he's actually retired but he used to run hospitals he had prominent positions and he was the pi principal investigator of this trial and you know I've gotten to be friendly and collegial with him because we've shared data and insights and we lecture in different places and um uh I asked him I said you know because his trial was already done last June and I said what's the latest data and you know as you're following these patients and he says still today out of those large groups of healthcare workers the only times anyone's gotten sick when he when he's looked at those cases either they forgot got to take their doses or they took inappropriate doses but generally almost all of them have have maintained protection the other thing I'm going to borrow with you because it goes to your question is he has this phrase which I love he says unfortunately ior meon has um has affected the most sensitive organ on
humans the wallet so thought that was a pretty clever witty way of saying what the problem it answers your question like why aren't we doing this and apparently Ivan mechon is really damaging to the wallet Joe how much of this did you guys discuss on your podcast that has uh been taken down yeah uh we discussed a lot of it that you know some of this is new the the entire podcast has been taken down the entire podcast has been taken down um you know I should also point out I don't know did you mention that uh Dr Cory's Senate testimony was taken down by YouTube I find this one of the most glaring facts of no your Senate testimony been oh a long time ago yeah I mean it hit it hit almost 9 million views and then it then it got disappeared and oh that's the other thing I wanted to bring up with Hector carvalo in Argentina you know this is the pi this incredible study and by the way his is not alone we have now 14 prophylaxis studies and some of them quite large um every time he mentions Ivor macton it's he says it's scrubbed from the internet like he can't really share his D I mean there's a lot of censorship down there around Iver mackton and so the the the drug is specifically called out in YouTube's Community guidelines they mention it right this Thou shalt not discuss the effectiveness of ior mecon and but you're allowed to discuss REM Desir oh yeah it's approved it's it's part of the NIH guideline you know there was an article written by Matt the look on your face says it all so this is not adding up the matbe article which yeah so I I I you know I got interviewed for it and I thought it was a fair Fair representation you know he balanced both sides but I liked his phrase he called me um some sort of ghost of the internet because Wherever I Go things get disapp and and so his got taken down I did a long interview with a guy named John Campbell from the UK he has almost a million subscribers on YouTube he's a medical educator been covering lots of um uh covid related topics and uh we discussed Ivor meton for an half hour that got taken down another medical educator Dr Bean um who's really a great a phenomenal educator who I've conversed with when I went on his and he's constantly reviewing data on many
aspects of Co but I think at one point every video of his where he addressed Ivor Mech and got demonetized and and this is a medical educator that's that's his whole demonetized I can live with yeah I don't like it it's the shutting down the discussion yeah I don't like the demonetization but because what it is is it's a thinly veiled attempt at self-censorship if you demonetize people enough for very specific subjects they will no longer breach those subjects because they know it's going to hurt their pocket right so um I ran across something I think you're more familiar with it than I am but I ran across it yesterday evidence that let's see if I get the list right the AP Reuters Facebook Twitter Youtube uh The Washington Post who else is on this list uh Financial Times it's a long list of places where information is distributed have teamed up to prevent the distribution of what they're calling medical misinformation which of course now you know your listeners will have heard a discussion about a very promising uh drug for treating and preventing covid which we're now forbidden to talk about uh on on YouTube at least in positive light and the implication you know if you think so I've been making the argument that capture capture was originally named uh regulatory capture right and it gives the impression oh the regulatory agency has been captured by the thing that it's supposed to regulate the nuclear industry may have captured the um the department of energy for example and therefore decisions start going its way in this case I really think we need to start thinking in terms of capture that extends to other places right you expect the regulator to be be captured but you don't necessarily expect the New York Times to be captured you don't expect all of the places that you might discuss what's going on you might you don't expect the places where you would discuss discuss capture to be captured and yet they are and so to have YouTube controlling the bounds of discussion obviously forbidding scientifically viable conversations from happening which are the only thing that stands a chance of correcting this uh you know this unbearable momentum in favor of a
single solution which itself has hazards associated with it right and I don't know if we do or don't want to go there but the point is this you know this drug comparatively safe very safe by any measure is highly effective and yet the official policy is effectively um vaccines at any cost and get everybody on them and don't talk about other stuff that's not approved don't talk about the Alternatives and and none of it makes any sense because just consider the anomalies right the anomalies are things that even if you accept what the opponents of of this perspective are saying can't be explained right why is it that we are not giving let's say that everybody who's vaccine skeptical is a crazy person right now I don't think they are I'm vaccine skeptical but uh and I don't mean that generally I'm very very enthusiastic about vaccines in a general sense I'm highly vaccinated but in this case I'm worried about a vac a set of vaccines that were sped through this process where their manufacturers have been immunized from liability and where there is a very strong signal that something is not right um why is it given that you have a population of vaccine hesitant people however they got there even if they got there from confusion where we're trying to reach herd immunity in order to ostensibly Drive the pathogen to Extinction where this drug appears to give people immunity to a large extent maybe a complete extent from the pathogen in question why would we not be giving ior mecin to those who won't take the vaccine can't take the vaccine to whom the vaccine will not reach right all of those categories even if you believe the vaccine was Far and Away the best solution to this problem all of those categories would benefit from having Ivermectin and the population as a whole would benefit from them having it because it would leave fewer people for this pathogen to jump too and yet we don't do it that I don't think that can be explained by anything there is no logical defense great way to fill that hole of of of people who aren't going to get vaccinated you going back to your graph you know the graph I don't know if you mentioned this but you know in that graph when you look at the population you already have now a large proportion
been vaccinated and then the large have heard immunity so the amount of water the the ion has to carry to get us to the goal line is is not that is not that it's not as large it's not as large not as large at all and you're going to want to deploy this I mean imagine that you took the vaccine right and then you had a breakthrough case right this is now happening regularly why are we not giving icin to people with breakthrough cases of Co they they did what they were asked to do and they now have this uh this condition and you know so anyway there's there's a large Rabbit Hole surrounding what what they are pushing instead of icton but really what we can't answer we're vaccinating children right that's not safe we have a drug that we could administer that is safe in children that appears to be highly effective right if you were going to insist that children have some sort of protection in spite of the fact that they tolerate covid very well ior mechin would be a far better choice you know one difference I I don't know how big of a difference it is if I understood you correctly but the way I see that censorship and that TNI that TR I think it's called trusted news initiative again I I don't know enough about it but from what I understand it was a Consortium of major media Outlets that came to some sort of agreement to suppress medical misinformation and I guess it was somehow defined as anything that doesn't come from what I call the gods of Science and knowledge right so from the leading agencies and when you talk about I've been working on this analogy which is that it's almost like you're in a plane emergency right and the plane is crashing like we're in an emergency right now and everyone's saying listen to the captain you have to listen to the captain's instructions don't listen to anyone else but listen to the captain and no one's considering what if the hijackers already got the captain and you're not listening to really good advice and that's what it seems like here and we're listening to hijackers yeah or your house is on fire and there's a bucket of water and somebody stops you from using it because you haven't proved its water you know I love those I love those analogies yes it's yeah yeah something is not is not
adding up here and I you know I think it is worth pointing out that I don't know what explains it but throughout this story we've got uh Dr fouchy in a very strange position so from again yeah again right and that's that's the problem so at the same point that we have a drug that appears to work in fact we have several of them um he's announcing a search for drugs that might work right that's conspicuous this is the same person who was apparently um circumventing the ban on gain of function research by sending the research off shore to the Wuhan Institute using Eco Health Alliance right why is the same guy in a position where he may have contributed to causing the pandemic and now here he is in a position to do something about the pandemic and he's making exactly the wrong decision he's not wielding the tools we have he's announcing a search for new tools as if the tools we have don't exist this is nothing here adds up and at the very least okay so nothing adds up we can't talk about it in the official channels because the official channels are constrained and then the free people who discuss this on the internet who take their expertise on the internet and discuss the fact that something is not adding up are being silenced by YouTube and Facebook and whoever else and the point is it all points to one thing right for some reason there's a desire not to apply this tool and there is a pursuit of other tools and there is no cost benefit analysis that will cause that system to rethink it's not scientifically based that's what I want to be clear because you know Joe what happened to me is I would I I the guy that I was a year ago and the guy that I am now is totally different like I I just see the world a lot different I I guess you could say I'm more cynical but every time I get cynical I also find out that I'm correct in that cynicism like everything that I'm suspecting I'm actually finding evidence that the forces I think are acting improperly actually are and you know when when is it going to stop well it's just so extraordinary that all the years you've been practicing medicine that in the last year it's changed you this much in the face of this evence
because of what happened to the science I always thought that data would win out and science trumps all like I I came into it naive you know and and and I you know we came with our experience expertise our insights into the disease that me and me and the group you know we we we obsessively studied this disease and we're also Decades of experience highly published and when we came out with our protocols I don't know if you know this but I gave Senate testimony back in May a year ago and I gave testimony uh to the world saying that it was critical that we use corticosteroids and I did that at a time when every National and international health agency said do not use cortical steroids in covid and I was roundly attacked harassed and criticized for that very public recommendation what was the reason why you recommended it because we knew it was critical in this disease so about four reasons number one my colleague in our group his name is Umberto maduri he's probably he is the world experts at cortical steroids in lung disease Decades of practice he's made multiple contributions to our specialty him and another group of Scholars reviewed all of the trials from SARS Ms and H1N1 so the prior pandemics and when you really carefully control because they were all what's called observational trials back then and so there's a lot of what are called confounders but when you control for the confounders really carefully what him and his group and this what I think is a landmark paper what they found was that cico STS were actually lifesaving in the prior Corona virus pandemics so we knew that when you really look care again going back to that laziness and and the lack of deep expertise and deep dives into the data which is what Umberto and his group did back in MA in in April of last year they found it was actually lifesaving so that was one reason I knew the other reason I knew is because I I I'm born raised trained lived in New York I I moved to Wisconsin I was recruited by the University Wisconsin 5 years ago but um I know guys and and gals in every ICU in New York City and when they got hit it was bad and I was in Wisconsin we weren't hit yet and I was on the phone with them every day I was trying to learn everything I could about the disease and the stuff that I
was hearing first of all that was just Armageddon it was insane the stuff that I was hearing I mean it it just still brings back really horrible memories of what happened to New York and Seattle and Detroit and New Orleans if you remember that time when I mean to know what it's like on the inside the newspapers did a reasonable job of describing it but it was really really bad but I knew from them that people were crashing on the ventilators and they weren't coming off they weren't coming off they were dying on ventilators the lungs were deteriorating and they were just doing what's called supportive care only which is Tylenol fluids oxygen and it wasn't working and then some of the colleagues who said you know we got to try something they were trying steroids which what we were saying we kind of knew we already knew steroids were indicated and those that started to use steroids you started actually it was interesting it started popping up on social media doctors some of them anonymously were starting to post like Hey we're using steroids we're using it early when as soon as they get on oxygen and we're finding they're not getting intubated you know they're coming off ventilators and we're actually discharging patients and so you had like on the ground like real time feedback that it was working we knew from prior trials and then I wrote a uh a paper talking about how uh the type of lung disease that covid causes and I don't want to get too wonky here but it's a disease called organizing pneumonia which is not an infectious pneumonia it's actually although they call it a pneumonia it's just a reaction to a lung injury to exposure to something and so the lungs are reacting in the form of an organizing pneumonia the Cardinal therapy for organizing pneumonia is steroids and not only is it steroids but it's often times high doses steroids and you're supposed to Weeden them off as the disease gets better not some predefined time and I think we talked about it on your podcast and I just have to say it again but my belief leaving ivaan alone is that many many thousands of people are dying around the world from under treatment with cortical steroids we now have significant amounts of data to show
that the trials which use metho predonisolone at higher doses have much better outcomes and also you need longer durations what the whole world is doing is they're following remember how we talked about the pitfalls of a large randomized control trial so when I said to use cortical steroids in the Senate testimony I was attacked criticized over because there was no randomized control trial 7 weeks later Oxford put out the recovery trial which is their big trial in the UK and they showed that cortico steroids were life saving so we were validated we were validated back then and they used a small dose of aortico steroid for a pred predetermined time 10 days and so I I by the way I've been traveling around the country in different icus throughout the pandemic because I left University Wisconsin I helped out my old ICU in New York when they were getting inundated and then I was in Greenville and Milwaukee and so I've been in a bunch of icus and I kept seeing doctors using 6 milligrams of dexamethazone for 10 days and stopping they were literally stopping steroid o patients still sick on high amounts of oxygen on ventilators and I mean there's nothing more absurdly bizarre than doing that like the disease is still marching on it's still overwhelming these patients and you're stopping a medicine why do they stop because the trial said that that was the trial protocol so people decided they're not going to doctor anymore they're just going to follow the trial protocol and I'm saying you got to doctor you follow the patient you don't follow some protocol I mean The Human Condition is a bit variable don't you think well right we're not all the same but there's a the the hidden feature of your story here right is that back when we were talking about corticosteroids you had doctors who were pulling their insights yes right and it resulted in a discovery that something should be done to have YouTube and all of its fellows in the what is it TNI deciding that we can't talk in public about this topic means that that process can't happen now why is that process being frustrated we can guess yes it probably has to do with profits and I must say every time I try to sort through the logic of why this would be suppressed right the consequence of it being suppressed is obvious which is
that the standard of care doesn't improve but why I keep coming back to these emergency use authorizations which have a provision in them they cannot Grant an emergency use authorization if there is an existing treatment that is safe and effective right the vaccines would not have been authorized if ivrin was understood to be what it is and that I have the sense is the key thing that explains everything else somehow those euas and the immun the uh liability waivers that these companies have been granted mean that this is all the more profitable if they can silence a discussion about a cheap effective competitor that is safe that already exists and so in some sense they started with the conclusion icon doesn't exist it does not effectively treat this disease and anybody who says otherwise is spreading so-called medical misinformation when in fact what they're spreading is information right so bunk is debunk information is misinformation it's all on its head we're through the LOL glass I want to bring up something that you glossed over earlier but you you stopped you didn't go back to it is long Co and the effectiveness on Long Co yeah so I I don't want to use that term infomercial because it's a bad term well because it it cheapens the subject in in a bit but the way I would want to say it is that um the efficacy of itin in all of these phases is just truly remarkable and and it's it's you know uh Paul marrick he he uses he used this phrase that hopefully this is going to be taken seriously but you know he said it's like this is a gift this was a gift to humanity this drug and it it and it's showing it's self not only in the data that we've already reviewed but long covid right we still don't understand exactly what's causing long covid right but if you know anything about it right it's a whole constellation of symptoms generally marked by fatigue people just don't feel well right they feel run down sometimes dizzy sometimes with fevers headache you know sore joints and then the brain fog right so a lot of it is cognitive they just don't feel like they're themselves they're forgetful and when you interact with some of these patients as a physician it's really sad like I know 29 year olds who are disabled like literally healthy 29 year
olds who can't go back to work and and they can't participate in their relationships they can't do the fun stuff that they do anything they do it they they feel terrible okay what's interesting so we don't really know what drives it we're starting to get more and more insights um in fact uh we are working now at a collaboration it's a network of folks and two two in particular doing a lot of research on Long covid uh they're doing a lot of immunological studies um uh and a lot of uh investigations into different inflammatory markers and what are called cyto kindes um so we're starting to understand that is it is persistent inflammation we don't think it's persistent virus we think it's persistent viral proteins that are in some of the immune cells that are triggering the immune cells and so what's interesting is iaan is showing really strong efficacy and when my when my first case of a patient who I treated for long covid I mean they literally were almost crying in Joy because they had been sick for so long and we have I have a I have dozens of testimonials of of of people who were sick for months they took itin and they said like within 12 to 24 hours suddenly they started to feel better well let me ask you this that long Co are we thinking that the virus is still infecting people people no we don't think it's persistent virus if that's the case then how is icin curing these people that have this longterm yeah so itin it has we think a number of antiviral properties so it interrupts the replication and entry of the virus but also has a number of anti-inflammatory properties so it actually modulates and it decreases the inflammation in the body so if someone's Tri something's triggering ongoing inflammation ican can camp that down so we think it's it's acting as an anti-inflammatory but it also binds to the spike protein and we think that there are persistent proteins in some of these cells and so itin we believe is somehow binding to and kind of suppressing the triggering of inflammation by these proteins again don't I wouldn't say don't quote me on that but I will be the first to admit we need to learn a lot more about long covid what I but what's interesting
about long Co is if you talk to a patient yeah doc you keep doing the studies just help me to feel better right like the average patient they don't really care what it is or what we're treating they want to know that what we're doing is working and those are our theories as to why it works but it's really really satisfying now the trick with ican is I've I've and along Co is there's kind of two groups there are some patients which literally get better after like a couple of Doses and then they're good to go they like feel better and they're back to normal whereas quite a few others I'd say the majority kind of need and here's where you got a doctor and titrate you kind of got to go longer sometimes higher doses sometimes we pair it with stand so um for so it's 0.2 milligrams per kilogram so for like a 70 kilogram male will be about you know 12 15 milligrams um um but we sometimes use little bit higher doses if we don't get the effect and and or longer durations or more frequently so I have one guy I've been treating for many months and him we've messed around with a few things and now we're down to like once or twice a week is what we're using it and but he he feels he starts to feel unwell after he doesn't have a dose for a few days and so uh some of them you have to you treat long but the thing is is um I just want to if I can just talk about our organization because it is a nonprofit Joe and and our Protocols are all on our website and I think they're really helpful for patients and Physicians this is good sound medicine that I want to share um but our website is lccc.edu gotten quite sick after the vaccines and who that's persisted and there the reason Reas why iacon is so potent is much more clear to explain right the vaccines right tell your body to make Spike proteins and the whole big thing the discussions around vaccines which uh Brett really addressed with Steve and Robert on on his podcast but we're learning that the spike protein is actually not benign it's a pathogen it can make some people sick and some people quite sick and ican binds to the spike protein so if you're one of those people people who have a prolonged illness or suddenly not feeling well after a vaccine ivaan seems to neutralize the spike protein and make
patients uh a a lot better I that's been another really satisfying aspect people who've come to me really sick like feeling terrible after the vaccines sometimes uh one to two to three weeks and they take ivac and they're feeling better within a couple of days so there there are number of things to say here and I I think we should uh we should be cautious because some like the evidence that icton binds the spike protein it's it's hard to find evidence of that directly true um but in any case and the evidence so let me actually I want to thank you for caution because I do I do have to I do want to be more cauti a couple of things the evidence for bonding of the spike protein is more uh what's called in silico it's basically computational modeling where they're looking as to see whe what it would bind to and they we think that The Binding of Icon is to to um to co is is how it works it makes sense not only from the ENC silico studies but also the fact that it prevents entry because if it binds to I to covid that also would suggest why you're preventing people from getting ill because it can't enter but the other thing that I really want to emphasize as far as caution is that when we say that we're having efficacy and success and treating long covid I want to be clear we do not have clinical trials to support that protocol all we have is clinical experience so but it's becoming larger and wider again my network of Physicians that have been using itin for acute as well as long is growing and the numbers of patients they treating is also increasing but remember that pyramid I talked about before when when you talk about treatment of long Co you're at the lower levels of the pyramid right I don't have big trials or lots of uh even small clinical trials so I think one thing that is conspicuous is many things lead back to spike protein right so Co is a bizarre uh disease right it does a lot of damage to a lot of different systems as Pierre can can tell you the fact that the vaccines utilize Spike protein at the level of the drawing board makes sense but this was done at the drawing board before it was understood that the Spike protein itself was cytotoxic now one of the things that we got tremendous push back for on my
podcast with uh Robert Malone and Steve kersch was the claim made by Robert that Spike protein is cytotoxic cytotoxic means kills cells um this is actually unambiguous and the push back was actually very carefully phrased because what they're really saying is that the spike protein in the vaccines is not cytotoxin as far as we know there is no evidence of that right but as Robert points out this is nonsense because what we know what we learned too late to prevent the vaccine manufacturers from using Spike protein was that Spike protein is cytotoxic and the subunit that they have used is based on that Spike protein now they have locked it so this is a protein that changes form right it basically closes like a clamp and they have modified the sequence to lock it open in order that the part of the spike protein that is this is too deep in the weeds probably but that is not covered by sugars right is available for the immune system to discover it so they've locked it open and there is a possibility that that would prevent it from being toxic but they didn't design it to be non-toxic they locked it so that the immune system could see it and the problem is that this vaccine or these vaccines have already failed at several different levels the way the VAC is supposed to work it is supposed to be injected into you at the injection site it is supposed to have the mrnas or the DNA enter the cells trigger the production of Spike protein the spike protein is supposed to move to the surface of the cell and it is supposed to stay there it has a domain in that is supposed to stick it into the cell surface where the immune system is supposed to see it and learn it right now the fact is the components of the vaccine do not stay in the injection site and the spike proteins do not stay locked to the cell surface maybe some of them do but many of them seem to float around the body so we have this molecule which is based on a covid molecule or a SARS K2 molecule that is cytotoxic that circulates around the body the evidence is that it actually shreds the blood brain barrier so it opens up holes into the brain so you know when you're talking about long covid postvaccine syndrome and these people have brain fog and other cognitive disabilities it makes sense
that there's been an error here right you've got a spike protein capable of damaging this tissue necessary to protect the brain the spike protein seems to be circulating around the body in a way that the designers of the vaccine did not intend it to do and so it all sorts of sort of adds up that Co itself um long covid after the virus is gone but there are still viral proteins probably Spike protein and postvaccine syndrome where the spike protein has been produced in isolation of the virus all of them have a similar collection of symptoms and this would also explain why iorek and whatever its mechanism of action and there seem to be several seems to be effective in treating all of them but it's all telling us a kind of remarkable story and you know you have to ask like if you put the question to a business school class what would you expect the behavior of a corporation that manufactures a product to be at the point you've immunized them from liability right I think the answer would be obvious right you would expect to become a lot less sensitive to the harm that their product does and to pursue profit in spite of potential harm is that what's going on because it sure seems logical that that that the behavior would come from that calculation now let me ask you this about the spike protein this this effect um first of all how do we know that it's going uh it's not staying in the area of the injection going throughout all the the body and crossing the blood B brain barrier how's this been measured and why do some people get the vaccine and have no side effects whatsoever okay so I talked to Robert a little bit about this the evidence that the spike protein is cytotoxic I'm working from memory here but I believe it comes from human cell cultures and this is from the Suk institutes paper yeah uh from mice and from I've now forgotten the term uh there's a term for bits of brain that have have been grown separately on a chip for uh work in the laboratory um I'll see if I can find the term but in any case it's been demonstrated in these uh the the you mentioned the question Brett of how do we know that Spike protein circulate well we so a I believe we know that the manufacturers ran a test that was basically uh whether
intentional or not built to fail right apparently they used whole body they there's a uh a reporter protein that fluoresces that you can basically put in place of the mrnas for the spike protein and then you can see where it ends up in a in a mouse model you can basically see which parts of the animal are lit up but if you if you do that by sectioning the tissues so you're looking at the tissues it's a very sensitive assay if you do it by looking at the whole animal then the photons have to go through a lot of tissue to get out and so you don't see it and so it's not surprising that you would see it concentrated at the injection site um so in any case in the demonstration phase we had a test that wasn't capable of seeing uh smaller amounts that circulate circulate around the body what we now have is evidence for example from uh this recent autopsy case yeah um in which the spike proteins have been found throughout many tissues of a person who died uh following it was following Co right yeah and and right oh no it's falling vaccination there's one falling vaccine there's also an autopsy study about uh with Co um but what you said was correct on both I don't want to detract from it but um what we're seeing now is I think people are misunderstanding whether it's virus or protein and we think even in the nonvaccinated what they're seeing is actually just viral proteins not actual virus in a lot of those tissues well we we see a couple different things we see uh Spike proteins but we also see this lipid nanoparticle coat material so the lipid nanoparticles um are designed to protect the MRNA and get it into the cells that are supposed to transcribed they're supposed to make the spike protein and this coating is now floating around the body it has conspicuously shown up in some places where you really wouldn't want to see a signal like ovaries um and so we have that and then we have the question of the spike protein which is not the initial vaccination floating around it's the consequence of cells transcribing the subunit of Spike protein and then it Breaking Free from the cell surface and circulating around and frankly long covid could be uh the virus is gone but those proteins have circulated possibly as the result of some adaptive strategy that the virus utilizes in order to open
up tissues like the blood brain barrier who knows yeah but yeah and what is the is there a theory as to why some people get vaccinated and have zero side effects I so that's all I can say is I agree with the question because it does seem to be that it's very well tolerated by many people um the arguments is what is the proportion that don't and what is an acceptable proportion of those that don't and I try to leave vac I I try not to address vaccines I try to focus on IAC because you know I think the iacon is such an important part of all of this and I think it it would answer and solve a lot of the concerns around the vaccines and it we consider it as a bridge to vaccination as well as a safety net four right so it's just so incredible that you've got this dis this this treatment rather that seems to be well first of all is an anti-parasitic that also works as an antiviral that also works as an anti-inflammatory drug that also binds the spike protein I mean it does so many things it's like I smell [ __ ] but but not really yeah exactly it's like you would be super skeptical I'd like to say I wouldn't be here I wouldn't be here I wouldn't be anywhere talking about I mton if if if the data didn't support that no nor would my group which is one of the reasons why it's so infuriating that this is being censored which is one of the reasons why I wanted to have you guys in here early we should say we were scheduled to do this a few weeks from now but we realized like okay this is something that's it's it's heating up and there's a narrative and this narrative is going to get squashed washed if they wind up pulling your channel and uh like as far as we know they don't have any influence right now over Spotify whereas they there's some whatever it is and again we don't know what this is and I don't want to I don't want to pretend that I'm I have evidence of some nefarious intentions I don't have a problem with YouTube and I think part of what the Dilemma that YouTube faces is that they're managing it scale and I think it's insane and impossible and I think once you once you make a choice to say this is disinformation or that anything that doesn't go against the accepted narrative by The Who or the CDC is disinformation and we need to get rid of that it's bad information it's
it's deceptive or it's it's dangerous whatever the whatever the the label they put on it once you make that distinction you've put a you put motion you've put some some events into motion some actions and it's very difficult to get people to admit that they made a mistake agreed this is part of the problem because we've seen already it was incorrect In ter at least in terms of being completely disputed the the lab leak theater that's not been disproven and in fact people were getting censored and removed from social media platforms and banned for suggesting this in the past now you can just openly do it and you can openly discuss it so I think the the thing to point to is this anytime somebody decides they are going to upgrade conversation by forbidding certain things from being mentioned you know there are context in which that makes sense right if you're teaching evolution the you know the requirement that you stop every time somebody wants to say how do you know God didn't do it right you have to curate that discussion and eliminate that but that's not the position that YouTube is in YouTube is dealing with a platform that covers us all and yeah there's going to be a lot of garbage circulated on that platform to be sure that is the nature of human dialogue right if you do it on paper it'll be on paper if you do it on video it'll be on YouTube Just a human issue right but at the point that you say well wouldn't it be great if we got rid of the nonsense let's Purge the per the platform of nonsense okay now you've created a tool that tool is inevitably going to be captured by people who are going to use it to shut down their competitors in order to profit from it it is going to be captured so the answer is look you're not really going to beat an open discussion in which nothing is forbidden short of actually breaking the law right you're not going to upgrade the conversation and although you will shut down some cranks you're also going to shut down some people who are trying to help you see that the tool you need is right in front of you now I could be wrong about that right I freely admit this is new to me I am new to co I have some Specialties that are relevant being an evolutionist allows me to see certain things it's a very good generalist
toolkit but I'm not a doctor I'm not a virologist right I could be wrong about things here but the only way we're going to figure out whether I'm wrong whether you're wrong whether all of the people who see the same thing here or something similar are wrong is to have it out and if we are going to Shield that discussion from the public so that doctors do not know that other doctors are seeing a signal and that they might have a tool at their disposal that they're not using then people are going to die need ly and YouTube needs to understand that it is taking responsibility for that I got to speak up about that because um I think you said it earlier Joe when there's never been a time where censorship has led to a societal good yeah I think that was before the podcast but yeah yeah um and we talked briefly about that um never never never never I mean and if you look at any great thinker in history any of their comments on censorship it's considered to be like like a indisputable harm to a healthy Society Y and then when you talk about extending it to science and so in the beginning I tried to be a little bit magnanimous and and say okay you know you know hate speech calls for violence Insurrection if you want to surren you know censor that you know that's clear because if you don't people will get hurt right and so I agree that and I we don't we don't I don't want to debate you know what is appropriate to censor what isn't but but I just can't figure out why a healthy debate of Science and of Medicine by credible Physicians using data and you're basically saying to the average person in this country that you can't think for yourself right we need to protect you from people talking about medicines that you can't credibly assess whether they're true whether they're using the data correctly and so you're removing anyone's ability you're basically saying we need to think for you cuz you're going to hurt yourself from medicines from medical misinformation you want to put that on the same shelf as calls for violence and Insurrection like by the way even before this happened there's plenty of nonsense on the internet around medicines and health like right but this is a different thing right because of the fact that it's a pandemic everybody is
very urgent in their actions so they've they the the excuse is they have to act quickly to stop this stuff the spread of disinformation can happen very rapidly they've decided it's different I agree with you decided that you know what normally we wouldn't do that but in this state of emergency we're going to take on these powers and we're going to stens her and what Brett said was really important and I thank you for pointing that out but like that one little experience of learning from other doctors on the front lines back in last spring about steroids to further support and validate that that's really what you need to do that saved lives that saved a lot of lives and and even you know when I gave the Senate testimony in may even though I was attacked and criticized being being able to talk about the science and the support for steroids many doctors started using it actually that that wasn't censor actually weren't I don't think they were censoring as hard in the beginning as they are now at least around the steroids because that didn't get taken that also didn't get 9 million that I saw was almost valid it was uh they were censoring people from talking about 5G there was a lot of nons where people were saying but but it was clearly goofy right and they were pulling some of that stuff down now normally right you would say well that's wise the problem we're seeing is once you do start censoring once you clear that lane you have a tool now you have this thing and you you have a history of use right so then you start going well what else can we censor well this is not in compliance with whatever organization we're currently following so let's censor that whether it's Hunter Biden's laptop or lab leak but I finish what you said I just have to emphasize again because this I there's nothing more important than what you last said is that there are lives the suppression of icton that you know we could talk about the theoretical objections to the censorship in which are there are many especially history I think we threw out our history books as we went into the pandemic but just looking at Ivor mton the when you words the incalculable loss of life and prolongation and worsening of this not only in the US across the world incalculably doesn't even come
close because I got to tell you a lot of the world still follows the us we're still considered especially in medicine some of the top trained and and you know the tops of like science and research around medicine and so if the US had adopted Iverton that would have had an immense Global impact and so this particular instance this issue of Iron and their censorship I just got to say they got it wrong and and it it's almost hard for me to talk about what the implications of that was I mean they literally I yeah you don't want to say it they're horrifying you don't you don't want to you don't want to you don't even want to put that responsibility on some other humans or set of humans uh account right well you've seen it firsthand I see the people dying man I see him crashing on the ventilators you know and especially it's this thing about the early treatment which you picked up on Jo like if you treat them early they don't go to the hospital they don't need me in the ICU I'm really good at what I do but these patients are really hard to get better once they're in they're very hard to turn around when you start late even with iorm and I have seen it work but most of the time I'm seeing them inanc forms of disease but you see these patients they're trapped in the hospital on high flow oxygen support devices for weeks and there's all sorts of other Insanity with the the visiting policies they can't see their loved ones for weeks at a time they're in these rooms either on ventilators or not they can't see there's no visitors and they're all alone they die alone a lot is there are there other things that are used in conjunction with icin that are common like IV vitamins or anything along those lines so our protocols so uh myself and uh Paul marrick myself and a number of other in our group we're also expert around the research on um high do intravenous vitamin C of which there's very good data for um severe lung injury as well as uh emerging data in Co so we use uh high dose IV vitamin C so our protocol So when you say high do how many milligrams you talking about so we're doing um actually for it's about three G IV every 6 hours so that'll be about 12 grams a day but that's IV that is many many many many fold higher concentrations than
oral oral vitamin C is not a very effective acute treatment mostly because it's Li mited by absorption kinetics you can't get a lot of IV vitamin C into the bloodstream IV is a completely oral vitamin did I say that wrong I meant oral yeah so oral is limited you can't get very high concentrations but IV you you can achieve High super physiologic concentrations and we know that has really beneficial effects we have studies that show it we have our own uh practice so if you look at our protocols the sicker you are when you get to the hospital we have and this disease is really complex it has a number of different inflammatory and what we call pathophysiologic Pathways and so we use a whole host of medicines it's our protocol is called math plus it's a methyl prisone ascorbic acid which is Vitamin C thamin which is another vitamin Hep which is an anti-coagulant and then we have a number of other medicines so itin we use an anti depressant called fluvoxamine which actually has very profound anti-inflammatory properties which is kind of a cool story too that drug so Steve kers has been uh you know who was on your program he's been a big champion of early treatment and one of the drugs that he's helped fund research and try to bring to prominence again safe lowcost off-patent medicine he's struggled to get that into the wider uh I would point out that this video was also removed by YouTube in spite of the fact that we sat with him and talked about fluvoxamine among other things with Robert Malone the literal inventor of mRNA vaccine techology so YouTube somehow feels qualified to shut these people down again this yeah when you Joe when you talk about all the all the other stuff so we use a whole bunch of stuff and the only thing I bring up flu voxman because you'll kind of like it because it's just kind of like it's so cool how science plays out is that what happened around fluvoxamine is that there was a um a psychiatric hospital in France and the area was getting hit hard with Co and they noticed that the people getting sick and going to the hospital were the nurses and the doctors and the patients were going at very low rates were getting sick and now patients with chronic mental illness especially
institutionalized generally not known for their physical health or good nutritional habits I mean they often times they have an epidemic of smoking tobacco addiction uh obesity I mean there's a lot of things that can travel with mental illness yet they were doing better than the nurses and doctors and so people said what's going on they started to look into that and they started to look at all the variables that might differ and they noticed that depressed people was highly protective that if you had a diagnosis of depression your chances of going to the hospital and dying was much much less and really what that was it was a proxy for the anti-depressant that they were on and so that's sort of what kind of engendered the investigations and now we have a number of Trials showing that that anti-depressant mostly for its anti-inflammatory properties you know a lot of drugs have what we call pleotropic effects they work on you know few different mechanisms and so anyway long long answer to say that we use combination therapy protocol it's critical that you use a combination of therapies and the sicker you are the more that we're going to use and so um I invite your listeners to look at our protocols so I wanted to just fill in one more piece of the puzzle which is and this is me uh guessing but there is a distinction between public health and the science of human health public Public Health unfortunately has to deal with the game theory of people right so if you had let's say a vaccine that was highly affective at addressing a dangerous uh pathogen like measles or polio or something like that but there was some risk involved in taking the vaccine people who decided not to take the vaccine would get the benefit of everybody else's having taken it without suffering the risk themselves so that makes sense logically speaking in order to get people to take the vaccine enough to gain the immunity the her immunity that would prevent the virus from or the pathogen from continuing Public Health officials will oversimplify and at some points they may even lie in order to get people to behave in a certain way now I don't support this but I do recognize that it's an actual problem how do you get
the collective to do what it needs to do if the individuals are calculating their benefit and they may benefit from staying out of a protocol that they um you know they should participate in from the point of view of the whole society but because what we have now is YouTube and the other platforms and uh the AP and Reuters and all of these groups listening to the public health authorities as if they were scientific authorities what they are ending up doing is taking this license to lie to the public and they are using it to shut down the scientific discussion of what we ought to do and I swear it looks like capture is what has gotten a hold of this process so if there's some part of governmental uh structure that is allowed to lie and then it is captured by something that is looking to make a profit and it starts shutting down those who are discussing the problem and the immense human suffering that arises out of it that's a that's a I don't know what's the polite word for cluster [ __ ] I mean it it's the only word yeah it's the only word there is no synony for that right have you had debate with anybody who opposes these ideas so um that's an interesting question so I did have uh a a video debate around the science of ion a week ago that'll be up on trial site news I think any day now who opposed it so it was uh someone who wrote an editorial in a very very prominent Journal basically saying that the evidence for I maon is weak and shouldn't be trusted and basically just criticized all the trials and so when you ask have I debated anyone openly what's interesting is I'm ready anytime put them anywhere I'll debate the science of ior macton no one's coming forward no one's inviting me to debate no one's out there and the reason why is they have an impossible task they don't want to debate because they can't win debate because what they have to do is here I have 60 controlled trials 30 of them randomized all showing benefit their only argument is that the evidence is low quality their Force to say why we shouldn't trust the evidence they have no evidence to show it doesn't work all of the evidence shows it works their only tool their only fight is to say don't trust the evidence and as the
evidence builds and as it's looked into more as you could see from that publication this weekend their argument that this is low quality or very low quality starts to break apart they don't really have an argument nobody wants to fight me the guy the guy who uh who I debated last week you you can watch it be the judge I I mean I he he just kept Ning on the same old talking points about these little trials and but at the same time when you look at the what I call the totality of the evidence what we talked about prevention uh epidemiologic early late randomized observational and he had no response to that not that part he just kept saying you know those are oh I'll tell you what his response is is when you look at observational trials and epidemiology you have to be careful because those are associations not causations and again not to get too cute but as a patient if you're in the bed sick before me and I say we have this drug that's highly associated with recovery and survival we can't prove it works but it's highly associated in that the people who get it they all seem to do much much better than those as a patient I don't think you really care um we want to know that it works and we have causation trials in fact we have now double blind randomized control trials showing that the time to viral clearance is greatly shortened with Ivor Macon just a week ago uh an Israeli group very prominent University showed a trial that Viral cultures cleared quicker and so when you were wondering earlier Brett about whether the cases or whether the viral transmission would be lower around people you treat with I meon the evidence right now in double mind randomized control trials very carefully done is really showing that it eradicates the virus the other thing and this is where I'm going to get to the Sinister because the who guideline document and again I think you you already know about the history the more recent history of The Who and I want to be clear the history the successes of the wh for their first four decades five decades were unbelievable what they did for Global Public Health was you know I mean historic right with small pox and polio um and even in the HIV epidemic but the last 20 years the who has really done very poorly in a number of global
emergencies and this one's no different but the reason why I want to bring something up is that I want the world to know that if you look at their guideline document from March 31st there's a section where they talk about something called a do dose response relationship and that's really important in science when you're looking at an effective therapeutic if you find evidence of a dose response which is to say higher the dose higher the response right dose response relationship that's like an unsalable pillar of efficacy the existing evidence at the time of that guideline we know because they researcher was out there in public lecturing on it he was showing that single day versus multi-day you had much faster eradication of the virus so viral clearance had a dose response in that document they say we looked at dose response amongst these five outcomes and we found none guess which outcome they didn't mention viral clearance that to me is a crime that is evidence of a crime they deliberately left out scientific evidence to show efficacy of a drug because they didn't want that recommended and and they need to prove to me why they didn't put it in there when their own researcher was giving public lectures showing a dose response in terms of viral clearance so as somebody who is waiting into a discussion that is not that is only partly in my area of expertise I pay very close attention to the arguments that come back because I want if there's if I'm saying something that's actually not robust I want to know about it right right away cuz it's dangerous for me to keep down that path so I I watch and I think the problem is the arguments that come back here amount to Scientific sophistry right these arguments aren't really real arguments you know the idea that well you've got to be careful with those trials because uh correlation does not imply causation well that's not actually true correlation does imply causation when there's a pre-existing hypothesis right that's what we use to establish causation is we say I believe X causes Y and here's how I'm going to find out I'm going to look at whether where X goes up y also goes up right so this argument is one that sounds
sophisticated but it's actually wrong likewise the insistence on large randomized controlled trials being like insisting on video documentation uh of a crime all of these arguments are effectively obstructionist right they're not real arguments and it does not say that real arguments don't occur right we can talk about whether or not the spike protein that is created by uh the mrnas and the vaccine is toxic the way wild uh Spike protein is but the presumption would have to be that it is and the circumstantial evidence suggests so so in any case there are arguments to be made occasionally you get one back but most of what you get back appears to be obstructionist and one of the Hallmarks of obstructionist arguments is that they don't update when you properly challenge them they just move on to the next argument right you don't get an acknowledgement that actually you were right about that right so I mean I'm seeing that across the board and again I'd love to know you know it'd be it'd be wonderful to know exactly what the truth of what's in front of us is but the evidence that we have is so strong already that really anybody who's not encouraged by it and interested in following that path to find out how good it is is doing something wrong he and the behav I like how you say the evidence is very strong and the behaviors around it are inexplicable because it's really those two things that you're observing you're seeing this really almost unsalable data and the behaviors are bizarre like where like like you're asking Joe where is where are they coming back saying no you're wrong Dr Corey because and they take the 60 trials and they show how every single one of those 60 trials somehow led to the wrong conclusion and that I am incorrect In My conclusions where where where are they doing that where are those papers being published you would should have to show your work if you're going to pull down a video in in that regard absolutely and you know you feel like in the appeal you should be able to just say uh here here's the paper what's wrong with it how how is what I said misinformation given well how well it matches this paper and of course their point is how you get to spam right yeah how'd you get to that yeah I think that was just a cat what was it spam spam
deceptive practices and scams yeah so you fell in under you weren't spamming anyone about I you trying to yeah so it's either de it has to be deceptive practices oh yeah but either way it's horeshit it's it's a nonsense critique yeah right um I think it's really important for people to understand that this is this is a censorship issue as much as this is a medical issue there's a bunch of things going on here this is a public health issue there's a lot there's a lot going on with the subject but for there's no one no human other than humans making money no one's benefiting from this censorship this is not good it's not good for any of us it's bad for Humanity it's bad for Humanity but it's also there's not a and this is I I know you're right here but I I don't mean to do this and make you uncomfortable there's not a better platform for discussing ideas than yours what you do is Beyond in my opinion it's beyond reproach because you guys do correct mistakes you are entirely honest you are doing this in all in good faith you are talking about this you and your wife are both scientists you're both biologists you're talking about this from an educated perspective all the Ducks are in a row and yet you're in danger of losing your channel and this is the argument that everyone who is anti-censorship has said from the beginning of time you can't allow it to start because it's like a fire that keeps looking for fuel it keeps it burns down the house it's like okay how about the yard [ __ ] this yard we need to burn this yard down this yard is non-compliance and it's just going to keep going and what we're seeing it's not wackos that are saying the the cell towers are killing people with radiation and 5G is the devil and they're putting chips in you and it's magnetizing all the sites where you're getting vaccinated no it's [ __ ] real scientists now now it's real scientists getting censored and there's no evidence whatsoever that they're incorrect that's dangerous for all of us especially for people like me that aren't scientists that rely on people like you to go over this data with a keen sober eye and analyze it and disseminate it in a way that going to give people at least the
ability to make an educated decision that ability is being it seems like purposely removed from from from us I really really appreciate that and I will say this is a complex topic we have been showing our work from the start we've made errors we've gone back and corrected them but what is motivating us is that there is a lot of there is a lot of risk to human beings out there just even the loss of one person so devastates a family that just thinking about all the people who are going to be harmed by the fact that we're not following the evidence and figuring where it leads it's just there really isn't a choice but to talk about it and to have some monolithic platform decide that somehow it knows and then when it turns out you ask them how do you know and its answer is well the who told me and the answer is well that isn't any sort of evidence at all that's pure Authority it's anti-scientific you're on exactly the opposite side of of history that you claim to be on so thank you Joe yeah and I appreciate that the way you summarize that Joe and and you know I want to sort of say something positive which is this censorship we all agree it's it's really harmful and it's actually hurting people and it's hurting people on a global scale but you know I have faith I've seen now we starting to see that that there are groups there is an organized opposition who are now understanding that some of these agencies are captured and that if they keep listening to them they're going to keep getting what's happening which is uncontrollable spread uh crisis situations and so when you look around the world if you look at India finally they broke free from The Who numerous states in India adopted Ivor meon in their treatment guidelines utar Pradesh already did it months ago that's a state of 240 million people it would be like the 10th largest country in the world if it was a country that's just one state in India they've been using it aggressively and they have some of the best numbers uh not only in India and in the world number of other states also Broke Free and then now our organization um we're being approached by a number of I'm just going to say very well-resourced philanthropists from a number of countries around the world
who are now trying to organize distribution campaigns just as you would with for the parasites now they're trying to organize them based on the evidence uh in a number of countries of the world and so and the other thing is we've seen these incredible successes so Zimbabwe is a huge success story in fact one of our colleagues down there this lovely doctor um she's just awesome really great doctor name's Jackie Stone she at one point uh said a couple of months ago she's like we're bored around here we're looking for the next pandemic obvious she's making a joke but literally there was no more cases and their hospitals were empty um South Africa where Dr marrick and myself gave a lot of lectures early on in January there was a whole movement that started and fought the government they moved mov D iveron from illegal it was illegal to import or possess Ivon they moved it to now you can actually prescribe it compounded and it's available in society and so you know there there are like really there are successes against what we clearly know is just Incorrect and and harmful advice from from unfortunately those leaders that we look to for good guidance we just haven't gotten it I think that's a good way to wrap this up I'm going to bring this home um thank you gentlemen for coming in here and doing this and thank you for your tireless work on exposing this and and letting people know and brave because it's this is there's there's a lot at stake particularly your channel and your main source of income for your family and uh your reputation and the fact that you're willing to go against the what is this the current Orthodoxy it's uh and I'm happy you guys exist and it's just it's stunning that we find oursel in this position where there really is is a a clear thing that's being ignored whether or not it's right or wrong we I mean let it have its day in court yeah and they're not yeah thank you Joe thank you my pleasure all right sort that out for yourselves ladies and gentlemen goodbye [Music] [Applause] [Music]