Dr. Richard Amerling: ‘The Medical Profession Has Been Destroyed’

October 27, 2022
The Epoch Times
‘The Medical Profession Has Been Destroyed’: Dr. Richard Amerling on Following the ‘Guidelines,’ Research Malpractice, and the Medical School Paradigm
American Thought Leaders

“We’ve given up authority to central bodies of so-called experts, all of whom have agendas. The entire process is bought and paid for. If we don’t take back our authority as physicians, it’s all over,” says Dr. Richard Amerling, a nephrologist for over 30 years and a current board member and past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

“There’s massive over-prescribing,” Amerling says. “The model that we have adopted now is to not reverse the disease, but to rather treat those diseases with pharmaceutical products.”

Amerling volunteered at NYU/Bellevue during the first wave of the pandemic and is now a founding member and chief academic officer of The Wellness Company, which aims to correct what Amerling considers a failing medical system by focusing on natural approaches to cure illnesses instead of the “medical school paradigm,” which he says is intimately intertwined with big pharma’s profit-driven push for vaccines and over-prescribing medications.

“The current system is so corrupt … we have to start from scratch and build something alongside as an alternative,” says Amerling.


Jan Jekielek.

Dr. Richard Amerling, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Dr. Richard Amerling:

Pleasure to be with you, Jan. Thank you so much for the invitation.

Mr. Jekielek:

Dr. Amerling, before we start, I want to get your reaction to this news or at least popularized news recently that Pfizer admits that it did not test for transmissions with their genetic vaccine.

Speaker 3:

The Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market. If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee? I really want straight answer, yes or no, and I’m looking forward to it. Thank you very much.

Speaker 4:

Regarding the question around did we know about stopping humanization before it’s entered the market? No. We had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market, and from that point of view, we had to do everything at risk.

Mr. Jekielek:

What’s your reaction?

Dr. Amerling:

We’ve known this from the beginning. From the first day that study was published, we knew that it was very limited from the conclusions they drew. The efficacy numbers that they came up with were also kind of fake, because they were relative risk reduction type numbers as opposed to absolute risk reduction, which was on the order of 0.7 per cent, not 95 per cent. We knew from the beginning that the study was problematic and that’s why I was suspicious.

Plus, I knew the Pfizer method of operation, because they have been doing this for years with other products such as Lipitor. They never tested to stop transmission, they never claimed they did. The pivotal trial, which is what this was, the registrational trial, if you will, is the best single look that that drug or product will ever have, because the company controls every aspect of the trial and the writing of the report.

If it doesn’t pass muster on that first trial, you know it’s a bust, and that was clear from the beginning. Subsequent analyses of the study done by Bart Classen, first of all, and then Peter Doshi for the British Medical Journal, show that the number of serious adverse reactions were higher than those that were prevented by any effect of the vaccine in terms of decreasing hospitalization or serious illness. We knew from the beginning that this was a disaster.

They had never improved all-cause mortality. There were more deaths in the placebo group. They didn’t start counting vaccinated until either 10 days or two weeks after the second shot. We’ve talked about this, which eliminated a bunch of adverse reactions that occurred after the first shot, and we know that that happens. We know that there are adverse reactions after the first shot.

The fact that they have not released the source data—they have been forced to drip it out piecemeal, if you will, by the courts, they wanted to hold onto it forever, 75 years is an eternity—indicates that there were serious problems with the study. They did not meet any serious endpoints, and I can just imagine the mad conferences that were being conducted in that company when those results came out and then the government did the work for them. The government was the one that said that this is going to block transmission. Pfizer never said that.

Mr. Jekielek:

At some point, I believe it was the CEO or President of Pfizer talking about transmission blocking being extremely effective.

Speaker 5:

A vaccine that has been proven safe and efficacious, and also, I want to tell them that their decision, they need to understand, will not affect only their lives, which at the end of the day, it is their judgment, but will affect the lives of others because if they don’t vaccinate, they will become the weak link that will allow this virus to replicate.

Mr. Jekielek:

It’s almost like the propaganda, for lack of a better term. Everyone just bought into it after a while, including the people that knew it wasn’t true.

Dr. Amerling:

Yes, everybody played along with it who shouldn’t have. The media, of course, ran with it as they were told to, and that’s what we were dealing with. But it was clear from the beginning and I was tweeting about it, others were tweeting about it. But of course, all that stuff gets censored and it doesn’t reach a wide audience.

Mr. Jekielek:

Two quick things. First of all, if you could just quickly clarify for me the difference between the professed 95 per cent efficacy, relative efficacy, and then 0.7 per cent absolute benefit.

Dr. Amerling:

Yes. It’s a mathematical operation. If you look at the raw numbers of those who got infected versus those who didn’t or those who got serious infections, the endpoint was also very soft. The endpoint was serious infection. Well, how do you really define that? It’s not a hard endpoint such as mortality, which is very easy to define.

The numbers who got their endpoint when you compare the two groups were really quite small, because very few people got sick. It was basically a healthy population that they studied, very few people got sick. So, the attack rate, if you will, of the virus was maybe 1 per cent, so you can’t really have an effect more than that in terms of the absolute risk reduction.

But to give a more concrete example, look at Lipitor, which is Atorvastatin, that lowers cholesterol. Everybody thinks that this is a miracle drug. It lowers cholesterol and it prevents a cardiovascular death or heart attacks by 35 per cent or 36 per cent. If you look at the actual data, it’s actually just 1 per cent.

You have a group that has, let’s say 97 per cent did well or a 3 per cent rate of heart attacks, the other group had a 2 per cent rate of heart attacks, that’s a 1 per cent absolute risk reduction, but it looks like 33 per cent if you divide the one by three. That’s how they manipulate data, and they do this all over the place in terms of pharma-sponsored studies.

Mr. Jekielek:

Basically, and maybe this is something for our viewers, we should always be looking for absolute risk reduction not relative risk reduction, because the relative risk reduction could always look very large.

Dr. Amerling:

That’s right.

Mr. Jekielek:

Even though we’re in absolute terms, it’s basically infinitesimal.

Dr. Amerling:


Mr. Jekielek:

Why don’t you give me your background and explain your credentials, and then we’ll talk about how you came to be involved in this whole thing.

Dr. Amerling:

Sure. I always had a strong science interest and I went to Stuyvesant High School in New York, which was and still is a very high-level, science-oriented high school. It’s one of the few that still has a pure merit system to get in, by the way. You pass the exam or you don’t, nothing else matters. It’s amazing that it has survived in New York under de Blasio, who hated it.

I went to Stuyvesant, then Stony Brook as a physics major for a year, then city college for pre-med. I ended up going to medical school in Belgium, where the science training was first-rate. I had incredible scientist professors teach the basic sciences, including a Nobel Prize Laureate, Christian de Duve, who is a professor of biochemistry.

Then, I went back to the States for my clinical training and did internship residency in New York, at New York Hospital, Queens, with a fellowship in kidney disease, then nephrology at University of Pennsylvania. Again, it’s a very strong science and clinical training. I was a very solid scientist and that was always my orientation. I was always very skeptical of non-science stuff going way back, and I saw non-science stuff infiltrate medicine over the years and ultimately destroy it.

Mr. Jekielek:

Okay. That huge, I have to say that’s a big thing. You’re saying medicine has been destroyed. I did read the chapter in your book, “The Next Wave is Brave”, from your new book that’s out. I’m seeing a lot of people are reading it, and I learned a number of shocking things.

Something that I always thought was very helpful to the medical sciences, evidence-based medicine, this whole approach is actually what you’re saying is the problem. It’s really what created this opportunity for the destruction of medicine as we know it. But you said it with such finality, medicine has been destroyed. What do you mean?

Dr. Amerling:

There were several elements. One of the first and biggest was the loss of professional autonomy. Doctors lost control of their practices. They turned them over to corporations and large insurance companies. They stopped being able to bill directly for their services. They gave that up.

Many of them, not all, but most of them, gave that up. Therefore, they became employees more than actual bosses of their own practice, and then they had to answer to their corporate bosses. They couldn’t really practice unfettered medicine the way they were trained to. That was a huge thing, this loss of professional autonomy.

Then they lost their scientific roots, which is the evidence-based medicine story, and we’ll get into that as well. But also, and even more importantly, they lost their ethical mooring. Medical ethics should be forever, but instead it became something changeable, fungible, with every new law and passing fancy. We are seeing the complete destruction of medical ethics, without which you don’t have a profession.

You may have a trade, but you don’t have a profession. That’s why I say the medical profession has been destroyed, but for a relative handful of ethical, science-based doctors out there. That’s what we are trying to recreate, if you will, with our new venture, The Wellness Company.

Mr. Jekielek:

One thing that I certainly observed during the pandemic is that this “guidance” which came out from the CDC or the FDA around use of drugs or around proper approaches to COVID in the community effectively acted as an edict, not guidance, right?

Dr. Amerling:

Right. That is evidence-based medicine. What happened was evidence-based medicine got introduced, and that became a fad, and then it took over. What is evidence-based medicine? It was a construct by a couple of Canadian doctors who said we have to introduce a hierarchical system to evaluate the best evidence, and then incorporate that best evidence into medical practice.

The problem is two things. One, who decides what’s the best evidence? And evidence isn’t science. Evidence is just something that we use in a scientific process that involves thought, deductive reasoning, and conscious, rational thought. Pure evidence can be found to support any hypothesis.

One of the examples I love is that, according to the so-called evidence, Paul McCartney’s been dead since 1966. I don’t know if you remember that whole scare, but it was a conspiracy theory that Paul died, and he was substituted out. 1966 was the date and there were all these clues in their songs. You played certain things backwards on the records and you got clues.

But that’s the point. You can make up evidence or find evidence for any hypothesis, and that’s not science. Science is where you think about things and then you test things. You cannot prove a scientific theory. You cannot prove a medication works. All you can do is prove that it doesn’t work.

Mr. Jekielek:

Okay. The advent of this evidence-based medicine approach, though, wouldn’t it have the effect of standardizing certain approaches. Then, maybe there’s doctors out there who aren’t very good, who didn’t learn very well, and it would force them to up their game. That’s how I imagined this would work, right?

Dr. Amerling:

The way it worked in reality is that the evidence-base upon which these rules, guidelines and the guidance were based was dominated by industry. The pharmaceutical industry creates the study to push their drug. They write the report to market their drug. This has all been very well-documented, by the way. I’m really not making any of this stuff up.

You want to watch Leemon McHenry, who’s an insider and talks about this. I’ve seen it myself as an insider in my younger years as a doctor. The database upon which these guidelines are based is corrupted, so you can’t possibly use that as a way to practice medicine. However, doctors bought into it. It was very easy. “Let’s just follow the guidelines. I can really turn my brain off at that point and just do what they say I should do.”

These experts, we give them all this authority. Virtually, all of them, certainly the majority, are paid by industry, either as consultants, speakers, or researchers. They’re getting money from the industry that they are writing guidelines about. It’s inherently corrupt. All of these guidelines should be thrown out. We should just ignore them all.

One of the things that I like to say is that if you want to be healthy, do the opposite of what the official recommendations are in terms of diet, sun, and exercise. Do the opposite and you will be healthy. Eat salt, eat fat. You’re going to be much healthier than if you follow the dietary guidelines.

Mr. Jekielek:

In your book chapter, you call it the crime of the 20th century—these eating guidelines that all of us grew up with and assumed were appropriate.

Dr. Amerling:

Right. I grew up in the 50s and 60s before these guidelines were put out, which was by the end of the 70s. Everybody was slim back in those days. The obese people stood out. Now, if you’re slim, you stand out. What changed? Well, our genetic makeup didn’t change.

The dietary guidelines came out and they pushed everybody to give up animal fat and go with these polyunsaturated, industrially-produced vegetable oils like canola oil and soybean oil. Because they took a lot of the healthy fat out of food, it didn’t taste good anymore, so they amplified everything with sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. They created a very toxic food environment that is very hard to avoid.

If you go to a supermarket, 95 per cent of what you see there is toxic. It’s sugar-filled and canola oil-filled. You can’t even find a pretzel that doesn’t have canola oil anymore, except maybe one or two. You have to work very hard to eat a healthy diet in America today. The vast majority don’t, they gain weight, and eventually they get the metabolic syndrome, type two diabetes, and hypertension. It’s all diet-related for the most part. It’s also reversible, except the model that we have adopted now is to not reverse the disease, but to rather treat those diseases with pharmaceutical products. It’s a fabulous business plan.

Mr. Jekielek:

Fascinating. I’m getting a little more insight into why the keto diet that I like to use works well, because it prevents you from eating a lot of these things that you describe as toxic, which feels like a strong word, actually. Isn’t unhealthy a more appropriate word?

Dr. Amerling:

Toxic is real, but it is accurate, because these products produce disease. It’s not like they are just not that good for you, they’re actually bad for you. The polyunsaturated fats like high linoleic acid canola oil and soybean oil are pro-inflammatory. They lead to the metabolic syndrome and atherosclerosis. Sugar is half glucose, which is relatively less toxic. But the other half is fructose, which is highly toxic. Fructose is metabolized in the liver exclusively into mostly triglycerides, fat, which end up depositing in the liver. It causes fatty liver, and causes the metabolic syndrome, which is an insulin resistant, high-insulin level state.

Then, doctors say, “Ah, their sugar is high, we have to give them more insulin.” No, their insulin is already very high. No, just take them off all the sugar—stop the sugars, stop the carbs and the insulin. Then, it goes back down and you reverse the disease. If this were done, the national health would improve, and that is exactly what we’re trying to do in The Wellness Company. We’re trying to get people off medications and into healthy eating patterns.

Mr. Jekielek:

As you’re speaking, it might be easy for us to forget how many years you spent leading teams in major New York hospitals treating kidney disease. Then, you were a professor, and also a clinician. Then, you ended up in Grenada. As you exited, you saw overly corporate practices in these New York hospitals. Typically, the sorts of things you’re talking about people associate with “alternative medicine”, but that’s really not your background.

Dr. Amerling:

Not at all. As I said, I’m very science-oriented, scientifically trained, plus a very experienced clinician. I have 40 years of clinical experience and lot of training, really 10 years post-medical school. I did internship, residency, and fellowship. I started out a gung-ho prescriber of all these drugs that I now feel are harmful. We had a great time practicing medicine back in the 90s in New York at Beth Israel Medical Center.

It was a wonderful community hospital. We served a huge area We saw everything and every kind of patient. We had a great collegial relationship with the private physicians. I was one of the full-time physicians. I developed several programs that were innovative for dialysis in the hospital setting. I did clinical research, and I presented at conferences around the world.

At one of these, I used to regularly run into Peter McCullough. He and I are old friends, because his beat was the heart-kidney interaction, and my beat was the kidney-heart interaction. We used to run into each other at these meetings and we were friends. We were friends for a very long time, and it’s so interesting that we get to work together now. Pierre Kory, is an old friend. He was the head of the ICU at Beth Israel when I was there as a full-time nephrologist, so we worked together for years as well.

I have a lot of strong scientific background. I started out prescribing hypoglycemic drugs for diabetes, for example. I just started to see these people are really not doing well. Their kidney disease is getting worse and worse. Eventually, they’re going to be on dialysis. What am I missing here? Then, I realized that the guidance for type two diabetes was really cut and pasted from type one diabetes, which is a completely different disease. Strictly controlling the sugar in type two diabetes was not the correct approach, and in fact it was reversible by applying a low-carb, high-fat diet.

I remember reading for the first time the Atkins Diet Revolution book back in the early 2000s and I said, “This makes a lot of sense.” I started to give this to patients with type two diabetes, and they were able to shed their medications and improve, so that really opened my eyes.

Mr. Jekielek:

Fascinating. In terms of medication, how do you describe our medical system today in terms of use of medication?

Dr. Amerling:

There is massive over-prescribing, massive over-prescribing, especially in the elderly where it is egregious, because they’re more sensitive to the toxic effects of medications. Their horizon for any benefit that’s going to supposedly accrue over many years is very limited. They’re getting almost no benefit, if not zero benefit, and they’re only getting side effects. That’s one population that should almost never get prescription drugs.

The other is what I said, that we are mostly treating diseases of diet and lifestyle. If you address the underlying causes, you can get rid of the medicines. That is one of our strategies. It’s been my strategy for many years. In order to reverse diabetes—you must reverse the metabolic syndrome, stop the insulin, and stop the medications.

In regards to blood pressure, most high blood pressure is due to the metabolic syndrome. If you reverse the metabolic syndrome, you can taper and get rid of many of the high blood pressure pills that are being given. This applies to other areas like bone disease.

Bone disease is common. What does it do to you? Mostly, we’re not getting sun, and we have very low vitamin D. We don’t get vitamin K2, which is an absolutely essential vitamin that you can find in certain foods, and you’re getting frail bones.

The drugs that are being given actually weaken your bones. The bisphosphonate class of drugs weaken the bones and they cause these horrific fractures of the femur that are devastating. So, these drugs should not be given. They’re toxic.

Mr. Jekielek:

I have to say this on camera, my background is in evolutionary biology, with a lot of experience in science, learning science, applying it, and also molecular biology. All the things that you’re talking about are things that my mother used to tell me. I just said, “Ah, whatever.” In the last few years of my life, I have learned that mom was right. There’s a whole suite of people, including everybody that is part of The Wellness Company now, that either have come to these realizations or have been on the path to coming to these realizations.

Here’s my question. My parents came from communist Poland in the 1970s. One of the things that was common or was recommended, for example, by Vaclav Havel back in the day was that there is an importance to creating parallel structures to the communist structures, in order to be ready for when the system changes, as everyone believed it would one day. It strikes me that The Wellness Company is an attempt to do that with the current existing system.

Dr. Amerling:

That’s correct. The current system is so corrupt at this point that it is impossible to fix, in my view. We have to start from scratch and build something alongside it as an alternative. Because if we try to fix what’s wrong, we’ll never finish. It’s just so bad. We have to get all the corrupt influences out, and you can’t do that, because they’re too entrenched.

Let’s just build our own system that will be free from industry influence. We’re not going to have pharma telling us what drugs to give and when. We’re not going to have guideline committees tell doctors how to practice. We’re going to reinstruct doctors to use real science to make clinical decisions.

For example, with type two diabetes, that’s a perfect example. We know what causes type two diabetes. It is this very unhealthy diet. You change the diet, and you reverse the type two diabetes. That’s real science-based medicine, not evidence-based medicine.

With the bone disease issue that I spoke about, we know that the drugs they use paralyze certain cells that reabsorb bone, which is an intimate part of bone remodeling. Bones remodel throughout life, which is how they maintain their strength. If you block bone remodeling, which these drugs all do, you weaken the bones. You don’t have to do any studies to know that this is true, because we know the biology.

We know that cholesterol is a vital substance in the body. Every cell in the body knows this, and has the machinery to synthesize it, except for certain brain cells. Why do we have this? We have this because we need it, because cholesterol is so vital. If you just know that, if you look at the biochemical pathway for cholesterol biosynthesis, and you see what is downstream is where we block the pathway, you’ll see we’re inhibiting the formation of a lot of vital substances.

All the steroid hormones, the sex hormones, cortisol, aldosterone, vitamin D, all come from cholesterol, so why would we block this? You don’t have to do any studies to know that this is a bad idea. It’s a fundamentally flawed idea. By the way, the studies show the drugs really don’t prevent you from dying. They don’t really extend life.

Mr. Jekielek:

Many doctors that have taken an approach that didn’t fit with the so-called guidelines have either been threatened, have had their licenses suspended, lost their licenses, or have been forced to leave hospitals. You decided not to get vaccinated based on your professional opinion, and that basically left you without a job, right?

Dr. Amerling:


Mr. Jekielek:

How are you going to overcome this with your new structure, when medical boards still control who gets to have a license or not?

Dr. Amerling:

This acceptance of the concept of evidence-based medicine where you have a panel of experts decide what is true must be contested, and that has to go to the Supreme Court to ultimately decide that no one really has a monopoly on the truth. That’s where it all comes from. If we reject this notion that there are these experts who can decide the truth, then you can do what you want to do. That is the essence of Hippocratic medicine. You practice for the benefit of your patient according to your best judgment and ability.

You do not follow guidelines. There’s not a word about guidelines in the Hippocratic Oath. It’s all about taking care of your patient, training others, passing on the knowledge, not harming, and not doing abortion. That is in the Hippocratic Oath, right? The Hippocratic Oath is this succinct statement of medical ethics, which we have lost, right?

We are routinely harming patients. Abortion, euthanasia, this is all unethical. Castrating adolescent boys and girls for this gender-affirming nonsense. This is all highly-unethical. It should stop immediately. I’m calling out the doctors doing this stuff. I think you’re unethical. I think you should resign. They should not be doing this stuff. It’s very bad, and very harmful.

We’ve lost that. We’ve given up our authority to central bodies of so-called experts, all of whom have agendas. The entire process is bought and paid for. If we don’t take back our authority as physicians, it’s all over. We have to have this affirmed at the highest court, because otherwise it will never end.

Doctors have to be free to practice what they consider to be good medicine. They cannot be told how to practice. They cannot be told in California what they can discuss or not discuss with patients. No, there has to be free and open communication. You have to be able to give informed consent.

That is another vital part of medical ethics. If you can’t tell a patient what the risks and benefits are of a given procedure, honestly, you can’t really practice real medicine. You become an agent of the state. I hope the Supreme Court has a moment of clarity and says, “No, you cannot assign a group to determine scientific truth,” or else we’re back to the pre-Galileo era.

Mr. Jekielek:

You describe performing abortion as being unethical, but surely, if the mother’s life is at risk, this would be a different question?

Dr. Amerling:

There are virtually no real indications where that is the case. Because you can almost always, especially now, deliver the baby. If the pregnancy is constituting a risk to the mother, it’s going to show up in one of the later trimesters, at which point you can deliver the baby, either by C-section or vaginal delivery. The gynecologists have literature on this.

It’s not just the life of the mother, it’s the health of the mother. The health of the mother can be very loosely defined as emotional health. It was a huge loophole through which they drove trust. But truly, it is an unethical practice to end a human life that is innocent, and this is being done on a massive scale. The medical profession should have stood up and said no.

This was my point, that the medical profession has a duty to society, which comes from their ethics to defend individual patients from harm. If the government comes out with something, or if there’s some law or some new fad that is harming patients, the medical profession needs to stand up and say no. And that is where we failed.

The whole COVID pandemic response was unethical. It was unmoored from science and it was unethical. We should have all stood up as a profession and said, “No, we cannot do this. We cannot shut down the economy. We cannot close schools. Keep the kids in school. Masks are horrible, they’re harmful. It’s not just that they don’t work, they’re harmful. They’re causing disease.”

We should have just stood up as a group and said, “No, we cannot go along with this. We’re out. You want to do this? It’s on you. We’re not going to endorse it.” They didn’t. Doctors did not, except for a handful, and we know them well.

Okay, they are heroes. McCullough, Zelenko, Didier Raoult, Brian Tyson, these are heroes who stood up and they bucked the trend, they bucked the tide. But most went along and that was a huge failing of the profession. Again, it’s the loss of ethics, and the loss of autonomy. They were dependent on a paycheck. They didn’t have their patient base to support them, and they caved. They caved.

Mr. Jekielek:

One thing that strikes me, and I’ve said this on a number of programs—if there ever was perfect evidence showing you why governance by an expert class, or decision-making or guidance by expert bodies doesn’t work, it is what has happened over the last two years.

Dr. Amerling:

Exactly. It’s always wrong, always wrong. That’s why I say go the other way. Just go the opposite direction and you’ll do better. You have much more wisdom, and the crowd has much more wisdom than any group of experts possibly could have. They’re all being paid off in one way or another. They’re either getting recognition, fame, status, or money. You cannot rely on any of these recommendations. This includes, by the way, the FDA and the CDC and the NIH, they’re all on the take.

The FDA, since 1992, has had a large part of their budget coming from industry, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. Industry pays for their drugs to be evaluated. That’s a slight conflict of interest. You can’t trust the FDA, who is supposed to be watching over these industries and making sure that they’re producing good quality products that are safe and effective. They’re not. It’s another good reason, by the way, to deprescribe, because you just cannot trust that the drugs are safe.

Mr. Jekielek:

You said, “following the crowd.” My antenna always comes up when I hear, “following the crowd.” I don’t like hearing, “following the crowd,” but I think you’re talking about scenarios where you saw things. You write in your book that in Grenada most people simply said, “There’s no way I’m getting vaccinated.” You said that 90 per cent of people you encountered had that position, yet your university chose to force these vaccinations.

Dr. Amerling:

Right. It was very, very disappointing, and I argued strenuously for them not to. I told them, “Look, you don’t really have an issue here. You have zero COVID on the island. There’s a good island quarantine policy when you come in, and you have to be tested. There was zero COVID for over a year. Every place that rolled out the shots in a big way saw surges of cases.

This was during the Delta era, by the way, and that is exactly what they brought in. They allowed the quarantine procedures to slip a little bit, because they were overconfident in these shots. Obviously, someone came in with Delta and started a big epidemic. And after only one death in over two years, they went to 200 dead. This is not a small thing. The policy had a horrific effect in Grenada.

Mr. Jekielek:

But from what I understand, having these kind of quarantine policies actually just delayed the time when the pandemic would hit, so to speak, because that’s what happened in Australia.

Dr. Amerling:

And New Zealand.

Mr. Jekielek:

That happened in New Zealand.

Dr. Amerling:

That’s right.

Mr. Jekielek:

There’s no running away from it, except that perhaps you escaped some of the more troublesome variants at the beginning, right?

Dr. Amerling:

Right. Then, you also are running the risk of the vaccine-adverse events, and the shot-adverse events taking a toll, which I’m certain they did, for no benefit. Because they don’t really prevent transmission, as everyone now admits. But it was obvious from the beginning that they didn’t work in that way. It’s obvious that they were never going to work.

Sucharit Bhakdi said this, along with Mike Yeadon and others. You’re giving a shot that’s producing antibodies in the blood. The virus comes in through the eyes and the nose and the mouth. Those antibodies are not going to get up there. You have a totally different system based on IgA antibodies. So, these blood antibodies, to the extent that they might be effective, don’t even get there. So, it can’t possibly block transmission, and this was obvious from the very beginning.

Mr. Jekielek:

I learned about this, that basically the place where the virus is stopped is with a different part of your immune system in your nose, essentially. Whereas the vaccine is being administered directly into the blood. By the time the virus does get into the blood that is serious, because usually it’s stopped up here. It’s just such a bizarre concept to me that this wouldn’t have been considered.

Dr. Amerling:

Not only that, but it was also known that the spike protein is the most problematic part of the virus. That’s the part that binds to the ACE2 receptor and creates the platelet activation, blood clotting, and irritates the blood vessels. This spike protein creates all the toxic effects of the shots.

Mr. Jekielek:

It essentially creates the COVID disease.

Dr. Amerling:

Yes, and yet all the manufacturers chose to make this protein. This is also flawed reasoning. The whole mRNA and DNA vaccine model was flawed from the beginning, because it was producing this toxic protein.

Mr. Jekielek:

I want to clarify something. When we were speaking earlier, you said that right at the very beginning, you could tell from the data that the efficacy wasn’t going to be good. But the data that we got from Pfizer really only came out after Aaron Kheriaty’s lawsuit, which basically forced the revelation of this data earlier this year. What was available at the beginning that provided that information to you?

Dr. Amerling:

The very low absolute risk reduction was there from the beginning. That was clear for everybody to see. The endpoint was so soft and very fungible that you could create an endpoint that was easy to manipulate. Then, the worst thing is they obliterated their placebo group after a couple of months, so you could never really have a comparison in a randomized group of patients over time to see what was truly adverse reaction, and what was not. That was research malpractice, really. The study, I believe, is fraudulent. That’s why they don’t want to show it.

It’s very reminiscent, and Peter Doshi has spoken about this too, by the way, the editor of the British Medical Journal, a very smart guy, back in the 2000s, with the Tamiflu scandal. Tamiflu Oseltamivir, an antiviral, was supposedly going to be the savior for influenza. The British government was spending 20 or 40 million pounds or billion pounds, I forget, buying stockpiles of this. Some wiser heads said, “Well, maybe not so fast.”

They asked the company to provide the source data for the drug and they refused. It took three years of litigation to drag it out of them, at which time they discovered that the drug really did not work as advertised. It had some toxicity that they downplayed, and that is par for the course. This is how these companies operate. That was my impression from the very beginning, that the drugs were not really effective, nor were they safe.

Mr. Jekielek:

In layman’s terms, what does obliterating the placebo group actually mean?

Dr. Amerling:

You unblind the study. You see who’s getting the shot, who’s getting placebo, and you offer the shot to the placebo group, most of whom took it.

Mr. Jekielek:

Why might you do that?

Dr. Amerling:

The reason that they gave us was that their results were so outstanding that it would have been unethical to deny this placebo group the benefits of this shot, this miracle shot. The reason they really did it was to disguise long-term side effects. That’s my view, because if you take out a placebo group, then you can’t say this group really did better over two or three years.

Mr. Jekielek:

In terms of side effects?

Dr. Amerling:


Mr. Jekielek:

Let’s talk about placebo.

Dr. Amerling:


Mr. Jekielek:

Because again, reading your book chapter, I found myself thinking a lot about placebo, and this is something my wife often says. We’ve talked about this for years. Placebo, it’s so fascinating. You don’t test against nothing, with no intervention. You test against placebo, because placebo is typically saline or something that doesn’t interact with the body or actually have an effect. That is astounding. This isn’t my wife’s words. This is astounding, this is amazing, and this is what we should be studying.

Dr. Amerling:

It’s so true.

Mr. Jekielek:

What’s your reaction?

Dr. Amerling:

It’s so true. Much of what doctors do for patients is based on placebo effect. We should have a spoiler alert on this, but it’s true, and just knowing that doesn’t diminish it. What happens between a doctor and a patient in a way is somewhat magical. It occurs, as I wrote in the essay, “Zen and the Art of Health Maintenance,” at the interface between doctor and patient, i.e., in the patient-physician relationship. That is where the magic occurs.

The magic is that the patient comes to a doctor with a complaint. The doctor shows that he is concerned and is going to care for the patient, and is going to apply his training, knowledge, and force of personality to heal that patient. The patient immediately feels better. Throughout my career, I have had patients tell me that they feel better just after talking with me for 15 or 20 minutes. I haven’t done anything.

Maybe I’ve examined them, okay. I’ve laid hands on, but I haven’t given them a pill. I haven’t made any real recommendation, and I haven’t done anything. Nothing physical actually occurred, but they feel better. Why is that? It’s because of this massive placebo effect that we have. No one talks about this in medical school, but this is the essence of the interaction between patient and physician, and this is where healing really occurs.

Something I will add is that, and I’ve had this discussion with Peter McCullough; it almost doesn’t matter what early COVID treatment you give. We’ve talked about hydroxychloroquine, and we’ve talked about Ivermectin. I believe these drugs have value, but other drugs also work. What really matters is that you, the doctor, are standing between the patient and the disease. That is what really makes the difference.

The actual treatment is not that important. It’s that you are caring for the patient and standing in the breach saying, “I’m going to fight this with you.” The patient’s anxiety level, which was sky high, immediately drops. You could measure this if you wanted to. They start to feel better and that is the beginning of healing. The actual recommendations and the actual drugs given matter less than that interaction.

Mr. Jekielek:

That’s absolutely fascinating. But of course, presumably you’re giving drugs that have some effect, right?

Dr. Amerling:


Mr. Jekielek:

There’s one I talk about often, fluvoxamine, which underwent this gold standard, double-blind RCT trial. But strangely, it still isn’t used very much, even though it’s been shown to be efficacious.

Dr. Amerling:

Same is true with colchicine, the anti-gout drug, also effective in these studies. But all these repurposed drugs were censored, and it was obvious why. Everybody knows this. It was so that they could get the emergency use authorization for the shots and for other drugs that were patented, such as Molnupiravir and Paxlovid, both of which are very toxic and barely work. It was so they could get the EUA for Remdesivir, which is highly toxic. It puts people into kidney failure, doesn’t work, and never worked. So yes, these repurposed drugs, Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are effective. They are.

Let me add something about these shots in terms of kids. We know kids have almost no morbidity and mortality from the disease. Again, to force these shots into kids is unethical. The science isn’t there, but it’s also unethical, because you’re subjecting them to risk of serious harm for zero benefit. That calculation must be done for everything that we do in medicine, risk versus benefit. If there’s no benefit, you cannot tolerate any risk. The administration of these shots to young, healthy people, and kids in particular, is an egregious breach of medical ethics, and should stop immediately.

Mr. Jekielek:

Because the absolute benefit is so infinitesimally small.

Dr. Amerling:


Mr. Jekielek:

I’m convinced, based on the papers I’ve read, the evidence I’ve seen, and the various doctors doing the actual treatment that I’ve spoken to, that these early treatment repurposed drugs work, and there’s a range of them. We’ve mentioned maybe four, and I think there’s about 20 of them now.

Dr. Amerling:


Mr. Jekielek:

The idea that we didn’t really try them at scale cost a lot of lives.

Dr. Amerling:

It’s a massive crime. It’s a massive crime. Millions of lives probably could have been saved with early treatment. The fact is that it wasn’t tried, and they discouraged it. They made it almost impossible to do. In the so-called guidance, they made hydroxychloroquine, which is one of the oldest and safest drugs out there, into a demon. The claim that it was going to cause all these heart arrhythmias and kill people was based on a couple of fraudulent studies. But that became the official narrative, and it scared doctors away from using a perfectly safe drug, which is effective.

Mr. Jekielek:

If I recall correctly, the dosing in one of these studies was at toxic levels, ones that no doctor would ever prescribe, which is bizarre.

Dr. Amerling:

Right. Now this has been written about, Peter Breggin covered this in his great book. In this Brazilian study, they gave patients a literally toxic dose of hydroxychloroquine. This was a group of patients who were at the end of their rope, who had an almost zero chance, in my view, of responding well to the drug in the first place.

They set up this study to fail, and to make the drug look bad. Again, this is the problem with so-called evidence-based medicine. You can create a trial to show what you want to show. It’s not objective at all. To give these randomized trials credence, you have to actually read the trial and see how they did it, but few doctors do this.

Mr. Jekielek:

You also mentioned education. The education system has become corporatized, so to speak. I was reading Dr. Joseph Ladapo’s new book recently. There was a fascinating thing in there. He talks about how vaccines are presented in medical school with a certain kind of reverence, in a very different way than all these other drugs. To the point where he described it as a kind of indoctrination, that they’re a panacea, that they’re not inherently harmful. How much of that type of education that doctors get may have played into them accepting vaccines as the solution, as opposed to trying other things?

Dr. Amerling:

Absolutely. I read the book too. I thought it was great, and I highlighted that section as well. Yes, the vaccine mythology is ingrained in medical education. I saw it firsthand when I was teaching clinical diagnosis down at St. George’s in Grenada. I saw that they virtually never omitted the standard question, “Are your vaccinations up-to-date?”

If they didn’t ask that question, they somehow felt that God would punish them, if they didn’t ask that question of every single patient. It literally contributed nothing to the medical history of the patient for the complaint that they were presenting, but that was ingrained into them. Yes, to criticize any of the vaccines now is verboten, and you are an anti-vaxxer.

But the truth is, every medical product should be looked at in the same way. What is the benefit, and what is the risk? If your risk from getting a disease is minuscule, you don’t need the shots, and they don’t really eradicate the disease. The disease is always going to be there. These viral diseases are always going to be there. It is a myth, and we should be more objective and science-oriented in terms of our acceptance of these shots and look at the toxicity. What is the risk? If you don’t know the risk, don’t give it.

Mr. Jekielek:

Given everything I’ve learned about these genetic vaccines and their side effects—there’s pages and pages about side effects of other vaccines from the past, more conventional ones, which are presumably for the purposes of the noble lie cover-up, maybe that’s the most charitable explanation—given everything that I’ve learned, it might actually make sense to get that vaccine history, don’t you think?

Dr. Amerling:

Yes. In terms of the side effects, absolutely. I’ll defer to RFK Jr on this, who has been pretty courageous about taking on that industry. They are not studied well. The long-term toxicity is not studied well. They have no indemnity liability. They are covered for any bad outcome, so where’s the incentive for them to do even routine quality control? I don’t trust them. I don’t.

Mr. Jekielek:

One of the side effects of everything that’s happened during the COVID pandemic, the policy approaches, doctors doing or not doing the thing they needed to do, has been a lot more vaccine skepticism.

Dr. Amerling:

Yes. I’m skeptical about everything. I now inherently distrust most of my colleagues, sorry to say. Some, I do trust. That’s one of the reasons why I knew, for example, that Ivermectin worked. Because my old colleague, Pierre Kory, who I noted be a straight up guy without an agenda, was saying that it worked, and he saw it work. I knew that it worked in a very real way. But most doctors who are in the pharma mode, and who are just following the guidelines, I think they do more harm than good, frankly.

Mr. Jekielek:

This is a terrible state of affairs. That’s obviously a very, very strong thing to say. I would guess some of your former colleagues or former colleagues would be very unhappy for you to give this grand indictment of most doctors. Is this really fair to say? People need doctors and there’s some other doctors out there.

Dr. Amerling:

I know. That’s why we’re doing the company. We also need to do a new medical school, or many new medical schools to teach ethical science-based medicine, the way it used to be. The current medical education is horrible. All the woke stuff is in there now, critical race theory, multiple genders, and gender affirmation surgery. It’s awful, it’s unethical, it’s unscientific. We need to have a new medical school, and that’s one of our long-term goals. I’m recruiting professors, so my colleagues out there who are interested in this, just contact me.

Mr. Jekielek:

I would guess there’s a lot of doctors out there who went along, and maybe are unhappy. They went along, but at least see some of the problems that you describe. What is your advice to them?

Dr. Amerling:

Get independent. You cannot practice ethical medicine as an employee of a corporation, be it a hospital company or even the insurance industry. If you’re taking insurance payment from a company on behalf of a patient, that’s an inherent conflict of interest and it’s going to compromise your ability to give correct and good care. Go independent and establish a cash-based practice. It’s not that hard. Thousands of people are doing it.

I just came back from the AAPS (Association of American Physicians and Surgeons) meeting where we had panels on this, how to start your own direct-pay practice. It’s not that hard and you’ll be happier and you’ll be able to practice good quality medicine. That’s the most important step. Be financially independent with your own patient base, and then go back to the basics. I call it medicine by first principles. It’s going back to the basic science to guide your clinical practice. I gave you a few examples with type two diabetes, and bone disease.

You can apply this across the board, and you will find the remedies that you come up with are very different from the pill-for-every-ill approach of big pharma. Then, you will start to actually heal patients. You’ll heal patients by taking them off toxic food and toxic drugs, giving them emotional support by your presence, and by your active participation in their campaign to get healthy and well again. That is the key to good medical practice. It is not being taught in the current medical school paradigm.

Mr. Jekielek:

What about if you’re a doctor that, let’s say early on you accepted the guidance, maybe you weren’t thinking as clearly as you wanted to be. You realize that now you believe you misled your patients or you’re beginning to believe that you did, as more and more of this evidence comes out. What would do you say to folks like that?

Dr. Amerling:

It’s never too late to change. You have to start by rejecting that whole approach. It ultimately leads to one-size-fits-all medicine, which cannot possibly be good, because we’re all different. You saw that with the mass inoculation program. No one was concerned about any clinical issues that might have qualified someone to not get the shot.

They were pushing it on pregnant women, women who wanted to be pregnant, and lactating mothers. We now know this is a big issue with kids who had zero risk for serious disease. There were no clinical considerations taken into account. It was one-size-fits-all or as Peter McCullough says, a needle in every arm. That’s not good medicine. How could it possibly be?

Mr. Jekielek:

What would you say to your patients if you found yourself in this situation?

Dr. Amerling:

We want patients to come to us and see what we are offering in terms of how to get them off drugs, and how to restore their health. The majority of the population, which I witness when I travel, is metabolically unhealthy. You look at the big waistlines and you realize that these folks likely have metabolic syndrome, which means that they’re in line for type two diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease, just to name a few.

Come to us. We’ll tell you how to reverse that and get healthy again. If you’re stuck with a primary care doctor, and many are, we don’t want to steal patients away from doctors who are honestly trying to do a good job, but ask them if they’re getting prescribed a drug, let’s say.

Ask them, “What disease is this for? Number one. What is my risk of serious outcome from this disease? Am I going to die from it? Am I going to be in the hospital? Am I going to lose my leg?” Then, “What is the effect of this drug? How much does this drug reduce that risk and not in relative terms, but in absolute terms? What are the side effects and what are my chances of getting a serious side effect?”

You ask those four questions of your primary physician. Number one, they probably won’t be able to answer. Number two, if they can answer honestly, it will discourage you in most cases from taking the medicine. Most of these drugs don’t work as advertised. They have very bad long-term effects. The long-term effects are ignored. They’re not even studied. Live well, eat well.

Don’t avoid salt, you need salt. Salt is the stuff of life. We’re being told to limit salt. We need salt. Without salt, your blood pressure drops and you collapse and you die. You have to eat salt and a lot of it. Maybe the board’s going to take me up, and I’ll lose my board certification for going against the grain, but you have to take it with a grain of salt. I will happily defend this against anybody. If any of my colleagues, present or former, would like to take me on in debate, name the time and place I will be there. But you better be ready.

Mr. Jekielek:

Now, on the other side of the equation as we finish up, what about those doctors who think they may have misled their patients, because they weren’t in clear mind? There was this huge societal push, and maybe they didn’t want to be outside of the crowd for whatever reason? I just think there might be a lot of people out there who wish to be ethical people and help their patients, who maybe made some poor decisions in the past, and now are looking for a way through this without losing their careers.

Dr. Amerling:


Mr. Jekielek:

What should they do?

Dr. Amerling:

Turn over a new leaf. You get educated and start from scratch in doing the right thing. I’ll refer you to two very fine physicians. David Unwin from the UK. He’s @lowcarbGP on Twitter, if you want to find him. He had a moment of clarity, because he was seeing his type two diabetes patients literally go down the drain, and he was very frustrated with it.

Finally, a patient came to him and said, “I got rid of my insulin, and I cured my diabetes by going on the Atkins diet. Why didn’t you recommend this, Dr. Unwin?” He said he felt so bad that it completely changed his practice. From that point on, he did recommend that diet. Now, he’s got hundreds of diabetes reversals cases in his practice from that one moment.

Professor Tim Noakes, a brilliant doctor, former marathon runner, was the originator of carbohydrate loading. He’s a South African. By the way, carbohydrate loading is the idea that you need to eat pasta, pasta, pasta all the time. He, himself, developed type two diabetes from following his own carbohydrate loading advice. Then, he read the Atkins diet book one day and that turned his life around.

We all make mistakes. I’ve made tons of mistakes. Start from scratch, reinvent yourself. Your body reinvents itself all the time. Every cell in your body is turning over. Maybe not some of the nerve cells, muscle cells, but it’s turning over all the time. You’re constantly renewing your body, which is why it’s important to eat well, because what you eat is what ends up building your cells.

You can rebuild your practice, you can rebuild your body, you can be healthy, and your patients can be healthy. They’ll need a lot less drugs. The pharmaceutical industry does not want us to succeed. I can tell you that right now. They’re probably going to do everything they can to stop us from being successful. But if we get enough patients, and we get enough doctors with us, we’ll be successful. This is what’s needed.

Mr. Jekielek:

Dr. Richard Amerling, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show.

Dr. Amerling:

Thank you, Jan. Great to be with you.

Mr. Jekielek:

Thank you all for joining Dr. Richard Amerling and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Dr. Richard Amerling: ‘The Medical Profession Has Been Destroyed’

Dr. Richard Fleming – Masterclass on SARS-CoV-2 (excerpt)

Dr. Fleming is what one might call a medical superstar. PhD in physics, MD, as well as a JD just for good measure. He has done pioneering work in nuclear medicine related to cardiovascular disease. Even has a patent relating to same. You can check him out at his website.

What follows is an excerpt from a 2:29:17 long video available on YouTube that is probably the most thorough and detailed discussion of the virus and its effects upon humans available to the general public. Dr. Fleming’s opinion of the vaccine mandates is nicely summarized in the following joke:

Two rats are looking at each other and the one rat says, “Are you going to get the vaccine?” The second rat looks at the first one and says, “They haven’t finish the human trials yet.”

Yes, Virginia, you are part of a world-wide medical experiment:

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Dr. Richard Fleming – Masterclass on SARS-CoV-2 (excerpt)

The Ivermectin Conspiracy … theory or otherwise

Why were we told Ivermectin was so dangerous? Here’s the answer from Dr. Bob’s interview of Dr. Simone Gold of America’s Frontline Doctors:

The full interview can be seen at FrontPageMag:

Life Lessons with Dr. Bob: Dr. Simone Gold Responds to Critics in the COVID Conversation
Exposing COVID propaganda.
Wed Jul 6, 2022

In this new episode of Life Lessons with Doctor Bob, Doctor Bob sits down with doctor, lawyer, and founder of America’s Frontline Doctors, Simone Gold – who is on the front line of the COVID-19 conversation, fighting medical tyranny and for American freedoms. In this new video, Dr. Gold responds to critics, exposes truth about treatment options for COVID-19 and “helps to amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality healthcare solutions.” (aflds.org).

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Ivermectin Conspiracy … theory or otherwise

Trump: “I told you so.”

Thanks goes to fellow USAF pilot Jerry E. for sending this. Enjoy.

Almost as if they had planned it?

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Trump: “I told you so.”

Our “Civilian National Security Force” hard at work while Uvalde law enforcement leans on its shovel weapons

If you don’t recall Obama’s promise to establish a “Civilian National Security Force”, this should refresh your memory. I suspect that components of that force may be responsible for the spate of attacks and fire bombings of churches and pro-life counseling centers that followed the recent sneak preview of a possible SCOTUS Roe v. Wade reversal. The first 5m of the video are Tucker’s and Victor Davis Hanson’s analysis of what is implied by Speaker Nancy’s refusal to condemn such attacks and the concomitant lack of any semblance of equal enforcement of law.

The second bit is stunningly horrifying.

How close is our Republic to slipping away or has it already gone over the edge?

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Our “Civilian National Security Force” hard at work while Uvalde law enforcement leans on its shovel weapons

Dr. Malone on the Pfizer Pfiles … any questions?

If you’re not too keen on Dr. Robert Malone (as some have indicated) you may wish to check out Naomi Wolf’s WarRoom/DailyClout. Perhaps that’ll be more to your liking.

May 19, 2022
American Thought Leaders

What Are They Hiding?—Dr. Robert Malone on the Pfizer Documents and Evidence of Cardiotoxicity, Birth Defects, and the Rise in All-Cause Mortality


The COVID-19 vaccine makers “knew of many of these risks and adverse events … and yet never formally disclosed them to patients,” says mRNA vaccine pioneer Dr. Robert Malone. “I think there are many in the legal profession that are looking at this and raising questions about whether, in fact, this does meet the criteria of fraud in terms of withholding information.”

I sit down with Dr. Malone, co-founder of the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, to discuss the Global COVID Summit’s recent declaration to “end the national emergency, restore scientific integrity, and address crimes against humanity.”

“There are many people now that have vaccine damage, and they are not able to get compensated. And there’s no money being invested in trying to understand their disease and come up with ways to mitigate it,” says Dr. Malone.

At the same time, the majority of people hospitalized for COVID-19 now are vaccinated individuals, says Dr. Robert Malone. “The more doses of these products that you receive, the higher your risk for infection, disease, and death, compared to those that remain ‘unvaccinated,’” says Dr. Malone—with of course, the key caveat that most who are “unvaccinated” probably have natural immunity.


Jan Jekielek: Dr. Robert Malone such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.

Dr. Robert Malone: Always my pleasure Jan, this is number four, I think.

Mr. Jekielek: You’re fresh off the plane from Louisiana, where you were testifying against the implementation of a children’s vaccine mandate. This is unbelievable to hear at this time during the pandemic.

Dr. Malone: I agree, Jan. It is paradoxical. It seems almost anachronistic given all that we’ve learned about the adverse events in children, and also the fact that COVID, particularly Omicron, is not a significant health threat for children. Nevertheless, the current sitting Governor seems to have really dug in, wanting to have these mandated vaccines for children in Louisiana. This is something that I’ve been tracking and been engaged with. This is my second trip there. The first time I went with Bobby Kennedy last September. We testified in the House and that resulted in an overwhelming vote to block the mandates at that time.

Then the governor came back and overruled the House and required the vaccines. The attorney general then called that into question, based on the legality of activities by the Health Department of Louisiana. This is now coming to a head with this subcommittee vote. It is House Resolution 3 in the Senate in Louisiana. Unfortunately, there was a vote to not allow this bill to come out of subcommittee and be voted on the floor in the overall Louisiana Senate. The whips are suggesting it would readily pass in the General Assembly.

Mr. Jekielek: Very quickly, the bill, what exactly is it?

Dr. Malone: It is House Resolution 3, in short, a bill to block the mandates. It’s important to get that in your mind. This is to stop the mandates that the Governor is insisting on, and they have to do it with a veto-proof majority. The whips are suggesting that there is a veto-proof majority in the overall Senate and Assembly, and that it would pass, But at this moment, the governor’s colleagues and supporters have appeared to have bottled it up in committee with this recent vote. That was what we were there to testify about.

I was specifically requested by Attorney General Landry to come back and testify about the current state of the science. Then the Attorney General spoke at length about the constitutional and state law issues about having this appointed bureaucracy, the public health system of Louisiana, implementing these mandates, which is how it’s playing out in that state. These are not legislatively approved. They’re being mandated by the public health bureaucracy.

Mr. Jekielek: Fascinating. We’ll be watching closely to see what happens there. You mentioned you were testifying about the science. Just recently, you were in a video that expresses the fourth declaration of the Global COVID Summit, and you have some things to say about the science in the video. So please give us an overview.

Dr. Malone: I’ve got the declaration here and there are 10 bullet points. This is easy for your viewers to review for themselves, both the document itself, as well as the supporting information that is in this press conference video that we shot last Monday. So this last week, Jan, was wicked. We were shooting the press conference until one in the morning. Then I had a film shoot with Mikki Willis for the film End of Plandemic all day Tuesday. Then I had to be in Baton Rouge at 10:00 AM on Wednesday. Now, here we are on Thursday. So it’s been a tough week. This declaration is from the now 17,000 plus members of the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, who have this Global COVID Summit website. That has been our group name and our brand since we formed last fall.

This is a group that started off with just a small handful of docs. We were labeled as right-wing Nazis. That was the stereotype that was put out about us in the press. It’s an absurd presentation, but it’s the type of branding and labeling that anyone that has objected to the official positions of this administration has been subjected to. Then we grew as a group, and presented the first declaration in Rome, as you know. Then we had a second declaration that expanded on that and specifically emphasized not vaccinating children and the importance of allowing physicians to treat patients, and allowing physicians to be physicians. Then we had a third declaration that we gave at the International COVID Summit in Massy, France, right outside of Paris. Then this is the fourth one.

We debated this for well over a month among our group, and these are the points that we have come up with. The data confirms that these experimental gene therapy should end. We know more and more and more about the adverse events, and in parallel have seen the rise of Omicron, which is much less infectious and deadly than the prior variants. When you do the calculations for risk-benefit ratio, and we see more and more about the toxicity, we see that the virus is less and less of a risk. The risk-benefit ratio does not support ongoing vaccinations. We declared that doctors should not be blocked from providing life saving medical treatment. This has been one of our core positions now, going back to the second declaration. We declare that the state of national emergency, which facilitates corruption and extends the pandemic should be terminated immediately.

This is pretty inflammatory language that we’re using here. But it gets to our belief that this state of medical emergency that has been declared by the administration has been weaponized for political purposes. Functionally, we have a suspension of the Bill of Rights. They are justifying these coercive tactics of propaganda, censorship, and defamation that are being deployed both nationally and worldwide. This is all justified under the rubric of what’s functionally a declaration of a state of war, only it’s really a state of medical emergency. It is allowing the suspension of the core principles that this country was founded on. We object to this and we see no evidence that we are in a state of medical emergency. The hospitals aren’t full, even Dr. Fauci acknowledged this. We declare medical privacy should never be violated again, and all travel and social restrictions must cease.

This is about the conditions that we have all experienced, and the demands that are being placed on us. We have these amazing stories coming out now in the news from a variety of sources and whistle blowers. We have literally had the CDC spying on us, as well as other agencies tracking us. There’s been a number of violations of our medical privacy, not the least of which are the employer demands that we disclose whether or not we’ve received these treatments. This is a violation of HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.) It violates a fundamental principle of medical privacy. It has to be overturned. That information, in our opinion, should be expunged from databases. This is illegal according to HIPAA. We declare funding and research must be established for vaccination damage, death, and suffering. There are many people now that have vaccine damage and they are not able to get compensated. There is no money being invested in trying to understand their disease and come up with ways to mitigate it.

We have a national responsibility. We have forced many people to take these vaccines. A significant number of them have experienced vaccine-induced damage and they should be compensated and they should be treated. We should understand how to treat them, and we should understand how this has happened. We declare masks are not, and have never been, effective protection against airborne respiratory virus in the community setting. Fortunately, we had, as you know, this recent court case that overturned the mask policy. But the data is in, and it is abundantly clear. Yes, you could wear a respirator with filters, and that would be sufficient to allow you some degree of protection against the virus. But much of the infection, just a trivial example, occurs through the eyes. Yet, we’re not forcing people to walk around with face shields. These paper masks do nothing.

We all know that the data is clear on this. It’s hard to understand any medical justification for this, and yet the harm to society, and the harm to our children is clear and self-evident. We declare no opportunity should be denied, including education, career, military service, or medical treatment over unwillingness to take an injection. All of the products available in the United States remain experimental products. The pharmaceutical companies, even those that have had licensed vaccines, have refused to distribute and market those licensed vaccines because of the obligations that come with that. We are strongly of the opinion that individuals should not be mandated or forced or coerced to take these products at this point in time, particularly now that we have Omicron. We declare that first amendment violations and medical censorship by government technology and media companies should cease, and the Bill of Rights should be upheld.

This is fundamental. We believe in the Constitution. This isn’t radical. If we are right-wing Nazis because we believe in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, then something is seriously wrong with how the press is positioning all this information. We declare that Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and their enablers withheld safety and effectiveness information from patients and physicians, and they should be indicted for this. Again, this is an incontrovertible fact. We have the GAO report from the government side. We have the forced disclosure of the Pfizer information package, which is still being released. It reveals that a lot of the propaganda and information that’s been pushed on us about vaccine efficacy and safety is fraudulent. I don’t know how else to say it. That is the legal word for saying things that are not true.

We declare governmental and medical agencies must be held accountable for their actions—the withholding of information, the manipulation of information, the propaganda, the horrible compounded policy, and the attacks on the originators of the Great Barrington Declaration. That’s one of the most egregious examples, and it’s well documented. This must be stopped, and these people must be held accountable. These are very simple points. They may sound quite inflammatory and radical, but we’ve been subjected to constant censorship, pressure, defamation and attacks.

Fortunately not by the Epoch Times. We’re very grateful as a community for the role of the Epoch Times as a truth-teller in this situation. I know that you and your organization have been rigorous with your coverage, and in requesting and demanding information that is then published in your newspaper and through your TV outlets. And you’ve always pressured me to be very cautious in what I say when we interview, so that we can ensure that it is well documented. These 10 points, if you look at them individually, each one of them is well supported by existing data.

Mr. Jekielek: Let’s talk about this. This is something I haven’t had a chance to discuss yet with anyone on the show. So you’ve looked at some of these data dumps from Pfizer, right? And you’re seeing things there that are highly problematic. What is the most egregious thing you have seen?

Dr. Malone: The table with the nine or eleven pages of adverse events, single line listing, concatenated, separated by semicolons. These aren’t separate points line by line, they’re concatenated. So, there are multiple adverse events on each line. That this was known is shocking, in and of itself. This is the work product of the Pfizer-BioNTech pharmacovigilance team. Pharmacovigilance is another one of these long technical terms. After a medical product is licensed, the international standards say that the company that’s manufacturing and marketing that product has an obligation to set up a separate department.

It’s one of these quality control things where a separate silo is set up for monitoring reports coming from patients and physicians saying that these things have occurred after we have received this product. They have an obligation by global standards, to follow up each one of those reports, which is akin to the CDC’s obligation with VAERS, but the CDC doesn’t take it as seriously as the pharmaceutical industry has to take it.

So, this is the work product from their pharmacovigilant shop at Pfizer-BioNTech. Clearly, they did not want to disclose this information, because they fought hard, as did the FDA, to withhold this information. Most of this information in these disclosure documents was available to the FDA when they made their decision that these were safe and effective vaccine products, and they should be fully licensed. The table that lists these adverse events, in and of itself, is stunning. These are adverse events of special interest. They’ve redacted the information about their frequency.

There is some overall tabularization of frequency by organ category, which is the grossest, highest level summary. They’re not giving us the data about the event rate for each specific category or diagnostic code, which is essentially what all these are, separate diagnostic codes. That’s one that is shocking. You may or may not recall, it goes all the way back to our first interview when I was talking about this Japanese common technical document dossier that Byram Bridle had obtained. I spoke about that and we both got plenty of pushback from the “fact checkers” back then. None of us really recognized that whole ecosystem of what the fact checkers were, and what they have become. But back then, we all took it seriously and it seemed so unfair. They were attacking based on things that I had said, and Byram Bridle had said, when we both independently evaluated this Japanese common technical dossier.

Now, we find with the Pfizer releases that all that was true, and more. We couldn’t read the whole document, because neither of us is fluent in Japanese. We could look at the tables and listings that were in English and draw conclusions based on that, and also the footers that were describing those tables. But we didn’t have the whole body of the document, let alone have the body of the parallel document that had been submitted to the FDA. To reel back again in time, I specifically called Peter Marks, Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research, and had a conference call with him. This is before the vaccine licensure or anything else. I said I was really concerned about various things that I was seeing.

My concern was that the agency may not have had a full appreciation of some of the subtleties and nuances like I had, as somebody who had been involved in the creation of the original technology. He assured me, speaking on behalf of the agency and the government, “We now have a much more complete document set from Pfizer and there’s nothing in this.” That was his statement. There was nothing in that worried him. Now, we get to see what he was actually talking about. In fact, everything that Byram and I had observed turns out to be true, and more. These were not rigorously characterized in terms of pharmacokinetics. That’s another big long word. How long do the drugs stay in your body? Pharmaco-distribution; where does it go in your body? Genotoxicity; does it impact on your DNA?

Reproductive toxicology; is it a risk for reproductive health in animal models and subsequently in humans? Now we see from these documents that Pfizer knew that it was grossly overstating the efficacy. They knew that the all-cause mortality was higher in the treated groups than the untreated groups. They knew that all-cause mortality was associated with cardiotoxicity. They knew that many of the things that have subsequently come out had to trickle out. It’s like pulling teeth out of the CDC to get this information, as you know, because they’ve been withholding things so aggressively. We’ve had to go to Israel and Great Britain and Sweden and Germany and UK and Scotland to pull this information together to correlate it and try to make sense out of it.

Pfizer knew all that. There are many in the legal profession that are looking into this and raising questions about whether, in fact, this does meet the criteria of fraud in terms of withholding information, and whether or not it would break the legal veil that is protecting the pharmaceutical industry. It appears that they knew of many of these risks and adverse events, and yet never formally disclosed them to patients.

As you recall, that gets to my original pea under the mattress, the thing that really aggravated me from the start. It was the breach of fundamental medical ethics having to do with informed consent and the importance of fully and completely disclosing to patients what the potential risks are. Now, we have clear documentation that those risks were known. They were extensive, and information about those risks was withheld. We have that knowledge through the Pfizer document dossier and the documents that are being disclosed, as well as through the GAO report, and the New York Times’ report on President’s Day. It is becoming more and more clear, and yet the government continues to deny it.

Mr. Jekielek: The first point in this new declaration is that the universal vaccination should end. You phrase it differently, but I understand that is the point. So presumably, that’s because of the understanding of the science among the doctors in your organization. Can you give me an overview of how you reached this conclusion?

Dr. Malone: This is not something we’ve said trivially or lightly in any way, shape or form. We recognize that this is going to subject us to all kinds of derision, pressure, censorship, and attacks. From our prior interviews, I have always been very reluctant to come to a position where I say these vaccines are not indicated for any cohort. Over time, we’ve learned more and more about the risks, the adverse events, and the all-cause mortality that is being revealed by insurance companies, and all kinds of data sources. There is this curious situation where the data is demonstrating a dose-dependent relationship between risk of infection, disease, and death, which is paradoxical. This is being seen in country, after country, after country, and is now being openly discussed in the press.

Mr. Jekielek: Please spell out what that means, exactly?

Dr. Malone: The shocking thing, and I don’t know how else to say it, one had assumed and what we were being told and basically marketed by our governments was that these vaccines would protect us from infection, replication, and virus spread, at a minimum. As those pillars fell, the data became clear that the vaccines were not effective in any way. A traditional vaccine would be considered to be effective if it is preventing infection and spread. The fallback position of the government has always been that they protect you from severe disease and death. Now those pillars are falling.

The data from the U.S., from Europe, from Israel, and from the UK and Scotland until they stop sharing the data, demonstrates that the more genetic vaccines, particularly the RNA vaccines, that an individual patient receives—and I prefer not to use the booster language because technically even dose-one is a booster of your prior infection from circulating Coronaviruses, technically, so let’s just call them doses, because that gets away with whether these are actually working as vaccines or are they really some prophylactic therapy, and the case can be made that’s what it’s come down to—the observation is the more doses of these products that you receive, the higher your risk for infection, disease, and death, compared to those that remain “unvaccinated.”

Now the key caveat is, who is unvaccinated? Because functionally, most of us have already received an infection of some kind, especially with Omicron. 75 per cent of children in the United States now have antibodies, but only a fraction of those have been vaccinated. So, the control group that we’re comparing to is not really unvaccinated, it’s naturally immune for the most part. But compared to that unvaccinated control group, whatever it consists of, there is a growing clarity in the data from many, many different sources that the number of vaccine doses administered correlates with an increased risk, depending on the number of doses of infection, disease, and death.

What I’m hearing from frontline docs all over the world is the people that we’re seeing now in the hospital are all vaccinated. You’ll recall that what we were given as the talking point was this is a disease of the unvaccinated. Now that’s now completely flipped on its head. The data no longer supports that talking point. In fact, the data supports the contrary talking point. So, it’s no longer working as a vaccine. If anything, it’s a short term immuno-enhancement. I don’t know what to call it. It’s not even very effective on that, which is acknowledged by the CEO of Pfizer.

We have Professor David Marks of CIBMTR (Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Center) acknowledging that multiple jabs aren’t working. We have the chief immunologist for the Israeli government acknowledging that multiple boosts aren’t working. Yet, we still have an official policy in the United States and in Louisiana, as we were just talking about, of continuing to vaccinate people. This is what we have observed, and this is what has driven us to this decision. It is not just the nuance of the underlying science about T-cell dysfunction and the role of pseudouridine, that you covered in American Thought Leaders when you interviewed Ryan Cole.

Pseudouridine is immunosuppressive. Pseudouridine incorporating RNA is having half-lives of 60 days or longer, which is totally unprecedented. This is not our natural RNA by any stretch of the imagination. It’s not behaving as RNA. This fact is published in Cell Press, and observed by a strong group from Stanford University by lymph node biopsy. This is not by cell culture and Petri dish. This is found in human beings after being injected in their deltoid, and sampling by fine needle aspiration in their axilla. These RNAs are sticking around continuing to produce high levels of spike protein for 60 days or longer. They didn’t test beyond 60 days. The levels of spike protein being produced are far in excess of the levels that are observed in your blood after you get a natural infection.

That now makes sense out of some of the adverse-event profiles. One of the things that’s been confusing is why would you see more adverse events with the vaccine than you would see with the infection? Now, we have data showing the level of spike protein in your blood is much higher after the vaccination, compared to what you get after you get an infection. So we this increasing granularity of knowledge, acknowledgement of the broad spectrum of adverse events, and the clear lack of effectiveness, to prove that these vaccines are not stopping infection, replication and transmission. Someone at the Washington Post called me a liar when I said this on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Yet, here it is. It’s widely acknowledged, just as I had observed back then. They are not acting like vaccines.

They’re not providing durable protection. Increasingly, the data is demonstrating that these products are in a dose-dependent manner, which is key for scientists. If you want to have a causative relationship between a drug and an adverse event, you’ll want to see that as you give more drug, you get more adverse events. This makes sense. We’re observing that now. We’re observing the cardiotoxicity. The cardiologists that are looking at this in a more and more granular way, never mind the anecdotal—all the high performing athletes and weightlifters, I’ll say this gently, “spontaneously expiring” on the field in the middle of high performance sports activities at rates that seem to be unprecedented. Despite all that, we are now seeing more and more and more data that the cardiotoxicity, the myocarditis is actually quite prevalent—and that’s just relying on clinical myocarditis, which means it has caused so much damage that it put you in the hospital.

We call it a grade-four adverse event. That’s a big deal in medicine. A drug caused you to go to the hospital. That’s a big deal. Now what we are seeing is that cardiologists and others have become sensitized to this risk. There are tests that can be performed like troponin assays and certain types of MRI scans, functional tests. We’re seeing evidence that it may actually be that a majority of young males that receive these vaccines are having cardiac damage. Furthermore, it’s long been known that myocarditis, on average, before a vaccine,viral or otherwise, had something like a 15 to 20 per cent mortality rate at a five year horizon. As the data comes in, and remember it hasn’t been that long, what the cardiologists are telling me is that they’re observing morbidity and mortality, meaning disease and death, that is tracking along the same lines as would be observed with classical myocarditis.

As the CDC disclosed that myocarditis was a problem, which we discussed in our prior interviews, the story promoted in the press—how else do you say it, it’s propaganda in my opinion—the messaging that was promoted in the legacy media mainstream media was that this is mild myocarditis and in the children are recovering, and they’re not going to have problems with it. That’s not what the data is showing now. The data is showing that these young boys, also young girls, just at a lower incidence, there seems to be a testosterone co-factor in this, they’re not recovering. As I’ve been saying all along, the heart muscle doesn’t heal its scars. I fear that not only do we have this cancer risk, but we also have this long term heart damage risk.

I was also interviewed on Monday by Del Bigtree, together with Ryan Cole and Richard Urso. In their long-term prognosis they very much focused on the T-cell damage and the potential consequences of that. Del turned to me last, so I got to bat clean-up. I mentioned the cardiac problem. There is another one that’s coming out now more and more, but it’s still anecdotal. It’s clear that obstetricians and pediatricians have been strongly encouraged to, let’s say, not report these things, but there is more and more data coming out. Not only do we see dysmenorrhea or menometrorrhagia, these alterations in menses, there is the observation that elderly postmenopausal women suddenly start having menses after taking the vaccine. That’s a very odd finding. It suggests something with the ovary. We know these lipids go to the ovary, because the Pfizer documents. Now we’re hearing these reports of spontaneous abortions, birth defects and paradoxical infant death shortly after delivery that seem to be tracking at significantly higher rates than is normally observed.

These are all things that can occur during pregnancy. They are known risks of pregnancy, but they have very well-characterized rates. This has been a worry. You’ll recall that on the basis of very scanty data, there were strong statements by the CDC encouraging women to take these experimental products during pregnancy. Now, the data is coming out in multiple threads that suggest there is reproductive toxicology problems, which is something that I have also been warning about, as have many of my colleagues. So, you ask why such a controversial statement? “We should stop these injections.” I’ll just read it again. “We declare, in the data confirmed, that the COVID-19 experimental genetic therapy injections must end.”

Mr. Jekielek: What I’m hearing is that there’s a lot that’s unknown. Clearly, there are all these signals that need to be studied at length. At the same time, there’s this other piece, which is that COVD is actually treatable.

Dr. Malone: Precisely, and preventable with vitamin D. That’s the other shocking thing. There are virtually no deaths from this disease in people who have vitamin D levels in their plasma, in their blood above 50 nanograms/ml.

Mr. Jekielek: How could you know that? That is an astounding thing to say. I understand that vitamin D is very important.

Dr. Malone: There are actually many studies out now, including double blind randomized placebo control trials. It turns out this is a thread that goes back to 2006 with influenza. You may or may not recall the day that I went and spoke to the truckers in Hagerstown, Maryland. Paradoxically, on that same afternoon I gave that speech, out of the blue I got a call from a physician. He has intelligence community ties, and this researcher was part of a team that had undertaken a study in which they mined data. They looked at the data records from the Department of Defense Health System for soldiers, and looked at the morbidity and mortality for influenza. Because when soldiers get influenza, they’re not ready for battle, and that matters. He was given the task of analyzing this data and try to figure out what the co-factors were, the differentiate between the ones that were taken out by influenza and incapacitated, versus the ones that were just shrugging it off and staying functional.

What he discovered was clear, statistically rigorous proof that vitamin D levels explained those differences. The story he tells me is that he was assigned to go visit Dr. Fauci, thinking this is important information. “We’re going to invest all kinds of money and promote vitamin D based on your exceptional work and findings of your team.” Instead, what he was told, per his relating the story to me, was the phrase, “We don’t use drugs to treat influenza. We treat influenza with vaccines only.” And with that, it died.” The point is, this policy that we’ve seen roll out here with this particular RNA respiratory virus, and its role with vitamin D, goes way back to the mid-2000s, when the same leadership at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease made a clear and unequivocal decision to not pursue the importance of vitamin D in preventing respiratory disease.

The data is indisputable. Sufficient levels of vitamin D are necessary to support your health, particularly your T-cell population. What a surprise. We keep coming back to that same thing, and it costs pennies. The thing that I find most astounding is the reports that I hear again and again from patients that went to their doctor and wanted their vitamin-D level tested. It is a simple, inexpensive test, and their doctor refused to do it.

It is such a simple thing. It would cost pennies. It would quench this outbreak. If we’re really worried about resurgence next fall, if we’re really worried about Geert Vanden Bossche’s troubling predictions, we would do as Bill Gates has now endorsed. I hate citing Bill Gates with anything having to do with public health. The man never even graduated from college, let alone go to medical school or get a PhD, but he is considered to be such an important voice in public health by the legacy media and by governments all over the world. He’s the major funder, as I understand it, of the World Health Organization. Then he comes out with the statement, I’m paraphrasing here, “We blew it by focusing only on vaccines. For the next outbreak, the next pandemic, we have to be ready with drugs.”

I find that fascinating, because that has been my position since January 4th, 2020, when I got that infamous phone call. That’s why I focused on repurposed drugs. In my opinion, as a vaccinologist, vaccines are good for some things, but they’re not good for everything. I always use the phrase, “Give a three year old a hammer and everything becomes a nail.” For some reason, the NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) and our entire public health infrastructure has elected to focus just on vaccines, and in particular, promoting new vaccines. It hasn’t allowed alternative approaches, including approaches that just have to do with good health, and that can have a huge impact on your risk from this disease. You know that diabetes and obesity, in addition to extreme age, are our biggest risk-factors, and those are lifestyle-preventable diseases.

Even in the face of diabetes and morbid obesity, which by the way interferes with vitamin D availability, those are interacting variables, we can have a huge impact on the risk by strengthening people’s immune systems. We can do that by not just giving them enough vitamin D to prevent them from getting rickets, which is an obvious baseline thing, but enough vitamin D to keep their immune systems functioning. This is particularly important for African Americans and individuals of color, operating in Northern climates and working in an office space and places like that.

Their skin coloration is designed for latitudes where they’re exposed to a lot more sun, and that’s no longer happening. It doesn’t happen here in the Northern hemisphere, and they are highly susceptible to very low levels of vitamin D. There’s other genetic risk factors that have been identified that are curiously aligned with this virus. But in particular, there’s a good chance that if the government would just do some simple public health messaging saying, “Go get your blood levels drawn and get your vitamin D levels up above 50 nanograms/ml.” That would make a huge difference, and that would cost pennies. It is important to get your blood levels tested.

A lot of people will ask me, “Oh, can I just take more vitamin D?” Well, the answer is maybe. You can get toxicity from too much vitamin D, and different people absorb vitamin D at different levels. As I mentioned, your body mass index, your obesity and things like that, will modulate your free vitamin D, which is what matters. The test is cheap, so get the test and get some guidance. It’s simple counseling to say, “Hey, you should take this much vitamin D.”

I had low vitamin D levels, when I got infected and had severe disease in February. My vitamin D levels were down in single digits. I should have been taken more vitamin D, I’m not perfect. None of us are, we’ve learned all these things over time. You ask, is the data there? Yes, it is. I am not aware, neither are the docs like Peter McCullough and Ryan Cole, of any cases of COVID-associated death, where the death is clearly attributable to COVID, that had vitamin D levels above or equal to 50 ng/mL.

In other words, 50 ng/mL seems to be the threshold where there’s a big change in mortality. There may be a case of somebody with cystic fibrosis who had adequate vitamin D levels and still expired after they got infected. I have no knowledge of that. I’m not aware of that case being reported in the literature, that hypothetical case. The preponderance of evidence is very clear, 50 ng/mL is not an optimal level.

It’s the point of inflection in the curve. So higher levels can be even more beneficial. This is something that really deserves a discussion between the patient and the physician supported by a blood test. There can be problems with high zone vitamin D toxicity, but that’s at much higher levels and 50 seems to be the cutoff where the curve goes from one to another. When you get above that, it appears that there is virtually no mortality from COVID 19 in individuals that are at 50 nanograms or above.

Mr. Jekielek: That’s an incredible reality to be faced with and a very obvious public health direction to be explored. Dr. Malone, any final thoughts as we finish up?

Dr. Malone: Yes, Jan. As you know, I always like to end on a positive note. One of the things that I’m hearing a lot about from patients in general public is the thread that the entire medical profession is corrupt. That is what they have observed, those that have been tracking these events and these, let’s say it gently, misstatements that have come out from the government. They’ve interpreted that as evidence that the entire medical and healthcare system is corrupt in some way. I just want to close with, if you don’t mind, that is not what I’m observing. We have 17,000 physicians and medical scientists that are speaking up. As I travel, I have people, physicians, nurses, physicians assistants coming up to me and saying, “Thank you, I felt so alone. When you and your colleagues spoke out, I realized I wasn’t alone.”

There are so many strong disincentives, financially and otherwise, and careers are compromised. You can’t pay your mortgage. You can’t get your kids into school if you speak out. There has been so much intimidation and defamation and pressure on healthcare providers to not speak out about their observations. I ask the public, please don’t interpret that as everybody is corrupt. It’s easy to get dark and black in these times after what we’ve seen. We do have some major systemic problems and it’s going to be hard to fix them. I have seen, and I hope your audience has seen that my actions and behaviors demonstrate that there are still many physicians and medical care providers that are committed to the Hippocratic oath and to the fundamentals of patient consent in medical ethics in general. Don’t lose hope. We’ll get there, but we got some things to fix. If we all pull together, we can fix what we have to fix.

Mr. Jekielek: Dr. Robert Malone, it’s such a pleasure to have you on again.

Dr. Malone: Thanks Jan.


Follow EpochTV on social media:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/EpochTVus

Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/EpochTV

Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@EpochTV

Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/epochtv

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EpochTVus

Gab: https://gab.com/EpochTV

Telegram: https://t.me/EpochTV

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Dr. Malone on the Pfizer Pfiles … any questions?

The Sinking American Ship of State: Hit below the waterline

The video implies that this was authored by Ben Stein, but I didn’t find any source that indicates publication by him. However, did find the text of the video on the Facebook page of Rabbi Schuval and that is posted afterwards.

It’s not obvious where posting versus quoting begin and end. But the statements are an excellent summary of just how fine a mess we are in. Especially if you happen to be an American Marxist.

Rabbi Larry Schuval
July 30.2020

I never dreamed that I would have to face the prospect of not living in the United States of America, at least not the one I have known all my life. I have never wished to live anywhere else. This is my home and I was privileged to be born here.

But today I woke up and as I had my morning coffee I realized that everything is about to change. No matter how I vote, no matter what I say, something evil has invaded our nation, and our lives are never going to be the same. I have been confused by the hostility of family and friends. I look at people I have known all my life so filled with hate that they will agree with opinions that if the were in their right minds they would never express as their own. It’s absolutely unbelievable. I think that I may well have entered the Twilight Zone…..then I saw this and I think that it’s pretty close to describing how I feel.

I’m not starting a fight, but it is something to think about. This may open up a ton of outraged comments by some. Many who will argue how “wrong” this post is. My suggestion, save your time and effort! You’re not changing the reality of what we are living by trying to somehow justify this insanity. Nevertheless, I couldn’t resist because we are becoming the Twilight Zone. We have become a nation that has lost its collective mind!

• If a dude pretends to be a woman, you are required to pretend with him.
• Somehow it’s un-American for the census to count how many Americans are in America.
• Russians influencing our elections are bad, but illegals voting in our elections are good.
• It was cool for Joe Biden to “blackmail” the President of Ukraine, but it’s an impeachable offense if Donald Trump inquires about it.
• Twenty is too young to drink a beer, but eighteen is old enough to vote.
• People who have never owned slaves should pay slavery reparations to people who have never been slaves.
• Inflammatory rhetoric is outrageous, but harassing people in restaurants is virtuous.
• People who have never been to college should pay the debts of college students who took out huge loans for their degrees.
• Immigrants with tuberculosis and polio are welcome, but you’d better be able to prove your dog is vaccinated.
• Irish doctors and German engineers who want to immigrate must go through a rigorous vetting process, but any illiterate gang-bangers who jump the southern fence are welcome.
• $5 billion for border security is too expensive, but $1.5 trillion for “free” health care is not.
• If you cheat to get into college you go to prison, but if you cheat to get into the country you go to college for free.
• People who say there is no such thing as gender are demanding a female President.
• We see other countries going Socialist and collapsing, but it seems like a great plan to us.
• Some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, and other people are not held responsible for what they are doing right now.
• Criminals are catch-and-released to hurt more people, but stopping them is bad because it’s a violation of THEIR rights.
• And pointing out all this hypocrisy somehow makes us “racists”?!

Nothing makes sense anymore, no values, no morals, no civility and people are dying of a Chinese virus, but it racist to refer to it as Chinese even though it began in China. We are clearly living in an upside down world where right is wrong and wrong is right, where moral is immoral and immoral is moral, where good is evil and evil is good, where killing murderers is wrong, but killing innocent babies is right, where darkness is light and light is now darkness.

Wake up America, the great unsinkable ship Titanic America has hit an iceberg, is taking on water and sinking fast. The choice is yours to make. What will it be? Time is short, make your choice wisely!

Not my words but very accurate and disturbing!

Feel free to copy and paste. I did!

I received this from a concerned American! What a mess our country is in right now! I I only pray ( that is if we are still free to do so) that our country regains it’s senses! I became a proud citizen of this country many years ago! It was a country of faith & pride! Not to mention that I was taught respect, kindness & faith all of which are being destroyed! I won’t ramble on as I think the above says it all!

God Bless America, the land of the (hopefully) free & the home of the brave!

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Sinking American Ship of State: Hit below the waterline

Spike Protein for Dummies: What it is, what it does & how to get rid of it


Now that the “I’m not a doctor” bit is out of the way we can get on with this. You are perfectly free, of course, to discuss this subject with your personal physician. However, I would be surprised if he/she/it/?/+ knows a damn thing about it. Possibly worth 14 minutes of your time?

May 18, 2022
Facts Matter
True Dangers of the Spike Protein, and How to Detoxify Yourself From It
Roman Balmakov

After two years of research and studies, the scientific understanding surrounding the danger of the spike protein has evolved quite a lot.

At first, when the pandemic first began, people thought that the spike protein was just there to help the virus enter human cells, and that was it.

However, over time, researchers have slowly discovered that the effects of the spike protein are multifaceted and that it’s harmful to the human body in at least eight different ways—such as by damaging the cells of our lungs, damaging our cells’ mitochondria, causing inflammation, and even increasing the risk of blood clots.

Furthermore, all of this is compounded by the fact that, according to new studies, the spike protein can persist in the human body for weeks, or even months, after a person gets vaccinated.

So let’s explore what the potential dangers of the spike protein are—as well as some concrete actions that you can take to detoxify yourself and boost your own immune system.


World Council of Health Recommendation:


Spike Protein Studies:








Exercise Study:


Follow Roman on Instagram: @epoch.times.roman

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Spike Protein for Dummies: What it is, what it does & how to get rid of it

Global COVID Summit Press Conference: ‘Restore Scientific Integrity’

The video shown below is the work product of an international organization known as GlobalCovidSummit.org and was produced by The Epoch Times. The declaration establishing GlobalCovidSummit can be viewed here along with a list of originating signatories. As of this past January, over 17,000 doctors & scientists have signed the Rome Declaration.

Apparently, this is not some fly-by-night organization or one of those “vast right-wing conspiracies” Hillary Clinton and other American Marxists like to bring up on occasion. Rather, it’s a genuine effort on the part of “17,000 doctors & scientists” to expose the vast left-wing conspiracy of Big Pharma, much of the medical establishment, government bureaucrats and politicians world-wide to rudely and severely regiment and control the behavior of entire populations while doing them great harm. And the Global Covid Summiteers make no bones about it. That conspiracy is guilty of great harm including but not limited to killing people. The pandemic is over. It’s time for a reckoning.

See for yourself:

May 11, 2022
Global COVID Summit Press Conference: ‘Restore Scientific Integrity’

Coronavirus, Vaccines & Variants

The Global Covid Summit, comprising over 17,000 of the world’s leading physicians and scientists, is holding a press conference highlighting the Summit’s declaration to “Restore Scientific Integrity.”

Speakers include Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Ryan Cole, Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., Dr. Lynn Fynn, Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, Dr. Richard Urso, and more.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Global COVID Summit Press Conference: ‘Restore Scientific Integrity’

Why are so many young Americans dropping dead? Hint: it’s not all drug overdosing.

In today’s American Thinker, Thomas Lifson has an article revealing the excess deaths among younger segments of the American population. Quite unlike the direct effect of Covid-19, more popularly known as the CCP virus. What is going on?

Dr. Richard Urso, a drug design and treatment specialist, ophthalmologist, and former chief of orbital oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center, claims to have the answer. Should you believe him? If he’s right, a lot of people on this planet could be in some real trouble. Once again, here’s Dr. Urso:

April 19, 2022
Facts Matter
mRNA Vaccines Lead to Spike Protein Entering Nucleus, Rise in Vascular Events, 40 Percent Increase in ‘All Cause Deaths’: Dr. Urso

Roman Balmakov

According to the CDC, last year, deaths among Americans aged 18 to 49 were up 40 percent. Even after removing all COVID-19 deaths, the spike remains uncanny. Why is that? And is it related to the U.S. government’s mass vaccination campaign?

We sat down with Dr. Richard Urso, a physician, scientist, and former director of Orbital Oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center to discuss all things myocarditis, blood clotting, and vaccine injury.

Furthermore, we discussed how the synthetic materials within the mRNA-based vaccines act inside the body, how long spike protein production lasts, what effect it has on health, as well as the cause of athletes around the world dying from heart-related complications.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Why are so many young Americans dropping dead? Hint: it’s not all drug overdosing.