Just wait ’till Ms. Wolf gets to the “Safe & Effective” numbers!
(What wasn’t to be release for 70 years.)
Bannons War Room
March 19, 2022
Dr. Wolf: “They are counting wrong – you can’t verify the data sets.”
Video LINK (8:14)
Just wait ’till Ms. Wolf gets to the “Safe & Effective” numbers!
(What wasn’t to be release for 70 years.)
Bannons War Room
March 19, 2022
Dr. Wolf: “They are counting wrong – you can’t verify the data sets.”
Video LINK (8:14)
James Craig has been around the policing block several times in several locales. Very interesting man.
3-16-2022 • 1h 1m
Charlotte Iserbyt died this past month. Since before 1982, she has been an unstinting advocate for maintaining the integrity and quality of K-12 education in the U.S. Given the current state of educational affairs, Ms. Iserbyt has obviously not been successful. If you care to have a peek at the very early years of the Dept. of Education monster created by President Carter, watch this revealing 28 min. interview with a person who found herself in the “belly of the beast.”
Time Out: Charlotte Iserbyt – The Reagan Years (YouTube LINK)
Nov 1, 2009
Time Out Productions presents an extended interview with Charlotte Iserbyt covering the time she spent working the Dept. of Education during Reagan’s first term in the White House. This is an extended interview of what is in the upcoming documentary film “Charlotte Iserbyt: Societies Secrets.” Charlotte Iserbyt is the consummate whistleblower! Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America’s classrooms. Iserbyt is a former school board director in Camden, Maine and was co-founder and research analyst of Guardians of Education for Maine (GEM) from 1978 to 2000. She has also served in the American Red Cross on Guam and Japan during the Korean War, and in the United States Foreign Service in Belgium and in the Republic of South Africa. Iserbyt is a speaker and writer, best known for her 1985 booklet Back to Basics Reform or OBE: Skinnerian International Curriculum and her 1989 pamphlet Soviets in the Classroom: America’s Latest Education Fad which covered the details of the U.S.-Soviet and Carnegie-Soviet Education Agreements which remain in effect to this day. She is a freelance writer and has had articles published in Human Events, The Washington Times, The Bangor Daily News, and included in the record of Congressional hearings.
Letter to Reagan LINK
Beware the Ides of March. . .
October 23, 2021
The Nation Speaks
Vaccine Victims Get Silent Treatment; Doctor Risks All to Oppose Mandates
It’s taboo to say it, but some people do have a bad reaction to getting a vaccine. So what’s being done to help them? Very, very little, according to Super Bowl champion Ken Ruettgers, whose wife suffered life-altering neurological damage after her dose of Moderna. Ruettgers started a website, C19 Vax Reactions, to document cases of vaccine injury and provide resources for others wandering in the desert of the unknown.
Then, on America Q&A we ask if people should get fired for not being vaccinated, even if they have natural immunity from having recovered from COVID-19.
Next, California doctor Christopher Rake is willing to lose everything to fight for medical freedom. He’s already lost his job for opposing the vaccine mandate, but that’s not stopping him. He’s started an organization, Citizens United For Freedom (CUFF) to bring like minded people together.
Enjoy … twenty-eight minutes:
February 1, 2022
American Thought Leaders
“We’re seeing an alteration of the innate immune response,” says pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole, founder of Cole Diagnostics.
In recent months, Cole said he started seeing a number of disturbing trends under the microscope: the appearance of a childhood disease in adults and an uptick in rare cancers. Other doctors have echoed his observations, he says, but rigorous studies are not being conducted.
“You cannot find that for which you do not look,” he says.
We also take a look at what factors impact how an individual fares with COVID-19. America has a vitamin D crisis, which is essential to a functioning immune system, Cole says. “This is a public health message that is so critical, because so goes your vitamin D level, so goes your overall ability to fight off not just COVID, but any virus in any viral season.”
Below is a rush transcript of this American Thought Leaders episode from Feb 1, 2022. This transcript may not be in its final form and may be updated.
Jan Jekielek: Dr. Ryan Cole, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.
Dr. Ryan Cole: Thank you Jan, pleasure to be here.
Mr. Jekielek: So, Dr. Cole, we were both a little bit earlier today at this march to defeat the mandates in Washington, D.C. at the Lincoln Memorial. And it looked to me like you were one of the MCs, so great opportunity here we have, just to give us an idea of what this was all about and what you feel was accomplished here today.
Dr. Cole: It was a good opportunity to bring thought leaders, together, doctors, scientists who have been at the forefront of COVID to share a message in unity, going forward. Trying to stop some of the policy and procedures that have happened that have been non-scientific. So these are people, physician, colleagues, from around the world, you know many of them, Dr. Mercola, Dr. Malone, Dr. Urso, Dr. Corey, who have been emphasizing early treatment. Those who have seen the risks to these shots. The fact that the shots are outdated now that we have essentially a new virus here. Omicron.
And so this was an opportunity to really unify the people on both sides, vaccinated, or unvaccinated, doesn’t matter what your political party is to basically say, “Hey, our body is ours, our sacred temple, and there’s no reason for us to be mandating something that doesn’t make sense, especially for the children.” So it was a good opportunity. And yes, my colleagues said, “Hey, why don’t you MC today?” And I thought, “Okay, it would be fun.” And it was, and it was a good opportunity to see people come together in this manner.
Mr. Jekielek: So it’s not necessarily obvious how you came from being in this, many, many years in a diagnostics business, that’s been the core of your work for a long time, to suddenly being on stage here at the Lincoln Memorial. I got to dig in a little bit and find out what is your background, what is it that you did work on and now have been working on? And how did that lead you to here?
Dr. Cole: Sure. It was all a divine accident. I’m kind of an extroverted introvert, really. I’ve been a busy pathologist, trained at the Mayo Clinic, trained in anatomic and clinical pathology, surgical pathology did some Ph.D. work in immunology and then did a sub-specialty fellowship in dermatopathology in New York, under The World Expert. So yeah, I’m a pathologist been independent for 18 years-
Mr. Jekielek: And super briefly, pathology just for the layperson.
Dr. Cole: Ah, yes. For pathology, so I’m the most important doctor that you never meet that you always hope is right? Meaning I get a piece of you and you don’t come to see me, but that piece of you comes to see me. So I’m the doctor to the doctor. I make that cancer diagnosis, that infection diagnosis. I look at your blood work panels. I look at your microbiology reports.
I look at, we jokingly call it in the business meat or juice, anyway we either look at tissue or liquids from the body and analyze what disease process is happening in that individual. So my job is to be a diagnostician. Now I did work emergency room, family medicine, dermatology for many years as well. So I’m a very clinically oriented pathologist. So I think in clinical realms, but I diagnose and help the doctor understand his or her patient’s disease.
Mr. Jekielek: And you’ve been in this personal practice for years?
Dr. Cole: 18 years, I’ve seen about 500,000 patients in my career.
Mr. Jekielek: Seen through a microscope or something like that?
Dr. Cole: Mostly through the microscope.
Mr. Jekielek: You’re going through your normal routines and coronavirus comes around in early 2020, and so what happens?
Dr. Cole: Well, having the background in immunology and virology, I thought, “Okay, this is interesting. What’s the new pandemic?” I was familiar with the original SARS-CoV-1. I had studied that reasonably well. When MERS came around, I had studied that well, too. So I thought, “Okay, here’s another coronavirus. So let’s see what’s different about this one or what’s the same about it.” And it’s almost 80% the same as the original SARS-CoV-1.
So I thought, “Okay, we know what happened there.” It came through, affected mostly the elderly in terms of the adverse outcomes and then burned itself out reasonably quickly. And those who had been exposed were immune and still are 18 years later, I thought, “Okay, so we can manage this.” And then I watched what the world did and I thought, “This is an interesting approach to something,” the two weeks to flatten the curve and we’re afraid of what this might do.
So I dove into the genetic sequences, I dove into what are the differences in the spike protein? What’s the history of this virus compared to what we’ve seen before. And doing virology in the laboratory, molecular diagnostics, I thought, “Okay, we’re going to have to bring on some extra testing in the lab,” which we did. That was a slog because all the money went to the giant corporate labs at first, and I’m trying to get it to the community setting. And eventually, over the pandemic, we’ve tested maybe 150,000 plus patients through a community independent lab.
Mr. Jekielek: It’s your lab?
Dr. Cole: My lab. Yes, yes. Yeah. I’m not the only lab in the state, there are plenty of others, but we were the first ones to say, “Look, we can’t wait seven to 10 days, by the time a virus has done a replicating it’s five to seven days. So to get an answer by then is too late.” So I tried to do what I could to get testing ramped up in my community early. So we focused on that for the early part of the pandemic. And again, was studying how is this affecting society who, which age stratification. We had a fascinating lab example early on society and that was tale of two ships. And that was the Diamond Princess that everybody had heard about and the USS Roosevelt.
So we had this cruise ship and we saw that the virus had affected the elderly and the ratio of the case fatality rate was amongst the elderly. Then you had the USS Roosevelt where one individual with preexisting conditions succumbed, but you had about the same infection rate on both ships. And we knew early on, if we had followed the work of Dr. [Ayanaitis 00:07:15] or Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, we would’ve said, “Huh, they’re right, from an epidemiologic point of view.” And we had those early studies. So as a pathologist, as a pattern diagnostician, what pathology is pattern.
Mr. Jekielek: Just one question before we go to the pattern. So right about what? What were right about [Ayanaitis 00:07:31] and Dr. Bhattacharya both at Stanford, right about? Yeah.
Dr. Cole: Yeah. They were right about, look, the virus is infecting a lot more people than our tickers on the TV were saying, so we had this case fatality rate of scary percentages, but really the case fatality rate, you can only calculate if you know the true number of infections. So they went out into the communities and said, “Okay, here’s the number of people who are in the hospital, are dying.
But the actual number of people infected is far more than that, which makes this case fatality rate just a fraction of a percent instead of many percentage points.” So we had this construct societally of 3% or 8% of people are going to die. If you looked at the Northern Italy data early on, when in reality it was, if you’re above age 65 with four comorbidities, then you have a, whatever, 0.5% chance of passing on, or 1% or 2%.
But under age 65 with no comorbidities, the case fatality rate was essentially almost zero. And so Dr. [Ayanaitis 00:08:38] and Dr. Bhattacharya who was one of the authors on the Great Barrington Declaration, and I’ve become friends with him. They were right early but the governmental policy, when we looked at it, was more the panic and scare instead of following the data or following those lab ship examples as it were.
So I know you and I were conversing a little before, we’re both patterned people. And my day job is millions of cells a day goes through my eyeballs and millions of data patterns in the laboratory go through my eyeballs. I see maybe 40,000 biopsies a year, I’m responsible for tens of thousands of blood tests. So patterns, patterns, patterns. So I saw the patterns early on, and then our reaction to those patterns is really where I kind of woke up and said, “Wait, things aren’t making sense here. Our approach to this, our public policy, wasn’t really matching the medicine.”
Mr. Jekielek: For a while you were just thinking about this to yourself, but then at some point you were invited to a seminar. Tell me about this. I heard a little bit about this.
Dr. Cole: Yeah. So this was an unexpected journey. I was certainly educating patients as they came through the lab. I had heard some of the early treatment lectures from some of my other colleagues. I had been looking into the repurposed medicines as well and started treating patients.
My first patient was my younger brother, obese, type one diabetic. He’s lost some weight. He always tells me to tell people that now. He was my first COVID patient, really sick, on his way to the ER. And I said, “Don’t go to the ER, go to the pharmacy. I’m calling in some ivermectin,” treated him. 24 hours later he calls me, “Hey, remember that pain I was having in my lungs. Remember my oxygen was 86. Well, I’m up to 98 and I feel great.” In one day, and that’s how some of the earlier variants reacted to some of these earlier treatments.
So that was my early experience with that. I had been educating patients from the time we started testing and they were coming through the lab and I swabbed thousands of sick patients personally, in addition to my team. And I would advise them on, “Get your vitamin D levels up. If we have an international vitamin D deficiency pandemic, make sure your immune system is tuned up. That’s a critical part.” So I had been doing educating.
Then I started doing some early treating, because I never forgot how to be an actual practicing doctor. And then a friend of mine came to the lab and said, “Hey, the Lieutenant governor in your state, Idaho, puts on an educational seminar during the legislative session once a week. She wants somebody to speak on COVID.” Well, the local media had done some stories on how much we’d helped the community and were trying to do for the community. And I lived at the lab for three months literally while we were in the first wave.
So I went to the state capital to give a little 20 minute lunchtime chit-chat lecture while people were having their sandwich on, here’s some tidbits about COVID. By then I’d read thousands of articles and seen thousands of patients. So I put together a little synopsis and next day, after giving that fun lecture, I got a few pats on the back and I thought, “Okay, that was fun.” “Hey, you’ve had 10,000 views, you’ve had 50,000 views.”
I’m like, “Wait views. I didn’t post anything.” Somebody had videoed it and it went viral until of course YouTube took it down because the information in it basically, take care of your immune health. Take your vitamin D, guess what? There are early treatments. Guess what, these shots are experimental. Informed consent is critically important when we’re using something brand new on a society without long term data.
So I gave a very common sense message in a very passionate way I’ve been told and it resonated with a lot of people, even at today’s march and talk. I had so many people, “That talk you gave.” Like, “Oh yeah, I know.” And I’ve been shocked and surprised that so many other colleagues haven’t spoken out. So when that happened, that first one, then I got invited to come on this program or that program, “Will you educate us on this? Can you tell us about that?” So I’ve been very data driven and just tried to share the scientific truth and then point out where the public policies and the decisions we’re making or imposing upon people don’t match what we know scientifically.
Mr. Jekielek: So you started treating patients for COVID?
Dr. Cole: I did.
Mr. Jekielek: Yeah.
Dr. Cole: And this is interesting, first patient was my brother and that went well. Type one diabetic, comorbidities. We knew by that time who was having adverse outcomes, the comorbid, underlying conditions, elderly. Next patient I treated was my 78 year old mother, probably got it from my brother. But she was better in 36 hours. Prophylaxis, my dad who never got COVID. And so it was an interesting journey. And then patients would continue to come to me and say, “Hey, my doctor won’t treat me. What do I do?” And then a couple other colleagues around the country help. We have too many patients, there’s a telehealth service. “Can you help?”
And I thought, my calling as a physician is to help. That doctor patient sacred relationship is about humanity and the story of the good Samaritan. I can’t watch a fellow human being suffer, knowing that there’s something that can be done while I watch so many medical colleagues do nothing or demonize early treatments on which they were misinformed.
Scientifically, I read so much mechanisms of action, pathophysiology, pharmacokinetics, understanding how these maligned early treatment medicines actually do work. And how many years we’ve known for over a decade, how many effects ivermectin has on RNA viruses? Same thing with hydroxychloroquine, there are countless studies and mechanisms saying, “Yeah, these are antivirals, they’re not just antiparasitics.” And indeed we’ve known that for a long time.
Mr. Jekielek: So at least worthy of consideration.
Dr. Cole: Absolutely worthy of consideration with foundational science behind them. And so, yes, I started treating patients and to date I’ve treated 350, 400 patients of which not a single one’s gone to the hospital, not a single one has passed away. So early treatment does save lives and what’s a pathologist doing treating patients? Well at the core of who I’m a physician. And I did all those years of medicine prior to doing pathology, that I’m not going to let a patient suffer if I can alleviate that suffering. That’s my calling.
Mr. Jekielek: Something we haven’t really talked about too much on the show before is the value of vitamin D because this is something that you don’t need a doctor for frankly, right?
Dr. Cole: Correct.
Mr. Jekielek: And from what I understand, it’s pretty significant having a decent level of vitamin D, puts you in a lot stronger position relative to the virus, as I understand it. Maybe you can expound on this a bit, because you mentioned it earlier.
Dr. Cole: Yeah. I did mention that, in that talk that I gave, I had mentioned, “Look, we don’t just have that vitamin D deficiency. It’s at pandemic levels. We have an indoor lifestyle now, and it’s shocking as I see those patterns in the lab, I realize how many people have a low vitamin D.” And too many doctors actually don’t check that on their patients.
So vitamin D isn’t a vitamin per se, it’s a pro hormone that our body will make in the spring and summer months when we get our sunshine and in the fall and the winter, this is where I got controversial as well, I said, “Look, there’s really no such thing as flu and cold season, there’s just low vitamin D season.” And of it’s a little hyperbolic, but even a study by Dr. Anthony Martino that came out a couple years ago, said, “Look, if your vitamin D levels are normal, your propensity to get a flu or cold is cut by half. And then if you do get one, your symptoms and severity are cut by half as well.”
So it’s out there in the medical literature and more vitamin D levels decrease cancer risks in about 17 different cancers, decrease death from coronary disease, decrease problems with osteoporosis, decrease viral infections, decrease clotting disorders. So many things that vitamin D does because it’s an essential part of our pathophysiology.
So I spoke out about this and I said, “Look, if we can get our vitamin D levels up, our chances of being severe with COVID are far less.” Well large study by Dr. Kaufman in 2020 looked back at 191,000 patients and said, “Hey look, if your vitamin D levels above 50 or not, above 50 your chance of getting COVID goes down by about half and your severity goes down by 80 plus percent.” And Mayo clinic did a study and said, if your vitamin D is above 30, your chance of being in the ICU was cut by a huge percentage. And then if it was below 30 and below 20, then that was your high percentage chance of getting intubated.
So we had signals early on. Vitamin D is like the conductor of a fine symphony. And it tells your body, this section come in, that section tune out, this section come in, and come in at mezzo forte and at forte and go down to piano. So vitamin D is that conductor of our immune system. Now you’ve heard about the cytokine storm from which people have passed.
If your vitamin D is insufficient, your immune system is more like the mosh pit at a punk rock concert, ping, ping, ping crashing together and not having that signal to turn on or turn off. So vitamin D is this fantastic conductor of orderliness in our immune responses. And every nucleus on every cell in your body has a receptor for vitamin D. So, as a pathologist and as one who studies patterns, I tried to share this message of how important this is for our overall immune health.
Mr. Jekielek: Yeah. And it’s not a cure all or something-
Dr. Cole: Oh, not at all.
Mr. Jekielek: … but it sounds like something that most people in COVID pandemic time might want to know, right?
Dr. Cole: In any flu and cold season and see, this is another fascinating data point. So the darker your skin, the farther north, you live in the world, the lower the vitamin D levels tend to be. Because dark skin is a natural sunscreen. So if you look at the death rates across the world during the first wave of the pandemic, in all the Northern cities, there’s a wall of honor for those healthcare workers and a hospital in the UK colleague of mine said, “It’s fascinating that all of those colleagues that passed away early in the pandemic, that were nurses and doctors, were all darker skinned.” And this is a public health message that is so critical, because so goes your vitamin D level. So goes your overall ability to fight off, not just COVID, but any virus in any viral season.
And so goes that basic equilibrium of your immune response. So if you looked at San Francisco, if you looked at Chicago, if you looked at Detroit, if you looked at New York, if you looked at the deaths actually in Sweden, everybody criticized Sweden’s response to the pandemic. The deaths were in the darker skin Somalian and Ethiopian women and men that were in a Northern climate with darker skin and in their culture, they cover up as well. So they had rickets level, as in, vitamin D levels of 8, 7, 9-
Mr. Jekielek: And this was studied?
Dr. Cole: This was studied. This was data, but public health messaging, “These are not the droids you’re looking for. This doesn’t matter.” It’s critical to our health. Again, as you point out, it’s not the be all, end all, but to look at public health messaging ignoring…
I was on a federal committee for race and COVID several months back invited with a couple of other, four or five of us, but that was one of the points I brought up, “Yes, we have an obesity crisis within many populations, but we also have a vitamin D crisis. And we hear about the social disparities and the social disparities causing risks for COVID, certainly that may be a factor, but we have to get down to the basic biological disparity, and to not teach people that if you have dark skin, you need even more vitamin D if you’re living further north. It’s just a basic evolutionary biology message we should be sharing.
A darker skinned individual living in Chicago will synthesize about six times less vitamin D than a lighter skinned individual. So it’s so much more important in those communities where, obviously we’re trying to optimize the health and that should be a message of public health officials. Look, what can we do that’s inexpensive and an easy message to get out there? This is one of them. It’s not the only thing obviously, but as a pattern diagnostician, I thought, “Huh, isn’t this interesting?”
Mr. Jekielek: So in terms of these patterns, what else have you seen looking through the microscope?
Dr. Cole: That’s a great question. And this was what was interesting. So pattern wise, yes, early treatments I saw with my colleagues and I didn’t treat a ton of patients, my colleagues treated a lot more than I. I helped where I could because I was busy in the lab. But in the lab, after the shots rolled out, so I do a fair amount of skin biopsy work.
And I noticed after the shots rolled out, there’s this little viral bump that I generally see in children. It’s called Molluscum contagiosum, it’s a parapoxvirus. And usually kids will get it. Contagiosum is the name because it’s pretty contagious and kids pass it back and forth when they’re little. But usually by the time you’re in your twins or teens, your immune system keeps it in check.
Mr. Jekielek: What does it do to people that have it?
Dr. Cole: Oh, that virus just causes little skin warty bumps. It’s not a human papilloma virus. It’s a papapoxyvirus, but it causes this little white warty bump. So the interesting thing was, okay, kids get that, when the shots rolled out, you remember how we rolled it out to the older age groups first? So I get a lot of skin cancer biopsies from the dermatologists and family doctors around the country and my region.
And I started noticing an uptick in this bump that I usually see in children in the elderly. And I thought, “Oh no, this is unusual. I never see this. This is an infection of childhood, not of the elderly.” And then I started seeing more and then more, and I thought, “Wait a minute, this is immune dysregulation of some sort.” And I had already had my concerns about using an experimental therapy, not knowing what certain ingredients were, not knowing what they would do.
And I, again, I had read thousands upon thousands of COVID paper, COVID was my obsession. Whether it was online lectures or reading lectures, looking at the immune responses, trying to find is anybody writing about this, et cetera. So I saw that bump. I saw that immune dysregulation, I thought, “Uh-Oh, Houston, we have a problem.” Because that line of cells, that line of T-cells that keeps viruses in check, that family of cells also keeps cancers in check. Well, at the same time, about a month or two later, all of a sudden there are certain types of cancers that I commonly see in the laboratory after 500,000 patients. You have an idea year to year over year what you’re seeing.
I started seeing endometrial cancers go up and there’s certain type… Melanomas, I started seeing thicker and earlier as well. And of course I thought, “Okay, is this because we’ve been locked down or is this because people aren’t going to their doctor, or are they missing their visits? Or is it correlating with a timeframe in which people are getting the shots?”
It was both, but I know which clinics never shut down during the pandemic, and I know which ones did. So I did a statistical analysis and regression, I thought, “Okay, I’m seeing an increase in these certain things.” Now my colleagues will criticize and say, “Well, that’s just anecdotal.” And I can say, “Yeah, you’re right. I only see 25,000 patients, 40,000 biopsies a year. You can’t do a complete statistic set on that.” But at least I saw the patterns and all science really starts with an observation.
And so I pointed this out. And then interestingly as I’ve been invited and talked at lectures around the country, other oncologists have come up to me or called me. Or even just yesterday, a radiation oncologist came up to me and said, “You’re right. Something is wrong. I am seeing cancers that we normally keep in check, and we know we can manage this cancer.
And the patient will get 2, 3, 5, 6 good years of life, but they got their shot or they got their booster, and then two months later, their cancer is a wildfire. And these are things that we’ve managed easily in the past.” So again, as a pathologist, I go to what’s the pathophysiologic mechanism, what’s causing this what’s going awry. And there was a really good paper by Dr. Föhse et al out of the Netherlands, looking at the Pfizer vaccines.
And they did a pretty good analysis of the immune system after the shots. And their conclusion was alarming and concerning in the sense that it said, we’re seeing an alteration of the innate immune response. All you hear about in the news is antibodies, antibodies, antibodies, what are your antibodies? That’s really not the most important part of our immune system. The most important part is our T-cell response.
Those are the marines of our immune system, the first ones in. And they’re the ones when an invader comes in, they have these little hand grenades, they poke a hole with an enzyme called a perforin, and then they throw in a grand enzyme and they blow up the infected cell. Same thing with cancer. They do the same thing all day long, your immune system, these soldiers, your T-cells, your macrophage or your dendritic cells.
They’re your front line saying, “It’s something, friend or foe.” So they’ll shake hands with your cells and say, “Oh, this cell has some mutations. This is an early cancer cell. They’ll blow it up. Well, that study out of the Netherlands was saying this innate immune system, this innate immune response seems to be altered in not acting right. And we have receptors, these little puzzle pattern receptors, this locks with that, and they’re called Toll-like receptors, spelled just like a Toll road.
So Toll receptor 7 and 8 are very important for signaling to say to your body, “Hey, you need to be awake and on to fight off this virus, that virus, that virus, that virus.” So we have virus in our bodies all the time, but our immune system says, “No, I’ll keep you in check. You’re not going to wake up. You can’t infect me right now. We’re revved. We know how to fight you off.”
There are also some Toll-like receptors that are very important for talking to your innate immune system. And your T-cell saying, “Hey, if you’re in normal numbers, then we’ll be revved up and we’ll fight off those cancer cells.” Well, in that Pfizer study by Dr. Föhse, they realize these receptors are dropped down and tuned out or tuned all the way off in some.
And so the problem now becomes that signal you have to your soldiers, now the soldiers are snoozing or drunk in the barracks and they can’t even wake up. And now if you look at the data you realize after the shots, there were tons of shingles outbreaks, tons of them. That was another pattern I saw in the lab as well. Well that’s because those Toll-like receptors were down regulated.
Same thing, I started seeing the uptick in cancers. Well, why is that? Because mechanistically things that were always supposed to be on were unintentionally shut off. And in addition to that, we have other gene receptors to which the spike protein binds the P53 tumor suppressor gene, the guardian of our genome dysregulation in that gene can also lead to cancer pathways, well we know part of this spike protein binds to that. The BRCA gene you hear about in breast cancers, same thing. It binds to that.
So we know from a laboratory nerdy, geeky point of view, the mechanisms. And so in the laboratory, I’m saying I’m seeing an uptick in cancers that I shouldn’t be seeing, at rates I shouldn’t be seeing, in age groups I shouldn’t be seeing. And then I’ve talked to colleagues around the world and they’re starting to verify what we really need is when a scientist… they just basically marginalize you and say, “Oh, that’s out of the narrative, don’t look at that.”
My point of view is if we have something novel and new, which they say the virus was, even though it was 80% not novel, because it was so similar to SARS-CoV-1, when something is novel and new, i.e. these gene injections to stimulate an immune response, that’s novel and new.
So we should take this approach of the French Legal System, guilty until proven innocent. So every adverse reaction, every odd pattern outside the normal after these shots, should have triggered a red flag to say, “We need to do an autopsy on that death. It was proximate to their shots,” or “Gosh, this patient that was healthy and well now is not so healthy and well. We need to investigate is this related to this new experimental modality that we’re putting on to a broad world population.” That would be the logical thing to do. That would be the observational and the scientific thing to do.
Meanwhile, we had federal agents who shall not be named saying, or we could name them, it doesn’t matter. But at the end of the day, they said, “Don’t do autopsies. We’re not going to look at that. We’re not going to fund that.” Which doesn’t, from a moral ethical point of view, make any sense. If we’re going to roll something out, brand new in our population and then tell people they’re safe and effective, there’s no problems, you can’t make that claim.
In fact, I think it violates the false claims act in advertising here in the United States, in terms of telling people they need to be in an experiment, something safe and effective, but you’re not studying whether they are or not. Those of us who have sounded the alarm, we’re realizing in many people they’re not safe and not effective. The laboratory patterns in addition to the cancers, we see elevations and clotting factors persisting for a long period of time, post vaccine.
We should be doing a comparison of the COVID recovered patients to the vaccinated patients and these different disease patterns. Because in a vaccine patient, you’re only getting about 12% of the protein of the whole virus, in natural infection, you get your whole immune system to talk to each other. With a vaccine, it’s a different story. And these shots never were modified from the original gene sequence. Now we’re onto Omicron. These shots don’t even cover Omicron.
So these clotting patterns, these death patterns, these autopsy patterns, these cancer patterns, these viral patterns, all I’m saying is pathologists are generally the first ones to see something as awry or a miss with the health of a regional population. Like when HIV was discovered, I know one of the colleagues who was seeing some of the skin cancers related to HIV in New York and he thought, “Huh, this is a certain population.”
And then it takes doctors coming together, actually to have dialogue. We’ve missed dialogue in society these past two years to say, “Are you seeing this pattern? Are you seeing this pattern?” Instead they marginalize you or say, “Oh, that’s just crazy, and of course that’s not happening.” Instead of saying, “Hey, let’s sit down at the table, dialogue together, put data together and figure out is this a signal or not?” And if it’s not great, but if it is, we owe humanity what we trained to do to find out why.
Mr. Jekielek: So I guess suggested inadvertently a bunch of studies that should be ongoing. You talked about autopsies, but why don’t you give me a picture based on what you’re talking right now, based on the signals that you’ve been seeing, right? What are the studies that you think should be done as a priority right now?
Dr. Cole: Number one, all the federal databases, a cancer is put into the system by billing codes. So it would be really easy for the insurance companies and the government to do a statistical age bracketed analysis for every type of cancer because we have to code. When we put on our reports, what type of cancer, what code it gets, so we could do an age stratification to very easily look at upticks, post roll out of the shots.
And you can do a very easy comparative cohort of that against the unvaccinated, those who have chosen not to get these shots. And you could do it from 2018 to 2019, we have the data sets and these should be open public record. It would be very easy to now have statistical significance of millions of patients. So that would be a very simple one that we should have done the day the shots rolled out.
Every government agency should have been tracking that and report it. And it’s interesting in retrospect to go and think that since the first shot rolled out, how many data safety briefings, how many efficacy briefings, how many, “This is succeeding, this isn’t.” Have we heard from the FDA, the CDC or the NIH in the last year now, not a single public safety. That should have been monthly and we haven’t had a single one, even though they promised they would, they didn’t. So that would be one study, just a statistical analysis of cancer upticks.
Mr. Jekielek: So just to be clear, and you would use the 2018, 2019 data as a control data?
Dr. Cole: As a control group, correct.
Mr. Jekielek: I see. And then have the unvaccinated as another group to relate and then the vaccinated.
Dr. Cole: Yeah. From the time the shots rolled out until now, that would be a good comparison.
Mr. Jekielek: And also, I mean there’s different vaccines, that’s another thing that is in play.
Dr. Cole: True, true. And the two mRNA based ones. At the end of the day, they’re all making a spike protein. And the important aspect of the toxic effect that one is seeing in the body is that the spike protein technically has toxic capacity. When we designed these, there were individuals that went before Congress that are very well known in the realms of vaccinology that said we need to be very, very careful about using the whole spike protein, knowing the history of the SARS-CoV-1 vaccine failures, and the MERS attempted vaccine failures that never made it out of the animal trials because of the toxic effects.
And the adverse immune responses that came down the road once the new wild type viruses would come along. So we knew early on, using a full spike sequence was a bad idea. There was much talk of just using a receptor-binding domain and/or using another protein, but not using the spike.
But at the end of the day, he said, “Eh, we’ll just do the spike.” Well, the Salk Institute did studies and they took the spike protein attached to a little inert particle. So it was only the spike being injected in their mammal models and all the same disease we saw in the lungs, the brain, the heart, the kidneys, the liver that we were seeing in some of the infected patients, we were seeing exactly with the spike protein alone.
So we realized the spike can cause all the same changes as the entire virus can. And meanwhile, we chose to give that spike as the protein, well, the mRNA to make our body make the spike, which we’ve never done before. With a lipid nanoparticle, which is like garlic, it goes everywhere. Those lipid nanoparticles can diffuse to any organ and cross the blood brain barrier.
The lipid nanoparticles as well have so many chemicals that we’ve never trialed in humans before either. So we have all these parts that we’re putting into people hoping for a good response, but not knowing in any long-term study what the long term data is going to be. So it’s a grand experiment on humanity that we’ve done.
But we had early signals of toxicity and we had early opportunities to say, “Maybe this isn’t a good idea.” Especially if we had deferred to the great data we were already seeing on early treatments, and the unfortunate narrative that there was nothing we could do to save people from this disease. Lock down, wear a mask and get a shot, that is your only option. Which is nonsense because from a public health point of view, obviously we already talked about the vitamin D messages.
Talk about losing weight. Talk about modifying our poor western diet here and in other parts of the world. Talk about moving our bodies, talk about getting sleep, public health, but meanwhile, there’s nothing we can do, is all we ever heard. But from a laboratory point of view, I watched who was healthy, I watched who was unhealthy. I watched these reactions. So these studies could have been done and should have been done.
So the first one I would do would be the cancer analysis. The second one that has started to be done by people who are looking from the outside in, but should be done by the federal agencies, and our data in the United States is very poor. A lot of the world has much better data than we do, but we’re seeing an uptick in all cause deaths in groups that have received the shot versus those that didn’t.
And Dr. [Pundnatos 00:39:34] out of Columbia, a neurobiologist, Dr. Neil [Fentin 00:39:37] out of United Kingdom. So they’re looking at the data sets, who got the shot, who didn’t get the shot. Those who did, what are they dying from? And across the board, their death rate is now up compared to the other group. Which tells us again, there’s something mechanistically wrong with our immune system or with this toxin long-term or short-term.
And here’s an interesting aspect of it. It’s that spike protein, I keep calling it a toxin, I know I’ll get criticized by some for that. Dr. Ogata [from] Harvard did a study and we’re told you get the shot in the arm, your cells will use that mRNA or the DNA and the J&J gets turned into messenger RNA and then makes the spike protein. It stays in your arm and you’re good.
Well, actually the studies from Dr. Ogata [from] Harvard showed, no it actually circulates throughout your body for anywhere from two to four weeks. We know from the Salk study that that spike can cause inflammation and the same reactions as COVID did. So we know now for two to four weeks, you have something that can trigger immune cascades and problem circulating.
So when they say, “Gosh, a death from a shot can only be in the first couple of days, historically.” Not of a toxin is circulating for two to four weeks. So when we hear of these famous people that died two weeks after their shot, oh no, these are not the droids you’re looking for. It wasn’t the shot. Mechanistically that protein is circulating. So it could be the shot. So we should have done autopsies on all these people, looking for the presence of that circulating spike protein.
And then in a study published in the Journal of Immunology in exosomes, we found the spike protein circulating for up to four months. And then the work of Dr. Bruce Patterson, where he’s been tracking what type of cells in the body carry the spike protein and for how long in patients post-COVID, for up to 15 months, they had the spike as well.
So I’m not saying it’s all the shot. I don’t want to say that. But a lot of people have long haul symptoms from COVID itself. So we need to be studying who are the ones with certain genetic subtypes that are predisposed to having long haul disease or vaccine injury. And these are things from a molecular level in the laboratory we can do. We can say your gene type is this. You are at a higher risk from COVID or your gene type is this you’re to higher risk from shots.
So very easy studies to do, but then when you go to the federal agencies to say, “This is something we should be really looking at.” And they say, “No.” And I don’t know if that’s in acquiescence to big pharma and their funding and the intertwining dependence they have on each other, that these are captured federal agencies, that are really now more representing pharma than they are the citizens.
So these agencies should be studying the adverse effects and instead they have a self-interest in the revenues flowing into them, because they have patent rights that are being used to make a vaccine that’s being used to be mandated upon our citizenry. That’s immoral and that’s unethical to have that intertwining interest and then to mandate it as well. And that conflict of interest inhibits the opportunity to do full and complete and good science.
Mr. Jekielek: So I want to go back to something you said a little bit earlier, and I got the sense that you’re saying that some of these studies that you’re suggesting be done urgently, actually the data exists already for them. And it’s just a matter of basically doing the analysis at this point.
Dr. Cole: You’re correct. And that’s really an interesting, easy way… I could be wrong in my assessment and if I am, I want to know. This is about humanity and this is about, “Is there harm or not?” And if there is signal, then we need to change what we’re doing quickly. And so because of AI algorithms, because of our software abilities now, because of these large federal databases that keep track of these billing codes, we could do that yesterday.
If there were one, the political will, number two, the funding, or number three, if they don’t keep us from doing it, just like they want to hide the Pfizer data and that had to be forced. At the same time, just looking into our own governmental data should be a very easy signal to look at.
Mr. Jekielek: You’re suggesting another thing here, which is, I guess you’re hoping that all this data becomes available. The data that’s not readily available right now, for whatever reason, right?
Dr. Cole: Yeah. If indeed we’re in a pandemic, we should have absolute transparency in data and information. If you want to know what’s going on in life, follow the money. If you want to know what the truth is, see who’s being silenced. They threw Galileo in the tower, he wasn’t wrong about his astronomical observations. And it’s very frustrating to be seeing things and scientifically being silenced instead of having dialogue with colleagues.
Because historically science was done with observation, set your hypothesis, do the experiment, confirm or deny it. But in this day and age now, if you see something that doesn’t fit a certain construct or rubric, you’re canceled, instead of, “Huh, now that’s an interesting thought. Does it have validity? Should we do something based on that? Should we look at that data? Should we see if the science bears it out or not?” “Yeah, because lives are on the line here. If this is supposedly a pandemic, we should be doing the most assiduous scientific pursuit of anything we’ve ever done.”
Mr. Jekielek: And you mean supposedly, just because you’re not seeing this being done, basically, for whatever reason.
Dr. Cole: Correct. Correct. When you hear, “Don’t study that. Don’t do autopsies,” why wouldn’t we. “Don’t look at that database. Why? Why wouldn’t we, of course we should. I mean, this is about, obviously it’s about a virus. It’s about humanity. It’s about the human condition, but it is bad science not to look, you cannot find that for which you do not look.
So we should be looking, and to save lives, we should be looking now. And to prevent harm, that’s the other important point. If we think that these modalities are safe and effective or certain drugs that we’ve used that, in retrospect are toxic as well, remdesivir as an example. And the WHO a year ago, don’t use that.
So we should be looking at all these drugs. We should be looking at all these mechanisms. We should be looking at the pathology. We should be looking at the vaccines. We should be looking at everything. And instead, all we hear is, “Do this, this, and this, do what we say.” That’s illogical. I’m a scientist. We function as Dr. Spock does, based on logic, but so much of what we’re doing is so illogical and underfunded, or if it raises the hackles or the interest, it’s quickly squashed down.
Mr. Jekielek: So you mentioned the mandating, being tied into potential conflicts of interest. And I guess I wanted to fully understand why the whole picture of why the mandates themselves, being the MC at the get rid of the mandates march.
Dr. Cole: First and foremost, just constitutional bill of rights principles, freedom of autonomy, of body, to have an experiment forced upon anybody. I mean, even if these were safe and effective, I would still be against mandating them because your body is yours. And it’s the only thing you have that’s yours. And to have that violated is against the principles of what this nation’s founded upon. So that’s one, and I think it’s a universal principle, I mean, not just this nation, but that should apply worldwide.
Number two, they shouldn’t be mandated because they are experimental. And if you follow the morals and ethics of any experiment, any institutional review board, any study, you have to have informed consent. To mandate something further which you can’t consent is against all of what we have ever done in medicine and ethics until we had the unfortunate experimentation in Nazi Germany, and in the subsequent number of trials.
To force people to be your experimental subject is not who we are. And not only as a people or as humanity or doctors, it’s just not who we are. And meanwhile, we’re mandating something for the which we’re not telling people all the ingredients, for the which we have seen more deaths from these shots than all other vaccines combined over the last 30 years of data gathering. Over 21,000 deaths in the VAERS system, that’s a highly under reported number and you can get into the statistics and studies on that again as well.
Mr. Jekielek: I just want to jump in for a sec. So I’ve talked about that with other guests, but again, the VAERS system is a signal.
Dr. Cole: It’s a signal.
Mr. Jekielek: It’s not definitive, right.
Dr. Cole: But it’s our best we have.
Mr. Jekielek: Right. Right. I’m not disputing that, but my point is sometimes I hear this conflated, people say no, “This is a 100%. This is real.”
Dr. Cole: Oh, no, no, but just like I’m seeing signals in the lab. Because it’s consistent signal year over year, so people say, like Fauci and Walensky said last week, “Oh. But people go get reported into VAERS after a car crash or whatever.” I thought. “Yeah. But they do after a measles vaccine too, or after a mumps vaccine.” So it’s apples to apples in terms of the reporting to the system. So that was a suspicious argument they made in front of Congress the other day.
And I thought, “Huh, I suppose they’re trying to hide something because our VAERS’ data matches quite well with the EUROMOMO data, the European data and their adverse systems. And then the Yellow Card system in the UK. And then the adverse reactions in the New Zealand reporting system, et cetera, et cetera.
So it’s consistent across the board, the number of adverse reactions and deaths we’re seeing post-shot worldwide. So we can make that argument about our own VAERS system. But then we can look at the nations that have better data than we do even. And they’re still seeing that excess signal of injury and death. So it’s an experiment on humanity, it’s obviously another reason that I’m against these mandates. And then the most important one of all right now is basic science.
Our policy should rapidly evolve to match the science. Scientifically right now we’ve been blessed with an accident and that’s Omicron. Omicron is essentially a different virus. It doesn’t branch off. If you look at the phylogenetic patterns, if you look at the genes, Omicron is its own family tree, it doesn’t branch off the other variants. And gratefully, it’s acting more like a common cold because it doesn’t bind it… I could get nerdy on all the different receptors, I’m not going to, but it’s a common cold. That’s a blessing.
But at the same time, the vaccine doesn’t even cover it. The proteins on that spike are so different now that the shot doesn’t cover it. Now we know the shot from what we’ve discussed earlier, has certain toxicities. To mandate a shot that was originated for this early family tree Wuhan, that’s now extinct as of almost a year ago, doesn’t even exist. The shot is for that.
We’re saying, “We want to give you a shot for five generations ago on this virus, but we’re going to give it to you for something that’s not even related to this.” And this is where the Supreme Court was absolutely wrong last week. Because when they said to healthcare workers, well, you can still mandate that. Why would you mandate something on data that was from four months ago for a different virus?
This is a different virus now, essentially. Yeah, sure. We’re calling it SARS-CoV-2 Omicron, but is it really? My wife and I both did our undergraduate honors theses on molecular phylogenetic trees. So this is right up the alley of what we do. And when I look the phylogenetics, the family tree, the branching of this, it is insane to say, “I want you to take a shot for which there’s potential death or harm in order to keep your job, in order to keep gainful employment, in order to get into a restaurant or be functional in society, when now we’re dealing with a virus that is completely different essentially.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, and there’s this other element. I mean, coronaviruses, from what I understand are known to mutate, quite a bit. So, I mean, presumably this is understood as the vaccine development was happening and treatment development and everything. And so how does this factor to the equation here?
Dr. Cole: Well, we’re back to square one, essentially with the virus. And now we have a much more benign virus. A blessing from the universe, from the heavens, whatever you want to call it, that’s a good thing. It’s acting almost as a natural vaccine. It has sequences that are similar to the other portions of the virus, it’s just not as damaging as the earlier variants. So coronaviruses always mutate, like you said.
When we started down this pathway of vaccination, if we were scientifically honest and had listened to immunologists of years past and years present, we would’ve said you cannot chase a coronavirus. There’s a reason 40 years later, there’s not an HIV vaccine. That’s because that virus always mutates. It has a different spike, but it has a spike nonetheless. There are certain families of viruses that have a consistent mutational rate.
We’ve known historically in virology that coronaviruses have a consistent mutational rate. A vaccine is for planning ahead, you find a protein in a virus that you say, “Okay, if I give this now, I’ll make some immune memory. And then when this virus comes along, the body will be stimulated slightly to remember that to say, “oh, I recognize that. I can fight that off.”
In the middle of a pandemic with a virus that consistently mutates, we’ve never done anything like this before. And it doesn’t make scientific sense. We are always going to be playing Whac-A-Mole, trying to catch that next mutation, but it’s always going to be a mutation ahead of us. This is a family of viruses for the which we have never successfully made a vaccine. And if we’re scientifically honest, can’t make a vaccine, because it will always be ahead of us.
Now we can make perhaps slightly safer ones, but we’ve never done it in those other ways, that receptor-binding domain or the nucleocapsid, there’s some of them out there they’re still experimental as well. So we’re kind of in this conundrum of, go get your booster, but your booster is pointless, because the virus is going to do what it’s always going to. The virus is going to virus, I’d like to say. It’s going to do what it’s going to do.
And to play God against a virus in a way that it will always outsmart us is not wisdom and science. And that’s where we have to say, “Okay, what is the safe and effective early treatment?” Why don’t we focus on the treat modalities instead of thinking that we can prevent something that scientifically… I’m not saying don’t do science. Science is fantastic. We should always be looking at ways to do this. But when there’s more harm than good or more potential harm than good, that’s the balance that we always weigh in medicine.
And we’ve lost a lot of our ethical approach in this regard. And interestingly, if you look at the work of Dr. Gabayan Vandenbosch, he knows, and the Dr. Föhse study, I mentioned earlier, we’re messing up our innate immunity. We know from the UK, if you got your shots before you ended up getting infected, you had a narrowed immune response to a certain part of the virus, the nucleocapsids, that was UK week 42 data.
We’re seeing now that those who got the shots that are getting Omicron are getting it at higher rates than those that did not get the shots, that’s data out of Denmark. So the shots literally predispose you at a higher rate than if you didn’t. So there’s so many things that we’re seeing that if… History is a good teacher, and if we had listened to history, we would’ve said, “Huh, is the scientific approach we’re taking prudent or not?” Now it’s easy through the retrospective scope, to say not. But if we had listened to some of the vocal scientists that were being silenced, then we may not find ourselves in the position we’re in now.
Mr. Jekielek: So how has business been since you came into the limelight, so to speak from behind the microscope.
Dr. Cole: And that’s what’s been fascinating. So as one who is now viewed as a heretic for speaking science, I’ve been attacked. I hold 12 state medical licenses of which four are under attack presently. Not a single patient complained against me out of the 500,000 patients I’ve seen over the last 26 years. All political attacks from colleagues or political entities on my licenses business because of my unprofessional conduct for speaking science and data, I’ve had insurance companies pull me off their panels. So as of January 1st, I lost about 30% of my business. And at the end of the day, they were mad at me for using a safe, effective drug that kept three to 400 people out of the hospital. So I’ve been punished for speaking science data and truth. And at the end of the day, do I regret it? Absolutely not. I saved lives.
Mr. Jekielek: Why do you think there’s so few doctors looking at things the way you and some of the other people that were around at today’s event are.
Dr. Cole: Fear. Fear is the real pandemic. I don’t fault my colleagues per se. Many of them are early out of training, have mountains of debt. If they speak up, they’ve lost their training and their job as a physician. Then you have more, towards my age group, that have kids in college and have a long established career. They don’t want to rock the boat.
It’s interesting if you observe, those who have spoken out, tend to be independent and/or willing to lose their jobs, because the truth is more important than money. The value of humanity is more important than money. The way we treat our fellow human being is more important than money. Am I benefiting from what I’ve been speaking about and doing? Absolutely not. Are many of my colleagues? No. Several have lost jobs, several have lost contracts, several have lost licenses, but at the end of the day, the honest answer, I don’t know why my colleagues won’t step out, but that’s some of my suppositions.
I can imagine those scenarios, but at the same time, truth is truth. And it’s inconvenient no matter where it goes sometimes. And sometimes you have to follow that inconvenient data. And I always reserve the right to be wrong and say to my scientific colleagues, “Let’s sit down at the table together, coffee, lunch. If I’m wrong, please show me where I’m wrong. Because what we’re sharing is on behalf of humanity.” If there are financial interests that drive them, then I think it inhibits that honest, full, complete conversation sometimes.
And that’s where it becomes very frustrating is we should really… I can’t question anybody’s motives. I don’t know why they won’t speak out, but I do know those individuals that are in this fight for the right to share data, science, truth and fight for the freedom for humanity seem to have a very similar mindset, but they’re not all politically the same, they just come from the same ethic.
Mr. Jekielek: So today, magic wand, you can help develop some policy thoughts, I don’t know what you’re going to come up with, but what would you like to see change right now?
Dr. Cole: Number one, I would like to see public health actually be about public health. That’s I think the biggest tragedy in this last two years, is there’s so many things we could have done to be a healthier people. Some of the things I’ve already talked about, so wave the magic wand to public health.
Number two, get the government out of the people’s medical care. The government, policymakers don’t need to be dictating what treatment you do or don’t get. Let doctors be doctors and prescribe medicines that are safe and effective. Don’t punish them for being good doctors and protect the children. Don’t ever experiment on the children. So if I had the magic wand tomorrow, those would be the things I would say. Let’s change our public health in the sense that it’s about health. Let’s stop the mandates because they’re ridiculous. Let doctors be doctors. Let’s protect our children and value the next generation. The fabric of a society is measured by how we treat our children.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, Dr. Ryan Cole, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show.
Dr. Cole: Jan, it’s an honor. Thank you so much.
Mr. Jekielek: We live in an age of weaponized information and censorship. To be the first to know about new American Thought Leaders episodes and related content, you can sign up for our newsletter at theepochtimes.com/newsletter. You can just hit the check mark on American Thought Leaders.
Subscribe to the American Thought Leaders newsletter so you never miss an episode.
“We live in a system that favors high-profit medicines. Those are the only things in play, and they don’t work. They are failing,” says Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care specialist. He’s the president of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.
Two years into this pandemic, why haven’t there been more clinical trials of repurposed drugs to treat COVID-19?
“It’s not about ivermectin. It’s about the pharmaceutical industry capture of our agencies, and how our policies are all directed at suppressing and avoiding” the use of cheap, repurposed drugs, says Kory.
Below is a rush transcript of this American Thought Leaders episode from Jan 29, 2022. This transcript may not be in its final form and may be updated.
Jan Jekielek: Dr. Pierre Kory, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.
Dr. Pierre Kory: Thanks. Thanks for having me.
Mr. Jekielek: So Dr. Kory, you’ve been extremely active in early treatment and, frankly, treatment in general for COVID. Well, you kind of stumbled into this in a way. Why don’t you tell me a little bit about what you were doing before the pandemic?
Dr. Kory: Yeah. I’m a pulmonary and critical care specialist, which means I specialize in lung diseases and also the care of the critically ill. I work in intensive care units. As the pandemic started, I was the chief of the critical care service and the medical director of the Trauma and Life Support Center at the University of Wisconsin. And so, I was sort of in the ivory tower and I was a clinical leader in the intensive care unit.
My career’s really been one as an educator. I’m what’s called a clinician educator, so I’ve always been heavily involved in patient care and teaching doctors. And I’ve tried to raise the next generation of doctors, particularly in my specialty. I’ve trained fellows that have wanted to specialize in my branch of medicine.
I also teach general medicine doctors. That’s probably the thing I’m most proud of in my career is I’m considered a master educator. I’ve won lots of teaching awards, and that’s the thing that I found the most pleasure in. So that’s really what I was and what I was doing when the pandemic broke out.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, I’ve read that you’ve actually held three positions during the pandemic, none of which you hold currently.
Dr. Kory: Correct. Yeah. I keep charging through jobs.
Mr. Jekielek: What happened?
Dr. Kory: Well, I mean, I’ll summarize by saying each job I left for different reasons and under different circumstances, but they have one main theme, which is, if you speak out or speak up against the prevailing practice or policy either of the healthcare system or of the hospital and particularly if you do so publicly, hospitals don’t like that and they seek to quiet you or censor you. And they’re kind of allergic to public-facing physicians with contrarian opinions.
I’ll tell you, I resigned my first job because I was in moral distress over how they were caring for patients, meaning they were offering them no specific therapies. And I saw patients dying at rates I’d never seen before. I said, “I cannot remain a clinical leader under these circumstances.” And I resigned.
Mr. Jekielek: But because you had an idea about how you could care for them.
Dr. Kory: I mean, within four patients. I mean, you want to know how absurd this is. The thing that we knew almost immediately when we started taking care of these patients is number one, they were clotting like we’d never seen before. That first wave of COVID, that Alpha variant, I’ve never seen such degrees of clotting. The clotting is still there. It’s not to the degree that I first saw in these patients. It was so overwhelmingly profound.
Clearly, they needed blood thinners. You didn’t need a big randomized control trial. You just needed to know how to doctor. So I saw them dying of untreated clotting. The second thing is they were inflamed.
They were in states of multi-organ inflammation to such a degree, they clearly needed something to suppress inflammation, that for which is corticosteroids. And so for me, it was a no-brainer. Give them steroids and give them blood thinners. I mean, that was just the basic first start. And I was attacked for advocating for treatments that were not “proven.”
They didn’t have trials to suggest it was proven and people saying that I might cause harm by using a treatment that, based on my years of experience, my expertise, my insight, and my developing knowledge of the disease told me to use, I was being told, “Don’t use them until a trial proves that you can.” And I refused to practice under those circumstances and I refused to lead a team.
I had 17 ICU doctors under me, and I will tell you most of all of the hospitalists at that point were listening to me. I refused to sit in a position of leadership where my leaders were telling me to be quiet and to not advocate for these therapies, and so I resigned.
The second position I was in, I was offered a new contract suddenly after my ivermectin testimony in the Senate, where I advocated for the critical role and the need for a global deployment of ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of COVID based on what we had uncovered in the science that we had amassed and that, as you might know, the testimony went viral and the hospital was not happy.
They accused me of speaking for them and speaking on behalf of them, and they didn’t fire me. They offered me a new contract, which is in their right. They’re a private corporation, but it had about five or six different clauses restricting my First Amendment rights.
And so I said, “No, thank you.” And I moved on. So I resigned from one, voluntarily left the other one, mutually left the other one. And then the third one I was fired, and I was fired with a baseless accusation that was unsubstantiated, undocumented, that I had said something untoward about the vaccines to a patient. And for that I needed to be fired. It was a quick phone call, by the way. It was just one phone call, “We don’t need you coming around anymore.”
Mr. Jekielek: Well, and now, I mean, you didn’t stop working. I know that.
Dr. Kory: Well, so now I mean, I’ve always been working for the FLCCC (Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance). It’s a nonprofit organization for which I’m the chief medical officer and president. And so I do work for them. I get a modest salary from them because that’s actually a 30-hour-a-day job. I mean, we’re literally in a world crisis every day in the organization and so it takes up a lot of my time.
But I actually, the other thing that I do is I take care of patients and I’ve been doing it pro bono. I’ve taken care of hundreds of patients, outpatients throughout the pandemic, over the phone without cost. I just, anyone who reaches out to me, I help them. And I plan to start up my own practice soon. I’m going to start a telehealth practice and really focusing on COVID and post-COVID complications.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, I guess, where are we in terms of treatment? Because this has been developing. There’s, essentially, all these different treatments out there. There’s huge gradation in terms of how much they cost, how effective they are. I’ve been hearing that some of them are even negatively effective. Where are we in terms of treatment? And of course, let’s talk about both inpatient, which is where you started, and then this outpatient side.
Dr. Kory: Let’s talk about the United States because I think they’re the most absurd example of the deplorable state of where we are with therapeutics. Like, what is officially being practiced and recommended by our health agencies and deployed by our hospitals? The best way to understand it is what you already mentioned, which is the cost. All you need to do is look at the cost of the medicines that are being used right now in this country compared to the two dozen compounds that have shown efficacy in trials across the world.
Every single agent that’s officially met the approval or recommendation by our agencies is extremely high cost. And when I say there’s well over two dozen compounds shown efficacy, almost all of the others cost less than five dollars. Not one is recommended in this country, not even vitamin D.
So your question about where are we with therapeutics, it’s very hard to answer without getting angry because where we are with therapeutics is exactly where the system in which we practice leads us. And it’s a system which essentially favors and is structured around the regulatory and/or approval of high profit, patented novel pharmaceutical industry products.
It is a system that systematically and has for decades fought against the use of repurposed or generic drugs. And I will tell you the most effective drugs that we and my organization have identified in this pandemic as being effective in this disease, they’re almost all, with maybe the exception of monoclonal antibodies, they’re almost all costing less than five dollars and have been around for decades. Not one is being approved in this country.
I’ve lately in my close study of not only COVID and trying to understand and how that system has failed in its response, how the US health system… I’ve become a close student of that system and now I see how it works.
I now can explain their behaviors and it’s essentially a system which marches in lockstep with the interests of the pharmaceutical industry and to protect their profits. And those behaviors actually, and this is not an overstatement, it’s not hyperbole, have now reached a level of crimes against humanity.
We already know the pharmaceutical industry has committed crimes over the last decades. I mean, just in the last two decades alone, they’re up to 6 billion in criminal fines, and that’s not counting the crime of the opioid epidemic.
So we know that they’re capable of criminal actions and their criminal actions in suppressing and distorting the science around these low cost repurposed drugs have starved people of effective therapeutics, not only in this country but across the world. And it’s led to millions of deaths.
Mr. Jekielek: A lot to take in.
Dr. Kory: Yeah.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, so I think when we were speaking earlier, you mentioned to me that hydroxychloroquine was one of the early repurposed drugs which was proposed and has been used since in some places. But I think you told me you yourself were pretty convinced it wouldn’t work, but something changed your mind along the way.
Dr. Kory: Yeah. So we were led to believe, and I say me, myself, my colleagues, I’ll say two things about what happened with hydroxychloroquine. At that time, myself and my colleagues were in the early formation of my organization, the FLCCC. We were really focused. Our first protocol was totally directed at the hospital patient and hydroxychloroquine was very quickly, we understood that it didn’t work in the hospital and also didn’t have a rationale for why it would work in a hospital.
It had antiviral properties. Why would you give it two weeks into the disease? So we never really had that on our hospital protocol. I think I used it in the first couple of patients, but I was very quickly not impressed with any benefits that I saw. And I was really concerned about the harm, so we didn’t use it.
And at the time as an organization, we were not focused on the outpatient arena because we’re all ICU doctors. But I will say that 2020 was what I consider the… So in this decades-long war on repurposed drugs waged by the pharmaceutical industry, 2020 was the war on hydroxychloroquine.
And they basically through a number and series of actions were able to convince the world’s health systems, the medical community of the globe, that hydroxychloroquine was an ineffective and dangerous drug while the opposite was true. And I will say that we believed some of it.
When we saw all the negative trials, the only trials that were showing up in high impact journals were negative ones, meaning showing that it didn’t work or that it was toxic. And so we were influenced and it’s essentially pharmaceutical propaganda that they use medical journals to convince doctors away from repurposed drugs. And that’s what happened with hydroxychloroquine.
I have colleagues who fought that war. So the colleagues like Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Harvey Risch, they knew it worked. They knew that the preponderance of evidence showed that it worked. And it was only recently, and I will say that I became convinced based on the preponderance of the evidence about six months ago that it was an effective drug. I disagreed with my colleagues.
Dr. Marik put a lot more weight on the official published trials in the major medical journals. And it was after reading Bobby Kennedy’s book where we learned what they did. And what they did is they designed trials focused only on the hospitalized patient using essentially near lethal, toxic doses of the drug, where the treated patients did worse. They died more often than placebo. And using those trials, they convinced the world not to use hydroxychloroquine. And they did that only focusing on the hospital.
I remember in 2020 when our federal government agencies came up with a policy and they told the entire nation’s hospitals and doctors, “We are restricting the use of hydroxychloroquine to the hospital.” That was a criminal action. That was fraudulent. There was no reason why you would want to restrict it to the hospital.
You want to use it early in disease as an antiviral. And not only after they committed those fraudulent trials and there was fraudulent papers and editorials in the journals that got retracted. But even after you retract something, the damage is already done.
So they put fraudulent studies published in major journals, like The Lancet. Then they retracted them and they literally prevented outpatient doctors from using it. And after those trials came out, they actually canceled the studies of early treatment.
They canceled ongoing trials of early treatment of hydroxychloroquine. So the war on repurposed drugs, 2020 was the war on hydroxychloroquine. 2021 has been the war of ivermectin. That’s the war I’ve had a front row seat and I’ve been fighting with every waking moment for the last year.
And you know what the war of 2022 is? It’s a war on the drug called fluvoxamine, which is an antidepressant which has potent anti-inflammatory properties which greatly reduces the risk of death and hospitalization. And by the way, that study, a large, multicenter, double-blind, randomized control trial published in The Lancet in November, what have our federal agencies done about that drug and that trial? They have ignored it. It’s called crickets.
The NIH has specifically avoided updating the recommendation on fluvoxamine despite it meets the level of evidence which purportedly the system runs on, right? Which is these large double-blind trials done by major academic medical centers. It has that, and the NIH refuses to update their guidance on the drug named fluvoxamine.
And I believe, and I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy. It’s not a conspiracy. I believe they’re ignoring it and they asked the Infectious Disease Society of America to address it. And you know what the Infectious Disease Society of America did about fluvoxamine in their recommendation? You know how they updated it? They continue to say, “Do not use outside of a clinical trial.”
They just did the clinical trial. It was phenomenally effective. So I’m just bringing up these examples because for me, although I’m known as an ivermectin expert and advocate for ivermectin, it’s not about ivermectin. It’s about the pharmaceutical industry capture of our agencies and how our policies are all directed at suppressing and avoiding use of repurposed drugs. And it has to stop.
Mr. Jekielek: So with hydroxychloroquine in this case, you said six months ago your mind changed. Was it your colleagues coming to you with studies that showed that it worked or was it-
Dr. Kory: Yes. I understood what was… It came much more clear what was going on is that they were attacking drugs that were repurposed. And so I decided to re-look at hydroxychloroquine and enough doctors were saying that it was working. I heard doctors from around the world who still found efficacy. And although we were really advocating ivermectin, I thought ivermectin was more potent than hydroxychloroquine, I looked back. And when I saw the studies, I was astounded.
I mean, the sheer numbers of studies that have been done, observational, randomized, it’s over 200 studies. And they’re all generally consistently positive, especially when you look at the early treatment aspect. So they convinced us that it didn’t work, but that’s in the late phase disease. When you restrict the studies to just early treatment, they’re profoundly and consistently positive. And that’s when I knew it was an effective drug.
It’s now on our protocols. And the interesting thing about hydroxychloroquine, which is really interesting, is even though our organization, our protocols, they’re all combination therapies. We use multiple different agents working at several mechanisms. We have found that in Omicron, actually we just updated our protocols this week.
I now have hydroxychloroquine as the preferred agent against Omicron because the pathway in which the Omicron variant enters and replicates inside the cell, it utilizes a pathway that’s particularly specifically targeted by hydroxychloroquine.
In the last weeks as I treat patients, I’ve had patients on ivermectin. I add hydroxychloroquine. And then when they take them, numbers of patients have said, “I suddenly felt a lot better after you added the hydroxychloroquine.” So I’m seeing a robust clinical impact when I use that drug. And so not only did we not have it on our protocols, it’s on our protocols and it’s actually a preferred agent now. And again, these are decades old, safe drugs used across the world.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, this is what I was thinking, but not too much. Having worked in Africa and other places where both these drugs are over the shelf used by millions in people basically for common diseases and so forth, but I didn’t think about it much further than that. I was just like, “This is weird.”
Dr. Kory: Yeah.
Mr. Jekielek: But just sort of accepted, going back a year or something like that, what the general guidance was.
Dr. Kory: The Sunday-Sunday medicine. Right? They take it every Sunday in Africa because it’s a prophylactic against malaria.
Mr. Jekielek: Yeah, for hydroxy. Right?
Dr. Kory: The hydroxy, yeah.
Mr. Jekielek: Exactly.
Dr. Kory: Or chloroquine, yeah.
Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned there’s been all these studies now done on hydroxy validating its efficacy as an early treatment. There’s also been a number of studies I’m aware of done about ivermectin. And actually, you’ve been involved in one that just, I think, came out from Brazil, a sizable one with some pretty strong results.
Dr. Kory: Oh, yeah. I mean, that should convince any naysayer. It should convince, and it won’t because the biases against ivermectin run deep and run strong. But this trial is so unique in history. In fact, I don’t know of any other trial like it. So first of all, it’s the largest study of ivermectin in the world in COVID. It is somewhere around 160,000 people in the trial and it’s a really unique study.
What happened is you had a city in Brazil called Itajai. Hopefully, I didn’t butcher the pronunciation, but it’s a city in Brazil of German descent. And they have a health system there which is highly computerized. They have excellent computer data record keeping systems. And they also had a rather bold health ministry which decided to do a program.
They called it a program where they offered the entire city’s inhabitants the opportunity to take ivermectin as a preventative against COVID because they’d seen, I guess, the study from Australia showing that it was highly effective at killing the COVID in vitro.
This is June of 2020 and they basically announced it throughout the city. “If anyone wants to participate, come to a clinic.” They had lots of big clinics and centers. And you could go and they would tell you about the program. They’d tell you about ivermectin and they recorded all the information of all the inhabitants. And out of the 220,000 inhabitants, I think it was 159,000 showed up and participated in the study. And of that 159,000, about 113,000 elected to take the medicine.
They took it the first two days of the month and then the middle of the month. So for two days at two points in the month, so every two weeks. And they did that for a six-month period. And during that six months, the city prospectively recorded all of the data on all of the people who had enrolled in this program.
And at the end of the six months, what they found was astounding. They found that in the 113,000 patients who purportedly regularly took the ivermectin, they were half as likely to get COVID and they were 68% less likely to go to the hospital and 70% less likely to die.
So there was these profound benefits in protecting against infection, hospitalization and death in a study of 160,000-plus people. And what’s even more remarkable about what they found is that when you look at the people who elected to take their medication, they were older. They were fatter and they were sicker. They had more diabetes and cardiovascular disease. They had all the comorbidities which portend the worst outcome. And despite being obviously sick, which would limit the results of the study, they found profound benefits. And so there’s no longer any question.
Another thing that’s even more remarkable about that study is at that time the health system of Itajai offered no specific therapies to patients in the hospital. They did not receive ivermectin as a treatment in the hospital. They were only offered it as a preventative. Once they went into the hospital, they were given what’s called supportive care only, oxygen, fluids, something for fever, fever reducers.
So when you look at the results of that study, I argue that’s the minimum of what ivermectin is capable, the absolute minimum of what it’s capable of. Because if you had employed any treatment strategy beyond that, I believe you probably could have saved everyone, whether you used a combination protocol or just continued the ivermectin in the hospital. I mean, it’s such an overwhelming result. And I have to talk about the absurdity and corruption and the censorship and propaganda.
That study has passed peer review. It is now open access, published in a reputable journal, and there are crickets across the world’s major newspapers and television stations. They are not covering it. In a different world and a different time, I mean, you could hear bells ringing in every town across the world, right? I mean, a cure has been found, right? You would think this would lead major headlines everywhere, and yet nothing.
This is not new. This censorship of this highly effective science and evidence around repurposed drugs, the censoring of it, it’s not new. It’s just getting more and more absurd and it has to stop. I mean, they’ve already covered up the miracle of Uttar Pradesh, and now they’re covering up the miracle of Itajai.
And when I say the miracle Uttar Pradesh, you’re talking about a state in Northern India of 241 million people that effectively eradicated COVID by September of 2021 through mass deployment of ivermectin in the prevention and treatment to all household members, everyone who tested positive and all healthcare workers.
At a point in September of 2021, they had 67 of 75 districts without a single active case. And that was not covered by anyone in the world. Two Indian newspapers covered it alone. And guess what word was missing from the entire article describing the miracle Uttar Pradesh?
Mr. Jekielek: I have a guess.
Dr. Kory: What’s your-
Mr. Jekielek: Ivermectin.
Dr. Kory: Ivermectin was not mentioned in either article. I mean, that is the single greatest example of a censoring of life-saving critical medical information. And it’s literally being censored around the globe.
Mr. Jekielek: That’s a huge population. I mean, that’s bigger than most countries.
Dr. Kory: When I say the miracle, because what they did is so remarkable. So you talk about a state in Northern India, a very poor state that mobilized 70,000-plus healthcare workers that fanned out across the state. They visited something like 97,000 villages armed with rapid testing and treatment kits and contact tracing and quarantining. And so they did really what I would call old gumshoe public health, right? Contact tracing, surveilling, testing, quarantining, and treating.
They did that across the state and they obliterated the virus from its borders. And that’s not talked about. I’ll tell you though, the WHO did talk about it. They put a page on their website really lavishing praise on Uttar Pradesh and their health ministry and what they did. Guess what word was missing from that entire report of Uttar Pradesh? It’s not mentioned anywhere. They had a brief mention that there was a treatment kit, but no mention of what was in that treatment kit.
Mr. Jekielek: So what did they ascribe the ostensible miracle to?
Dr. Kory: It’s what all the newspapers did. They did not ascribe it to ivermectin. They described it to just excellent testing, contact tracing and quarantining.
Mr. Jekielek: I see.
Dr. Kory: And we know how much that works with this virus. Right? It doesn’t work, but actually, they thought they did it so well. They credit it to their public health initiative, not to the treatment.
Mr. Jekielek: And so in these kits, obviously they were multiple compounds and things, but ivermectin is the active ingredient?
Dr. Kory: Ivermectin is the main, by far, by far. It’s the only medication that could explain the results.
Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned in this Brazil situation the hospital reality that they basically just gave fluids and so forth. I’ve been thinking about the hospital situation here in the US, because what is the generally accepted protocol? I’ve heard it isn’t a good one. So maybe I’ll get you to talk a little bit about that.
Dr. Kory: Yeah. It’s hard to just keep talking about the failures of our system, but it’s a system that’s failed because it’s a corrupt system. And I already talked about what they’ve done to early treatment. And when you turn your attention, you look at the hospital, it’s again explained by cost. Everything that’s in play, with the exception of dexamethasone, is a high cost, high profit item. That’s what’s in play. So let’s talk about what that is.
They have recommended since the spring of 2020 remdesivir, which costs $3,000 a dose. They give it IV infusion over five days. And they did it based on a study which purportedly showed a small reduction in the length of hospitalization. So for $3,000 a dose of a medicine with well-known side effects that failed miserably in the Ebola virus. It not only showed it was toxic in Ebola, now it’s the standard of care in the United States.
What I find is the proximate cause of death across the world from COVID is a horrific undertreatment in the hospital with corticosteroids. The national policy, the NIH-recommended guideline dose is six milligrams of dexamethasone. That is a tiny, pathetic, anemic dose of corticosteroids. It is less than what I give 80-year-old patients with emphysema when they start to wheeze. And you have patients crashing onto ventilators with whited out lungs with very little gas exchange that is preserved, and they’re giving them what I call a homeopathic dose of a corticosteroid.
We have now dozens of studies showing the higher doses you use, the more lives are saved. And yet they keep it at that artificially low dose. Everyone’s sticking to the protocol and people are dying from undertreatment with steroids.
It’s happening across the country and across the world. The science shows you need to use higher doses and they’re sticking to this dose. And they try to pair it with these expensive, what I call, ibs and abs, like tocilizumab and baricitinib. These cytokine-blocking agents were also high-dollar cost by the pharmaceutical companies.
It’s the same theme over and over again. We live in a system that favors high-profit medicines. Those are the only things in play and they don’t work. They are failing and people are dying because they’re not being offered. They’re not being given effective medications because they’re too cheap.
Mr. Jekielek: I can’t help think about this. I’ve talked about this with a number of folks that I’ve had on the show, but there’s this traditionally, it’s the doctor’s responsibility to treat the patient based on what they understand to be the patient’s needs. And there isn’t this sort of, here’s the one way that everything needs to be done from on high. That’s a new thing, isn’t it?
Dr. Kory: Unprecedented. I’ve never… Paul Marik and myself, we talk about it. What’s happened in COVID is absurd. Maybe the entire practice of medicine has been co-opted now. Literally, we are being told what to treat patients with, what dose and what duration.
And when you try to stray from that, you do what’s old school, old fashioned doctrine, which is you put your head together, you figure out what’s working. You try a few things, you see the mechanisms of action. You try to come up with medicines to counter those. Anytime you stray from this almost totalitarian protocols that the hospitals are being paid to give, they’re getting bonuses for using these protocols, your career ends or your job ends.
I had to leave my hospital in order to take care of patients. I refused to take care of patients without being able to take care of them. Paul Marik’s career ended because they literally restricted his use of a number of repurposed drugs. They outlawed the use of his expert… By the way, he is essentially, probably one of the top world experts in the therapeutics around COVID. He’s more well read, more studied, more experienced on treating COVID than almost anyone, and his protocol gets outlawed from a hospital in view of the entire public. Why there’s not an outrage or revolt…
I mean, yes, some newspapers covered it, but literally this is what’s happening. They are literally restricting… They’re not only restricting medicines, but they’re restricting physicians. That march that we’re going to tomorrow, it’s not just about vaccine mandates. It’s about all the restrictions and loss of our freedoms. It’s about the loss of autonomy of our physicians, the restriction to life-saving, effective, low-cost medicines. I mean, it’s unprecedented. I’ve never, ever been told in my entire career that I can’t use a medicine.
The only time it was… I think I’ve been restricted to use intravenous Tylenol because it’s extremely expensive. You had to get special permission to use it. But other than that, I’ve never been restricted to use any medicine that I thought would help my patient.
Mr. Jekielek: So, I mean-
Dr. Kory: Can I add one thing?
Mr. Jekielek: Yeah, please.
Dr. Kory: Across the country, ivermectin, one of the literally safest medicines known to man, ivermectin throughout the country is removed from the formulary of almost all the hospitals. Any hospitalized patient, none of the doctors can use ivermectin.
It happened to me while I was working for a hospital. I worked for a hospital and the CDC, when they started their propaganda campaign against ivermectin, the CDC sent out a threatening memo saying that people were getting poisoned and dying of overdoses. That memo was quickly debunked.
The data supporting that memo has actually vanished. It was overstated and it was hyperbole, but yet the message was heard. The message was heard by the nation’s hospitals, physicians and pharmacists. The hospitals started removing it from formularies and the pharmacists stopped filling.
When you see this awesome power, and it’s not awesome, it’s fearsome power, of these agencies and their ability to control the practice of medicine in this country, it’s frightening. It’s terrifying what they’re capable of. With that one single memo, do you know how many thousands of people died because of the loss of the ability to get ivermectin?
I suddenly started calling pharmacists and I had pharmacists in my face telling me that they won’t fill it and that the FDA doesn’t approve it. It’s absurd. The CDC actually in their memo stated that the FDA has not approved ivermectin for COVID. That is a misleading statement, deliberately misleading statement.
Number one, the FDA doesn’t have to approve it for COVID. We don’t need the FDA for anything. It’s called off-label prescribing. It’s generally championed. And it’s a very common practice in the system. It’s fully legal and it’s even encouraged when you don’t have an effective medicine. Yet the CDC puts in their memo, chiding the nation’s doctors that the FDA hasn’t approved it.
The FDA admits on their website they haven’t even looked at the data. No one’s going to pay for them to approve it. There’s no money behind ivermectin. It’s so open and unsubtle what they’re doing and that’s all I do is go around and talk about it because I’m trying to call attention to the absolute pervasive corruption in the conduct of this war on COVID. We’re being hampered and handcuffed.
If we had the freedom to treat this, man, this would’ve been in the rear-view mirror a long time ago. It would’ve been gone in 2020. Once everyone knew that hydroxychloroquine worked and then ivermectin and any number of compounds worked and they were in mass deployment throughout the country, you wouldn’t have all this fear mongering and all the societal disruptions. It would’ve become what it is, which is a treatable disease. This is a highly treatable disease.
Mr. Jekielek: I’m just thinking back to this story that as I was preparing for the interview, I found a popular story on The Epoch Times, a website. Basically, the headline is “Wife Stands Off With Hospital to Keep Her Husband Alive and Wins.” You know, the Anne and Scott Quiner, I think you say, are you familiar with the case?
Dr. Kory: Yes, I’m familiar with that case and many of them, many dozens now cases of, in particular, the work of one lawyer who has successfully won most of the cases. And I have to tell you as a physician, I don’t want to be in the position of treating a patient and having a lawyer tell me to use a medication that I don’t believe works. But there’s a simple solution on how to avoid that situation is you read. Physicians of the world, pick up a book and read, look at the studies. You can convince yourself it’s working.
I don’t want to champion the idea that a lawyer or a family should use the courts to direct the care of their patient. But when there’s a corrupt action preventing a patient from getting access to a life-saving medication, bring on the lawyers. And that’s what they’re doing. These lawyers are winning these cases, but the hospitals obstruct at every turn.
The judges are given the orders, but then the hospitals say, “Not one physician in our hospital is willing to give it.” So they can’t give it. So then they’ll force them to find a physician and community who’s willing to write it. And then they say, “None of the nurses will administer it.” Then they have to hire a nurse to go in. And sometimes if they’re on a ventilator, put it down a feeding tube.
I mean, do you understand the level of absurdity and atrocity that we’ve been reduced to? Literally, you have lawyers advocating for one of the cheapest and safest medicines known to man that cost literally pennies to manufacture. And we have to get special permission from physicians and nurses to administer it because it supposedly doesn’t work, so says the FDA and the NIH and the CDC, “It has not been shown to be effective.”
73 controlled trials, almost every single one, with the exception of two. shows a benefit. Never in history has a medicine been tested so thoroughly, 26,000 patients in those trials, unmistakable, reproducible, consistent effects of benefit. And yet the NIH sits there and says, “It’s not proven.”
Mr. Jekielek: How does Omicron change the game? You mentioned one way that I wasn’t aware of at all is that you’re incorporating now hydroxy in your protocols, but I’ve been hearing it changes the game in all sorts of ways.
Dr. Kory: Oh yeah.
Mr. Jekielek: That’s what I’ve been reading as well.
Dr. Kory: Yeah. So let’s talk about more positive things because I think the future is bright in one respect. I hope that this endemic corruption gets uncovered and addressed on a structural basis in our system. But before we get to that point, Omicron really has changed the game. There’s several things you need to know about Omicron.
Number one, it’s generally much, much milder than the previous variants, in particular, Delta. And to give you an example of how, in November and December, last couple of months, that last wave of Delta, I don’t know what happened to it, but it was becoming really, really hard to treat. Ivermectin alone was not working. The combinations of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine was not sufficient.
If you look at our protocols, we have actually first line, second line and third line medications in the outpatient arena. I was routinely using all three lines of therapy, including early moves to prednisone. I was using prednisone more as an outpatient than I ever had because patients were getting sicker and quicker. And so I sometimes had patients on six and seven medicines.
When Omicron came around, I started to notice that patients were getting better a little bit faster and they were getting better just on first-line medications. And so Omicron, not only is it causing less death and less hospitalization on a percentage basis, the problem with Omicron is it’s so highly transmissible.
We’re talking about 800,000 positive tests a day in the US, which means it’s probably a million and a half, 2 million people actually getting sick on a daily basis. And even though the chances of hospitalization is so small, the sheer volume of our society that is sick at one time is causing a surge and a strain on the hospital.
So it’s still a problem, but it’s transmitting so fast and infecting such large swaths of the population that a lot of us are envisioning that probably by mid-February, late February, March, and you’re starting to see that in some of the state’s numbers, some of them are peaking and starting to skyrocket down, that we do believe that we’re going to be left with a major portion of the population with natural immunity. And so you’re not going to see hospitals filled. You’re not going to see these crazy case counts. You’re not going to talk to…
What I’m talking to is dozens of people a day who are sick or reaching out to me for help. I mean, it’s not going to be this prevalent and overwhelming problem in society. Now, I don’t know if the fear mongering and this relentless push to vaccinate and boost everyone will stop. That insanity may still go on, but they’re going to be doing that on a disease that’s, A, not prevalent and, B, not deadly anymore.
Mr. Jekielek: It’s very interesting because it’s a lot of the vaccinated people that never had COVID that now will have natural immunity that will make it through the disease, which is a lot more people than the previous variants. I mean, that’s interesting and I think unexpected based on the messaging. Right?
Dr. Kory: It’s acting almost like a natural vaccine, right? It’s spreading throughout the population, generally well tolerated. Many people actually get it asymptomatically. Some just mild, it’s a head cold for one or two days. There is a significant proportion who I’m treating that have significant symptoms, but very few are getting severe symptoms.
And so you’re right. It’s like the world’s best vaccine. Well, I shouldn’t say the best because some people really are suffering from it. But if it leads us to the other side of this pandemic and to widespread natural immunity, I mean, I think we’re waiting for that.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, what else are you seeing on this, what you say, on the positive front you opened up here?
Dr. Kory: Well, I’m not in the hospital anymore. So maybe the positive I’m seeing is because I’m not in those hospitals. Because from what I’m reading and understanding, they are strained, right? But I’m seeing a milder disease that people are generally tolerating. It’s easier to treat than the last phase of Delta. And I’m starting to see numbers across many states which are now starting to go down. I think that’s positive.
I don’t think we’re going to be talking about acute COVID to the degree that we are now. One of the thoughts on Omicron and just the sheer numbers who are getting it is what’s going to be the incidence of long haul syndrome, right? Is Omicron going to give rise to a huge portion of the population with long haul or will it not give them long haul because it’s generally much more well tolerated and mild? That’s one of the things I think about in the future.
I do think acute COVID will wane and a lot of our protections and restrictions and practices hopefully will lighten up, lighten up on the masks. If you heard Boris Johnson in the UK yesterday announced that they’re lifting all mask mandates and boosters and vaccine passports. And so I’m looking forward to that. To be in a constant state of a public health emergency for two years, I mean, I think everybody wants to move on and go back to some semblance of a normal life, and I hope that’ll happen.
Mr. Jekielek: It just seems bizarre to me that there would be in places like Uttar Pradesh a highly effective treatment that isn’t noticed and having people trying to replicate what has been done there or now in Brazil or noticing that the policies for large countries are changing dramatically. But at the same time, you have England and then you have Austria, right?
Dr. Kory: Right.
Mr. Jekielek: Where I think it’s becoming mandatory to be vaccinated, period. I don’t know how that works, but wow.
Dr. Kory: The one thing I can tell you about the policies is so few follow the science. The science to support them have never been there. So the science to mandate this vaccine has never supported it because it’s never been as effective as it was claimed and it’s never been as safe as it was claimed. In fact, that’s all been propaganda. And so especially now, it’s so obvious the vaccinated are getting Omicron at a higher rate than the unvaccinated. And yet we’re still talking about boosting.
They’re marching through boosters. I mean, people have been boosted. Israel is on its fourth booster and they’re saying it doesn’t even work. And so you’re hearing data coming out of countries and it’s always been discordant with the narrative here. Those policies will change and become more sane once that artificial and fraudulent narrative that they have been very successful at, right?
What I will talk about in regards to vaccines is we talked about censorship, right? What I’ve seen with vaccines is that science supporting the vaccines has not only been censored, so any inconvenient data is censored and/or retracted or not published. The journals are just not publishing any paper which critically analyzes the damage of the vaccines. But the efficacy is also censored or is propagandized. All you see in every newspaper for the last year, safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective.
And then when you look at the US data, they don’t even provide the underlying public health data in the United States. They stopped sharing public health data openly. But you look at other countries, like in the UK, for many months now the majority of people in the hospital are vaccinated. Yet here it’s a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
And whether you think they work or they’re dangerous, I’m trying to call attention to the censoring and propaganda where you’re seeing discordant policies and data so a vaccine that’s ineffective in another country is somehow very effective here, right? A drug that has been safely used across continents over decades suddenly becomes dangerous here.
And I don’t know when that propaganda and censoring will stop. Maybe it’ll stop when COVID stops, but I don’t know when that’ll end and when these illegitimate and really illogical and non-scientific policies.
And those policies are not trying to achieve public health aims. They’re trying to achieve the interests of, I believe, corporate interests. That’s the only thing that cohesively explains why those policies are in place. It’s because when the science isn’t there, you have to ask, why else are they doing it? And the easiest one that covers most of the policies are financial interests.
Mr. Jekielek: You’ve said that the hospital treatment is problematic, in your opinion, sort of the one size fits all existing treatment. Someone starts getting symptoms that look like they might be COVID, what should they do? You’re doing a lot of telehealth with people, as you said.
Dr. Kory: Yeah.
Mr. Jekielek: What should someone do at that point?
Dr. Kory: Well, my general, if they don’t have a doctor who offers early treatment, and we’re hoping that with our advocacy and our dissemination of the science around multiple different early treatments, our protocols being shared, it’s possible that the average person has access to a physician who’s doing early treatment, but it’s not likely. I mean, it’s possible but not likely. The majority of the doctors in this country are not doing early treatment.
So how do you find a doctor who offers early treatment? One of the only ways I can suggest is if you go to our website, as almost like a public service, we borrowed and built this directory. But people who’ve reached out to us, physicians in telehealth practices across the country, we try to list them as a resource. And many of them are telehealth where they operate in 50 states. They’re all overwhelmed right now.
I don’t know how timely you can get that kind of care, but that would be one resource and guide that I would offer is we’re trying to do that as a public health service is we’re trying to offer information on how you can find a doctor who offers early treatment.
Mr. Jekielek: What if they are overwhelmed? What if you can’t find somebody?
Dr. Kory: So if you look at our protocols, not only do we have prescription medicines on there. So we have ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, a number of other agents like fluvoxamine, but we also have over-the-counter products and vitamin supplements and nutritional therapeutics. And so these are things that there should be no restriction. The only thing that would restrict you is a few dollars in your pocket, which is not a given for the average person.
But we have things as simple as povidone-iodine solutions or mouthwashes that what are actually what are called viricidal. And they’ve been shown in studies to greatly reduce the risk of hospitalization.
And so if you start using that, remember all the virus is really concentrated in the nose and pharynx. So if you do these viricidal mouthwashes and/or nasal drops, which are found at any of your local pharmacies, and we have information on our website, that would be one way to gain agency and give the ability to protect your health and treat this disease.
Then we have medicines like quercetin and melatonin and aspirin all over the counter, right? We have nutritional therapeutics like Nigella sativa used across the world, a phenomenal study done in Pakistan where they show that Nigella sativa led to a large mortality reduction in the hospital when they combined it with honey. Who knew, honey, right? Honey actually has all these antiviral, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties. And so when you use those two things in combination, that also leads to a good outcome.
So even without a doctor, even without a pharmacist, you can gain agency and you can hopefully successfully navigate to the other side of an infection and regain your health.
Mr. Jekielek: And so now let’s say the symptoms are starting to mount a bit. You’re noticing it. You’re not finding your doctor.
Dr. Kory: So…
Mr. Jekielek: I know there is maybe a blanket statement here, but I can imagine people being exactly in this situation.
Dr. Kory: No, it’s not a blanket statement. I’m going to answer it a little different. I’m going to say, when you asked me what should happen as someone gets more severely ill and/or develops what’s called the pulmonary phase, which generally requires the hospital, right? So if your oxygen levels start to drop, generally the easiest access to oxygen is in the hospital.
Now, many of us who have done early treatment, we are starting to order and deploy oxygen to the homes of patients. None of us like doing that. We don’t like taking care of patients that are beyond the mild illness stage in the home, but we’re being forced to. Because I will tell you, some patients flat out refuse to go to the hospital. They know what’s happening.
They know that they’re going to be subjected to remdesivir and an artificially and ineffective low dose of corticosteroid. Whereas if they stay in the home and they have a doctor that can care for them who knows what they’re doing and has learned how to treat early COVID and can be aggressive with steroids, they are likely going to fare better than the hospital.
And I got to tell you, it’s a terrible public health message that I would suggest that someone stay home when they’re beyond a mild to moderate illness and/or they’re short of breath. So I’m not saying that they should stay home, but unfortunately, if your symptoms get to the point and your breathing is so compromised and if you don’t have access to early treatments or a doctor who knows how to treat this early, you’re going to be forced to go to the hospital.
I mean, mild degrees of what are called hypoxemia are actually well tolerated. I think everybody forgets that and I’m not advocating that someone stays home in the state of what’s called hypoxia. But for many people, it’s not the emergency everybody thinks it is. And I would say, it’s not an emergency if you’re undergoing good treatment and you can monitor it. So we generally recommend to everyone to get a pulse oximeter to monitor that at home.
If it decreases to a degree and/or you develop significant symptoms of breathing, you’re going to need to be evaluated in a hospital setting. My goal is to prevent that from happening. That’s my primary goal with every patient I come into contact with is at all costs, prevent the pulmonary phase, prevent the need for the hospital.
Mr. Jekielek: Just if I recall correctly, these general overarching protocols that happen at the hospital, basically they start at the point where the oxygen is going down. Right?
Dr. Kory: Yes.
Mr. Jekielek: Everything up to now that you’ve been talking about is already outside of that scope of treatment?
Dr. Kory: Right. Yeah. I mean, patients who a year ago would be in the hospital, we’re treating some of them as an outpatient with more hospital-level drugs, again, when they start to develop pulmonary symptoms. But if you go to the hospital, I mean, our original protocol as an organization was called the MATH+ protocol and it’s directed at the hospital patient. It’s a pretty considerable number of a combination of medicines that work at multiple different mechanisms.
Unfortunately, the MATH+ protocol is not the standard of care across the country. We’ve been told that it is in the Ukraine. So there’s a very prominent Ukrainian physician who invited Paul Marik, my colleague, to give a lecture there. And we were told, and we actually saw one of their protocols, but it’s widely used in the hospitals.
And we even heard reports of a hospital in Germany that was very happy with our protocol. I think they’ve since dropped it or dropped the ivermectin. I think because we’ve been under so much attack, I think they didn’t like the publicity or whatnot. Unfortunately, that’s not the protocol that’s generally being used. I don’t know if I feel bad about this. I just find it’s an unfortunate situation, but there are so many, I think, people now who’ve I think trusted our judgment, trusted our protocols, understand why our protocols are the way they are.
That we really are a data driven, putting patients first organization, and they want us to doctor them. And when they go to the hospitals, they ask for the things that we recommend and they’re put in this, it’s an unfortunate position of a physician and a patient disagreeing. They need to collaborate. They need to work together.
And I will tell you, our advocacy is causing a discord and a tension between patient and physician. I really wish it could be avoidable. And I think it is avoidable, but unfortunately a lot of the physicians are prevented from employing that protocol. They can’t even get ivermectin. They’re generally recommended from using high doses or maybe they’re not comfortable with it. And so I don’t know how to change that, but the hospital situation is a really terrible one. And I’m going to go back to my point again.
I’ve written a couple of pieces now on my personal Substack where I go over the story of corticosteroids and that my conclusion and one of my main messages is that people around the world are dying from undertreatment with corticosteroids.
It’s an artificially low dose and it’s ineffective, and it’s causing incalculable numbers of deaths in hospitals. I really wish we could deploy corticosteroids at a dose and a duration and in a manner which was more effective. You could save lives if you were more aggressive with the steroids. We know this is a responsive disease and we’ve known that for two years now.
Mr. Jekielek: Okay. So as we finish up, I can tell, so this is part of your… I was going to ask for this sort of general prescription for the system that you would suggest. And of course, part of that is to be much more open to using higher dosages of steroids in the hospital treatment. But what else would you want to see happen right now?
Dr. Kory: One of our first and early thoughts was we just didn’t feel like the clinicians had a voice. And what we were learning on the ground and the frontline doctors and what they were seeing from uses of drugs like hydroxychloroquine and/or whatever, we don’t seem to have a credible structure which allows us to have influence over policy.
Why can’t they convene panels of expert clinicians who have hundreds and hundreds, and some of us have thousands of patient experiences under our belt in treating this? And we can share that knowledge.
So, I would love for much more transparent and open scientific dialogue that’s not curtailed and/or censored or suppressed or attacked with disinformation, saying we’re misinformationists. I’m trying to paint an imaginary world, because that’s not the world we live in, but it’s the world I want to live in. Right? And so a much more free exchange and open and invited exchange of information would be one.
And then the other thing that absolutely has to change is I really do think that the health agencies essentially have to be destroyed structurally and reconstituted in some manner in which you can remove the deep and widespread influence of the pharmaceutical industry. And I don’t know what that looks like.
I don’t know how to restructure those institutions in that way, but I think there are good practices that would do a great job. I mean, the pharmaceutical industry is always going to be there. They’re so good at what they do and they know how to influence people and policies. But I mean, I think we got to give more power to the people to protect themselves against them because our health has suffered.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, Dr. Pierre Kory, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show.
Dr. Kory: Thanks for having me.
Mr. Jekielek: We live in an age of weaponized information and censorship. To be the first to know about new American Thought Leaders episodes and related content, you can sign up for our newsletter at theepochtimes.com/newsletter. You can just hit the check mark on American Thought Leaders.
Tucker Carlson Originals
George Soros is waging cultural and political warfare on the West, but he’s met his match in Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Tucker travels to Hungary to find out how one nation is defeating George Soros.
1-26-2022 • 26m
Ed: How bad is it, Johnny?
Johnny: It’s so bad that … well, you’ll just have to watch it for yourself:
Tucker Carlson Today
1-24-2022 • 53m
Kara Dansky has been a liberal her entire life. Now she’s standing up to the left to save women. She joins Tucker to explain how politicians and Big Pharma have united with activists to completely erase women and girls from the law, culture, and language.
Compare this story with the recent debacle in Afghanistan. Back in 1972 we were still a serious nation. One to be reckoned with. Critical Race Theory, LGBTQ+ “rights”, gays in the military, and whatever else weren’t priorities. Where has it gotten us? Well, a number of years ago I remember the late Charles Krauthammer making the comment on the evening news that gays in the military was an idea whose time had come. Wonder if today he would change his mind?
Video was posted on YouTube in 2011
The Doctor’s BIO
If he doesn’t convince you of the government’s malfeasance regarding Covid-19 treatment and vaccines, nothing will. Be happy … don’t worry.
Would never have guessed that Bangladesh had better medical treatment than the U.S. Just goes to show you.
Part 2 (cont’d)