dr paul marik transcripts
transcript to 82min podcast What’s Causing Excess Deaths Worldwide? with dr marik
https://rumble.com/v56hfv1-whats-causing-excess-deaths-worldwide.html
Now, we're going to be looking at excess deaths today, and I'm gonna be taking data from here to begin with. This is the OECD, Office For Economic Co operation and Development, who produce huge amounts of data and, on all sorts of topics, but we're looking specifically at excess deaths today. So let's get straight down to some of these, and then we'll compare that with our world in data. And we'll see that there is broad similarities. But we'll also see that this trend is continuing where we have the data through 2022, through 2023, into 2024.
And no one seems to be making a song and dance about it, and really say much about it at all, which is still really quite bemusing because the numbers are high. Now figures for the United Kingdom. Now this is from January 2023 all the way through to week 16 in 2024. 63,455 excess deaths, more people dying than we would expect. That gives us a weekly average of 7.9% of excess deaths persisting.
United States, again, we've got data here from January, 1st January 2023 through to week 16 of 2024. 366,000 deaths. 894. Huge number of excess deaths remaining. And the weekly average for that whole period is still, 10%.
So we're still seeing high levels of excess deaths in the UK and the United States. And this is, well, the OEC we're not gonna go into how it the OEC gets its data compared to our world in data. But we know there's been way that changes in the way the data's been collected in the UK, which many people, including myself, weren't that happy about because it's difficult to compare apples and oranges. The before and after makes the comparison somewhat difficult. Australia, 1st January 2023 only through to week 47 2023 in Australia from the OEC data.
But in that time, 18,421 excess deaths, 12.9% on, on average from the OEC data. Now, Canada. Canada, 1st Jan 2023 through to week 6 2024, 59,000 excess deaths. Weekly average there is 19.1%. So quite what's going on there is, not entirely clear, but remarkably sad.
Weekly average for weeks 1 to 16 in 2020 4 is still 14.6%. So in 2024 weekly average excess deaths in Canada 14.6%. So we see this persisting into 2024. Slightly lower level, we're pleased to see, but still persisting. And, of course, we're seeing commonality between countries, which makes you think there's going to be commonality of causality, between countries.
Israel, 7,332 excess deaths. Weekly average 12.5%. And this is all the way through from 1st Jan 2023 to week 16 2024. And I've just put the figures here for 16, weeks 1 to 16, 2024. These are the weekly averages.
And you can see them there, 5.8, 17%, 26.7%, 10.3, even 28.8 there. But you can see it's still pretty high. So again, we see the excess deaths being carried through in Israel, like other countries into 2024. This is kind of a bit like old news now. People don't seem to be talking about it yet.
There's still more people dying than we would expect. This is a massively serious issue. Why is this not getting more exposure? Wow. Wow.
Wow. What a what an initial introduction today. Welcome, everybody. Welcome to the weekly webinar of the FLCC. We just listened to professor, John Campbell talking about this excess in the number of deaths that we're having nowadays, and we have been seeing for the last, couple of years.
And tonight's webinar, I promise you, you guys are going to be fascinated with some of the data that, will be presented. Today, I have with me doctor, Paul Maric, which no needs no introduction. Paul, how are you? Hi, Joseph. How are you doing?
I'm okay. Thank you. I mean, Paul was with me a couple of weeks ago here in Houston. We'll be talking about that. Now Houston is a royal mess due to the recent hurricane that we just have.
But, Paul and I have the opportunity to discuss this excessive number of deaths around the world with, one of the most amazing individual gotten to meet in recent years. A man that really knows a lot about statistics, a lot about numbers. And, you know, when you hear that these people are dying, the question is why. And tonight, we're gonna try to come up with some answers for you. First, we're going to show you a prerecorded video that we did yesterday with, Alberto Ducelli, who is a a professor in Italy.
And because of the time, things, we decided to do it yesterday. We recorded that part, and then Paul is gonna talk to us about a couple of other studies that are out there that are extremely interesting. And then you guys will decide what is driving this that up. I mean, it's something that we did. It's the world going crazy.
What's, going, on? So with that in mind, let me then introduce our guest speaker for tonight, which is, doctor Alberto Doncely. Alberto is a gentleman that was born in 1948, became a doctor in 1973. He is a specialist in, hygiene, preventive medicine, and in food science, which is interesting. His whole career has been in public health.
He retired about a a a decade ago, but yet the man has, outsource hundreds of publications, many of them in PubMed, many of them in Embase. He is, the president of the Alenarius Sanitai Salute Foundation that has, as their only mission, to provide health care systems with research support and strategies trying to overcome conflicts of interest, especially as those who are with health care. And he also is a coordinator for an independent medical scientific commission. And this man, he knows his math. He knows his numbers.
He can find things that even us who do this on day to day basis, if even us who do clinical research on on on day to day basis, we don't find, and that is bias. So with that in mind, Livio, let's play the interview that we have, with, professor Roncely yesterday. What a great topic that we're gonna be discussing today. I mean, this excess mortality that has many people puzzled, and we already discussed as to who is our, guest today. But doctor Rosselli is gonna be kind enough to share with us some of the data that he has been looking at and why he believes we have this excess mortality.
Alberto, can you please talk to us? Thank you. This critical analysis of, of course, deaths during COIN 19 vaccination in an Italian province was, carried out by Marco Alessandria, a statistic, ex expert and working in the University of Turin. Doctor Giovanni Malatesta, a mathematician, of the scientific committee of the foundation Alinare Sanitai Salute. Franco Berrino, a a retired past director of department of predictive and preventive medicine of a foundation institute national of cancer in Italy, and, me.
I am in, a coordinator of the Independent Medical Scientific Commission and the president of the foundation, Aline Harris Sanite Salute. The work have analyzed the original study with the data given by the province of Pescara to, the University of Ferrara in Bologna. These 2 universities, carried out a 2 years, of follow-up and concluded that among, the elderly, twin 22 percent of the unvaccinated infected individuals died as opposite to less than 3% of those who received the greater than or equal to 3 vaccine doses. They, don't found any protection, the opposite against the infection. And, notice that during the omnichron predominance period, only the group who received at least a booster dose showed a reduced risk of of COVID 19 related death.
This is, the original study and a important table. In this table, the the authors show that, they, using the unvaccinated as their reference, the subjects with one vaccine doses have those have a death 40% higher, significantly higher than unvaccinated. And, with 2 doses, 36% higher than unvaccinated, with statistical significance. But, they, found an important, but implausible, reduction in mortality with, 3 or more doses 4 times less, than the unvaccinated. But they did not correct for the mortal time bias and made many other methodological errors.
It is of paramount importance to correct, for the mortal time bias, a systematic error that flicks most observational studies on mortality from COVID 19 and, many other, diseases. Indeed, the of the original study neglected that the vaccinated for part of the their observation time were not vaccinated. And, that the people categorized as vaccinated with 2 or 3 doses spend a part of their observe of observation time in the previous state status of 1 or 2 doses. The correction of this bias reduces the denominator of people with 3 or more doses. And at the same time, the denominator of people in the previous vac vaccinated statuses increases, especially, in a way unvaccinated people.
Thus, the number of deaths is diluted into a much larger denominator and the rates, the rates of unvaccinated are reduced. You can see just an example, then I give you, the slides, and you can with taking your time, study the examples and many other things. In the repository of epidemiology prevention, if it is a, an Italian epidemiological review and journal. We published a first article criticizing the work of these authors of the University of Bologna and and Ferrara, after, one one and a half year of follow-up, but they, persisted in the error and republished with 2 years of follow-up, again without correcting the mortal time bias. In the repository, now is still published, the first verse version of our article, and, we recognize that the authors of the PESQARA study give us the dataset, allowing us a multivariate analysis.
And for this this reason, this might be now the most advanced study available, and it shows that with one dose, the hazard ratio is 2 and 40, higher than that of the unvaccinated for the mortality. With, 2 doses, the ASR ratio is, almost double. With 3 doses is other the same, starting for, from, their estimate of, in in as a ratio of less than a quarter of them of of that of the, unvaccinated. There's a ratio for people vaccinated with 2 or with 3 or more doses may not be accurate. And for these 2 vaccination statuses, we also calculated the restricted mean survival time and the restricted mean time lost comparing them to the same rates for the unvaccinated.
Differences in the restricted mean survival times, between vaccinated and unvaccinated are significant both for 2 dose and for 3 or more dose groups. They may seem irrelevant, only a few days, but they refer to a limited period of time. Extrapolating the results to the entire life expectancy of the people of Pescara, 82.6 years, and notice that in the US or in Brazil, there is now a recommendation in, the US and a a mandate in Brazil to vaccinate every year from, 6 months of age, from the children of, 6 months. And then, Lula stops the, of providence to poor people if they don't vaccinate their children. The loss of, life expectancy was projected on a a a a entire life expectancy of about 3.6 months for those vaccinated with 2 doses and about 1.3 months for those vaccinated with 3 or more doses.
For the reason explained in our paper, however, the loss of life expectancy for those who have been vaccinated several times would and is indeed, greater is greater. And then I explain, the arguments to, to support this affirmation. You can then study our slides and and follow these calculations, in restricted means survival time and restricted mean time lost. Now, proceed to another slide. You know, of sure, Martin Neil and Norman Fenton to, scientists, and a computer scientist and a bias a bias and statistician and a mathematician, in the Queen Mary University of London and they, wrote in, our post in substat where this Italian study, addressed and unaddressed selection biases, and this analysis makes this paper they, said interesting and exciting because unlike almost all observational studies of a vaccine effectiveness and safety, 2 critical sources of bias are avoided.
The immortal time bias and the confounding by indication. They concluded that this is clearly the best quality study we have available on COVID 19 vaccination to date. What makes this research such an important advance? The fact that the results were achieved using all cause mortality data broken down by vaccination status. In few parts of the world, the data has been presented in this essential way.
The best known example is data from the United Kingdom's office for national statistics, ONS, which published the mortality data from, for England divided by COVID 19 vaccination status. We've, follow-up made public until May 2,023 when the ONS shockingly announced that it would stop publish publishing this data. And the second feature is, we corrected for the mortal time bias a systematic error that affects the most observational studies on mortality from COVID 19 and not only. Indeed, the authors of the original study neglected that they vaccinated for part of the observation time were not vaccinated. Also, correct me for the confounding by indication considering the best of the information currently available in the data set relating the population analyzed.
Thanks to a multivariate analysis taking in into account the pathologists individually present before death. Such correction allows us to answer to the common objection also raised, for example, against the shocking data from the latest ONS publications. Indeed, the deaths in England are increasingly concentrated among those vaccinated with percentage that dramatically exceed, the percentage of the vaccinated, English population. But the common explanation is it is clear that it happens because the most, fragile and sick subjects who are, therefore more prone to death are vaccinated and re vaccinated with priority, but this is not, confirmed by our analysis analysis. On the contrary, our multivariate analysis have not confirmed, and we this common, belief is disproved.
The pescara research allowing, to correct the results by taking into account the pathologists of each of the deceased denies, the justification. In fact, the in the multivariate analysis, those vaccinated with 1 dose presented another ratio of death of 2.40 and compared to unvaccinated after adjustment for age and for other confounding factors. Those vaccinated with 2 doses showed an almost double as a ratio of death. We are seeing a very significant increase in mortality that also the authors of the original research had found after 12 doses, but, they omitted the correction for the mortal time bias. This correction also allowed us to refute the implausible mortality reduction of more than 4 times attributed by the authors to a subject with 3 or more doses.
Indeed, those vaccinated with boosters died at the same rate as those who were not vaccinated and simply correcting for one microscopic systematic error. If we could correct also for the 4 or 5 other systematic errors, I'll show in the following slides. Probably, they, vaccinated with 3 doses will go very very worse. More sophisticated analysis of this last result have I highlighted a small but significant loss of light expectancy even for those vaccinated with boosters. This is, a very interesting, table of ours.
All cause deaths and other ratios according to vaccination status in a very multivariate analysis. We, you, can, see that the hypertensive people dies, if vaccinated, with 1, and with 3 or 4 doses significantly more than, vaccinated, hypertensive the vaccinated without hypertension. Vaccinated, with diabetes have a mortality, systematically higher than the mortality of the subjects vaccinated with 1, 2, or 3, and more doses without diabetes. We've, the persons with cardiovascular diseases dies at a a higher with a a an excess of deaths, a significant excess of deaths if vaccinated compared to vaccinated without cardiovascular disease. The same for kidney disease.
The same for COPD disease. This, ask us to, reconsiderate many of the, priorities in the vaccination policies. Another another bias that we can't correct, but we are able to hypothesize is the harvesting effect. A methodological error is to ignore the so called harvesting effect. And that is those who, die, died after one dose cannot die again after subsequent doses, obviously.
And look at the distribution in the first three weeks of, most of the deaths in the, system, of vaccine adverse events reporting system of the use USA. You can also refer to, the New Zealand data, and in our site of, CNSI, you can, look at the video presentation of, Liz Gunn interviewing a whistleblower in New Zealand, who published the, the astonishing data on, about the mortality in the 1st weeks after the doses. Another, another bias that it is that is impossible to correct, but it must be taking into account and hypothesized is the healthy vaccine effect. The healthy vaccine bias, is common in observational studies in COVID 19, in flu, and in many many other, conditions. Look at these data, from the, largest, the largest insurance covering most of the the population of the Czech Republic.
You can see that in a high COVID 19 periods, seems that, the unvaccinated die at a a very higher rate compared to, vaccinated. But the same the same happens even when the COVID 19 was nearly absent. Even without COVID 19, the vaccinated continue to die have as much or less than the unvaccinated. This is the so called healthy vaccine bias, and, these are the reasons explaining it. In the short term, those who do not feel well, for instance, for an acute respiratory infection postpone vaccination.
Usually, those who vaccine are fit at the moment of the vaccination. 2, in the short medium term, terminally ill, people are unlikely to be be vaccinated. So their probable death with, will weigh on the death of the unvaccinated. Free from short to long term, so socioeconomic disadvantaged, disabled, or, homeless people with more risk of death may have less access to vaccines. 4, in the short medium term, those who are more convinced of the effectiveness of a health intervention receive a positive placebo effect.
The greater, the more of intervention is prevented as life saving. This happens in, many dominions, of a lot of drugs. And was and was highlighted in the randomized clinical trials. When looking at the adherence to the experimental drug, we, can see always that the adherent people, have a mortality that is the half of the not adherent. But this identical or almost identical feature is found in the adherent to placebo or non adherent to placebo.
5th, in the medium long term, the more educated people adopt more prudent behaviors in driving and so on, access to better medical care and, therefore, may be healthier and generally adhere more to the vaccination recommended by doctors, scientific societies, health authorities, the mainstream media. 7, 6, in the medium long term, those who adhere to preventive intervention are more likely to adopt healthy lifestyles, better diet, more exercise, moderate or moderation in alcohol, less drugs, no illegal drugs, characteristics not evaluated in standard pharmaco epidemiological databases. These features are associated with fewer diseases and mortality in observational studies, but we have no information to correct, for the healthy vaccinee bias. This is the 4 big large bias. The so called cheap trick called a cheap trick by Norman Fenton and Martin Neil.
They made a systematic review of COVID vaccine studies claiming high efficacy and or safety and demonstrate that this miscal categorization bias artificially boosts vaccine efficacy and infection rates even when a vaccine has 0 or even negative efficacy. Furthermore, repeated boosters given every few months are needed to maintain this misleading impression of efficacy, this statistical illusion. This is the vaccine efficacy, of 86% in the, 3rd week, declining to, 12% at 3 months with a vaccine with 0 efficacy, a placebo vaccine. And, this simulation, you can you can repeat this simulation, using program, the Excel program, made available by Norman Fenton and Martin Neil in where, where are the numbers substacked. And you can confirm that every variation in the data you put as input in this program, the result is every always the same.
With the shift of the first two weeks or the first three weeks. The subjects are miscategorized and what happens to them in the first two weeks is attributed to the, previous vaccination status. And if this is the first dose or is attributed to unvaccinated, this is shockingly, but it is theorized, expressly also by by the Italian Institute of Health. And look that even a negative vaccine efficacy can be made to appear in, the beginning 19% effective. This is the slope of a vaccine with a negative effectiveness.
50% more dangerous that than the placebo. And, the this vaccine with the shift of the 14 or 21 days, 1st days, seems effective in the 1st weeks even this, even the even declining under the the level of the unvaccinated after some months. You sound familiar. Conclusion for these characteristics, our research should be dealt with by those wanting to continue with, the current vaccination policies. We may not be necessarily right.
We are indeed the researchers and trust the evidence. Therefore, we are open to consider at least these two possibilities. 1, and demonstration that we have made the methodological or calculation errors, and we would be ready to recognize them publishing. To the presentation of 1 or more larger much larger researchers extended up to 2,023 with similar, characteristics of validity, but showing different or opposite results. In this case, however, our and other independent research groups should also be allowed to carry out verification analysis of the same data set.
Thank you for your attention. Thank you so much, Alberto. I mean, what a nice, presentation. I mean, for for those of us who are not as statistical, genius as you are, what I understood from your lecture is that we were told that vaccines were safe and effective. Yet each one of these studies that you have shown has many biases in which not only they are not effective, on the contrary, they may be worse.
And these biases, really have been misleading to many clinicians to recommend these, vaccinations. Paul? Yeah. So thank you, Alberto. So I think what's so astonishing is that when you correct for just one of the biases, the immortal time bias from the previous study to your study, the result changes significantly.
And so I think the caution is that one has to be very careful when one analyzes data based on complex statistics because we really don't understand exactly what we're doing. And so I think that there always needs to be some degree of caution involved in studies in which you know, when you when you look at the data, the data can speak for itself. The data speaks for itself. When you have to do statistical analysis, it depends about, you know, who does the statistics and how they correct for it. And as you show, you can get completely different results.
So I think it's really important that one must be cautious. Maybe you what I find interesting, though, and maybe you can explain, is that with 1 and 2 doses in your study, there was a doubling in the risk of death. Yet with 3 or more booster doses, the mortality was neutral. You would imagine that if the vaccine was harmful, the more doses you got, the greater the mortality. I think that, the more, doses are administered, the more, is the risk of mortality.
But for the not corrected biases I illustrated, For now, notice that the PESQARA study has so only 2 years of follow-up, 221, 222 and stopped at December. We, will ask to the province to, give us also the data of 23 and of the first semester of 24 because they, have these data. And I think that the situation of the 3 or more doses could be very worse. But, I have tried to explain that we cannot correct for 4 biases, 5 because there is also the calendar bias. For 4 or 5 biases, all of them go in the direction to to worsen the perspective of, fluvacinated, but, not a good, for now, correct for these biases.
We have the, anyway, the satisfaction to can say that even for, people with 3 or more doses, there is a bit a little, less, expect life expectancy. But I am convinced that, unfortunately, people who continue, continuing to vaccinate and to inoculate have very high risk to lose many years of life. Yeah. I think what you showed clearly that with the 3rd and the 4th dose, those who had comorbidities, which is really important because maybe those are the people that could select it out, that those who had comorbidities had a higher risk of mortality. So, you know, what you say is really important in terms of all of these biases.
That's why although, you know, we we don't we don't particularly, you know, encourage randomized controlled trials, if you do a randomized controlled trial, you would agree you would theoretically eliminate all the potential biases. And so we did have a randomized controlled trial with Pfizer and Moderna, but what they did is at the end of the trial, all the patients randomized to placebo got the active vaccine so that we could no longer follow them up. And they did this by design because they would have been the perfect way to follow-up these patients in a randomized trial because I think a randomized trial is the only way to definitively eliminate all these potential biases. Would you agree with that? I, I'm not sure to have understand, but I, try to answer, something, that I think it is, anyway, interesting.
One question. After the first dose, many more people dies die respect to what, what was perceived because the shift, the 14, days shift shows, I have a a slide, at, I'll send you, after. In the ONS dataset showing that when, begins the rollout of the first dose, there is a 4 times more deaths in the unvaccinated. In the 1st month of the this loud over the first dose, there is 4 times more deaths in the unvaccinated. This is not true.
This is the cheap trick because the deaths in vaccinated with 1 dose are weighed and burdened on the unvaccinated court. The same identical feature, is evident when there was the second the the rollout of the second dose. The first the the monodoses modosed have a 3 times more deaths in this in that month. But the this this is not true. Are, people injected with the second dose dying that are charged on the monodosed and so on.
And I expect that, proceeding with this, malpractice is useful for those who want continue with these policies to confound the, the perception, but, it is potentially simple to control for this with a trial that don't don't need to be stopped after 2 months, to, 3 months has happened in the Pfizer and Moderna first trials. But Gertrude, maybe you could just explain the 40 days because it doesn't seem logical. So what you say, if you get the vaccine and you die die in the 1st 14 days, it's not counted. Is that correct? In the world, there is a incredible convention stating that because a vaccine cannot, function in 1 3 weeks.
For the 1st 2 weeks, they consider that in these 2 weeks, the subject is still not vaccinated. And if he dies, not only if he he infects is infected, but even if he dies, in Italy, the vaccinated with the first dose is charged on the unvaccinated people. Yeah. So that that is completely and actually ridiculous because we know if you look at the vaccine injured, most of the adverse events occur in the 1st week. And so if the adverse events occur in the 1st week, and we look at myocarditis, occurs in the 1st week.
So that's gonna cause a terrible misclassification of deaths and injuries because of this preposterous too weak window. Is that correct? Correct. Correct. With this cheap trick, the world that was, They, fool the world.
Yes. But you know what, you Alberto, you can only fool some of the people some of the time. You can't fool all the people all the time. And so, Joseph, are you fooled? I mean, it's, I'm not fooled anymore.
I think that one of the things that you were clearly you clearly showed up is that number 1, you shouldn't believe everything you risk. And, again, another reason why, you know, this world needs a real journal. I mean, where are the statisticians that should be reviewing all of these papers and identifying all these biases that you were talking about, Alberto? I mean, every journal should have a real statistician look and identify these biases. I mean, these are important biases.
The biases that you just mentioned show that these vaccines are not safe, and they are definitely non effective. So, I mean, what is astonishing is the difference in the outcome between the first analysis of the same dataset and the second analysis of the same dataset. I mean, the results are so completely different, and yet these were done by reputable statisticians. So it just goes to show how statistical bias unknowingly can dramatically alter the results of a study. And so one has to be really skeptical when one reads a study, and you need, obviously, you know, the insight that Alberto has in interpreting the data.
Absolutely. Without question about it, Alberto. I mean, this analysis of the analysis is, fantastic. I mean, the identification of these independent biases completely changes the the perception and and the results. I mean, the results are completely different.
And this is very important when you are reading a study and, you know, that's particularly important for those, physicians in training, for those, people that are watching us that, you know, may not be too familiar with the statistics. It's like statisticians can twist the data in any way they want. So that's why you need reliable people like like you, Alberto, that we're able to go in, look at this set of data, and give us an absolutely completely different interpretation. Our statistician is Marco Alessandria. And if you have questions more technical, he is available to, another meeting, with you or with, experts asking technicalities, more more difficult.
But at in the world, I think that the 2, statistician and mathematics with the great, merit, accommodation, merit to, to have discovered this trick are Norman Fenton and Martin Neil, and you can trust them. Absolutely. Absolutely. Alberto, fantastic presentation. I mean, we really both, Paul and I wanna thank you for, for doing an amazing job in educating us how not to trust the data.
And we have to read the data, get somebody that knows how the data is, identify those biases, and then believe after those biases have been addressed. Don't you agree, Paul? Yeah. Thank you, Alberto. That was a really good presentation.
I think excellent presentation, Alberto. I mean, you need to come more often to our webinars for sure. So I just wanna thank you, Joe. I wanna thank you. It was a pleasure talking with you and meeting with you and listening to your data, so thank you very much.
Thank you to you. Excellent. Wow. What what what a presentation, wasn't it? I mean, remember, doctor Anselli is one of our senior fellows.
So I call them ambassadors of what the FLCC is trying to do around the world. I mean, it is incredible. I mean, I Paul, didn't you like that stuff what he was talking about about the statistical illusion? I mean, when you decrease mortality, quote, unquote, even if they give you the the placebo, I mean, that was, completely incredible. But more importantly, I love his concept of cheap tricks.
So tonight, we're gonna be, going longer, guys. I mean, I think this is an important discussion. And, Paul has looked at some data, which is also very interesting, and it, you know, it follows along what doctor Conselli has been saying. So, Paul, if you don't mind, can you educate us a bit? Thank you, Joseph.
So, I'm gonna review quickly this paper that was published in the British Medical Journal looking at excess deaths. So the the title is, as you can see, excess mortality across countries in the western world since the COVID 19 pandemic. Our world in data estimates from January 2020 to December 2022. So what this looks at is the excess mortality. So that's the number of people who have died above what you would have expected in 47 countries in the world.
And why this is such an important paper is it's one of the first papers published in the peer reviewed medical journal. So it's publicly available that has actually admitted that there are excess deaths, and we actually have a problem with excess deaths. So this this up until now, this problem of excess deaths had been hidden. This paper was published in the medical journal and clearly illustrates the excess deaths. So you can see starting in 2020, going all the way to December 22, there is an incremental increase in deaths excess deaths.
So these are the number of people who died, who you would not expect to die based on baseline statistics. So you can see it continues until the end of 22. So if you break this down into thirds, the first third was COVID and the lockdowns, and you can see mortality increased. The second third was or the middle third was the lockdowns plus the vaccine. And you could see if the vaccine had any effect, it would have flattened the excess curve.
No. The excess curve continued to rise, and then the latter third was the vaccine without the lockdowns. And you see the mortality continues. Excess deaths continue to rise. And so notice this period here, April to December 22, because you could claim that these excess deaths were due to COVID.
But as I will show you in the next slide, that is not true. So if the excess deaths were not due to COVID, what were they due to? And the obvious answer is they were due to the vaccine. So this is from the CDC. This is the CDC's own data, and you can see the peaks in mortality.
The last peak was April of 22. And so between April 22 December of 22, we had really come down. And so COVID could not, in any way or shape or form, explain the deaths. And you can see now where we are now in July of 24. The risk of dying of COVID is exceedingly low.
And what we do know is the the, case fatality rate for less than 16 was 0.03. And if you were a child or an adolescent, your risk of dying of COVID was 0.0003. And, obviously, you have to contrast that with the risk of dying from the vaccine, which was significantly greater than the risk of dying from COVID. And then when they looked at the 20 most vaccinated countries, the question was, did vaccination flatten the curve? Did it normalize these excess deaths?
And the answer was no. So those countries that received the most vaccines did not see a flattening of the curve, which you would have expected to see if the vaccines were protective because people weren't dying from COVID, they were dying from the vaccine. And so what is really truly astonishing is Portugal, it was Bragg, at the highest COVID 19 vaccination rate in the world, and yet Portugal registered the highest level of excess deaths in the world. So I think this data in parallel with doctor the previous paper we've just seen basically tells us that these excess deaths are due to the vaccine. And as we saw from John Campbell, astonishingly, you know, this data was up until 22.
This continues in 23 and 24. So we're having these enormous number of excess deaths, and clearly, the most likely explanation is the vaccine. So I'm gonna stop there. And if people have any questions, we'd be happy to answer. Okay.
And Kelly is going to help us with questions here. Got, Yeah. We've got a lot of questions. Like, first, it might be helpful. We've got a couple just definitional.
1, Dan made a comment that I think would be helpful for everybody that this is why it's so important for the quality of the peer review process. And it's hard to trust most science papers today. So I thought you might wanna comment on that. Both of you might wanna comment on that. I mean, so, yeah, you have to be really careful of so negative papers, papers which disprove the narrative, will not be published in mainstream journals.
That's just the bias, and that's why this BMJ paper is such a landmark paper because it's one of the first papers that has actually been published, which costs a negative perspective on the vaccines. That's the first point. The secondly is, you know, you you should look at the raw data. The data should speak for itself. Once one has to do complex statistical analysis, then, you know, there's lies, true lies, and statistics.
Then statistical because, you know, I think doctor Donzelli showed how many different biases there are that can completely change the the direction of the data. So one has to be very careful how you interpret the data. And, obviously, you you know, people should look not just at the conclusion of the study, but they should actually look at the data and see if they think that it makes sense. Does do the findings make sense? Why I like this British Medical Journal paper is they did something very simple.
They just looked at excess deaths. There wasn't complicated statistical analyses. They know what they know the number of people that die in any country at any in a particular year. It's pretty stable. So they compared the expected deaths to the actual deaths, and that gave the excess deaths.
And I think that's a very, very useful statistic to use. And, clearly, it demonstrates there was a massive increase in excess deaths in western countries. And as, you know, John showed us in his opening video, John Campbell, that that excess deaths has continued into 23 and 24. So I think that's the most important takeaway message. We have all of these excess deaths and the likelihood of the vaccine.
We see this the same finding from the life insurance data where we see in the ages of, you know, 20 to, 44, this massive increase in unexpected deaths. And there's no other these are healthy otherwise healthy people who are employed, and they weren't dying of COVID. They were dying from the vaccine. Joe, did you wanna add anything? No.
I mean, again, one one more thing that just to to be aware of and just a pitch for the journal of the FLCC. If we were to get any data, trust me, we will be asking the authors for the raw data, and we're gonna have statistician review it because these should not be allowed to be published. Papers like these ones or papers that you and me, Paul, have read in New England Journal of Medicine and those famous journals, I mean, they really lack a true statistician that go goes over these biases. The biases that were pointed by Donzelly are impressive. I mean, some of them, I just became aware of it.
So imagine we are people that are doing research on day to day basis. What happens to the regular doctor that just reads what she believes is the truth on on these journals? And that's why many of my colleagues believe that vaccines are safe and effective. I wonder if they were to read this data in the way Doncili is interpreting whether they would have the same response. Joseph, probably the most ridiculous and obnoxious bias is that not counting deaths in the 1st 2 weeks.
14 days. If you actually have a look if you have a look statistically, the risk of dying from an adverse effect of the vaccine is highest in the first two weeks, and they discount that 2 week period. It's completely and utterly absurd. And, I mean, it's nothing more than mischief and deception, and I think that accounts for many of, you know, these cheap tricks that doctor Fenton talks about. No.
I was gonna bring that up because that was just very significant to kind of point out. Another question that people had with some of the kind of the biases. One in particular, if you could kinda help define. Tom asked, can you explain the immortal time bias for the layperson? Yes.
So what that basically means, and it's if you think about it, it makes sense that if you unvaccinated, you're unvaccinated. But if you vaccinated, you are unvaccinated for a certain period of time, and then you become vaccinated. So that actually biases you biases the statistic. And then the person who gets the second dose is unvaccinated for a certain period of time, has one dose for a certain period of time, and then has the second dose. So the time period that he receives the second is significantly attenuated.
So it does cause this bias, which is, if you think about it, it kinda makes sense because part of the time, if you get one dose, part of the time that that person, you know, experiences, part of that is unvaccinated. It then gets vaccinated, and then it's a shorter period of time. So the likelihood of picking up an adverse effect is a lot less because of the shortened period of time. So you have to correct for that time period. It's called immortal time bias, if that makes sense.
Does that mean it depends when you'd get that measure at what point from, you know, like, your first dose or second dose? Right? Okay. So that's why they're trying to correct that they use a certain date so that they can correct for that bias in in the duration of time. Okay.
On Rumble, Althea 111 asked, if the vaccine reduces life expectancy by 4 months, is it 4 months more reduced each time you have another booster? The point was that there are some people that have had, like, you know, multiple 8, 9 boosters. So how would that Yeah. So that that was a mathematical calculation. You know, the point is if if you die, you die.
Mhmm. And it it significantly reduces your life expectancy because, you know, if you die when you're 20 and you are meant to live till 70, that's a long time. So, it depends upon the follow-up time. The problem with his study is that that was a very short period of time. Right.
So there's no question of doubt that the vaccines result in excess mortality. And as a result of excess mortality, people's life expectancy has gone down. And we know that in the US, the life expectancy was increasing. In the last 3 years, it's gone down because of people dying from the vaccine. Okay.
Laura Chamberlain asked, I wonder if any, if these are mostly cancers or cardiovascular. Any insight on that? Yeah. That's a good question. We we don't know.
We think that most of the acute deaths are due to cardiovascular events. But as we look further out, you know, 23, 24, 25, because it seems the uptake of the of the boosters is less, that these may be cancer related. So it's very difficult to tease out what the reduction in, you know, what the excess deaths are due to. You know, what we do know is the excess deaths. What is the cause?
That hasn't really been well looked at, and the likelihood is it's cardiovascular and cancer. But she does ask a good question, and unless Joseph knows, a study that's looked at the the the proportion of excess deaths, I I don't think we have that data. I I that data is not available, Paul. It will be something very interesting to do at some point in time. But Well and it kinda related to that.
On Facebook, we had we asked her questions ahead of the webinar, and, Fatima Howard asked, are any tops autopsies being done these days for any of these deaths? And I know we've tried to address that on past webinars. You know, most as as you know, the the number of out is done in the United States has gone down tremendously, tremendously. People just don't want to do out of this for 2 reasons. Number 1, it cost.
It cost money. So people don't most of the time, you have to pay out of pocket for for for the autopsy. Second, I mean, in many instances, even the pathologist comes up with diagnosis that says, you know, the patient died of a a cardiac arrest even though he's a pathologist. More importantly, to be able to demonstrate that this is a spike protein related is gonna require somebody that knows what they're doing. I mean Yeah.
The the reality, Joseph, is most autopsies done in the US, they don't they don't stay in the tissues for spike protein. Mhmm. But they're never going to say that this is spike protein related or vaccine related. It's just the reality of the, deception that's carried out in the US. There are some places like in Germany where you can get an autopsy done, and they do stay for spike protein.
I think it's almost impossible in the US to get an autopsy done where they stay for spike spike protein. Well, I know we're already kinda running late, and I appreciate you both kinda staying later tonight. But I did wanna ask you. I know that, doctor Merritt kind of went to visit Doctor. Varon in Houston, and you guys did a lot of rounds with patients.
And you you shared with me that they were complex and puzzling cases. So we've got a picture here of, of Paul and Joe kind of working together. You wanna talk quickly about kind of what you found? Well, yeah, it was interesting. I helped Joseph quite a lot.
You know? Joseph's clinical skills needed a little bit of brushing up. He had Sharpening. We had some interesting patients and, you know, we had some interesting dialogue. One particular memorable patient was a patient who had a low resting oxygen tension, when she measured her pulse ox and otherwise was okay, And we suspect that she she wears red nail polish, that perhaps nail polish was interfering with the measurement of the pulse ox.
So the doctors were doing all of these tests based on a spurious, pulse oximeter. That that was just one interesting case. Yeah. And no and nobody had actually even thought about, let's just remove the the the nail polish. Yeah.
But, you know, but she just have CAT scans, ultrasounds. It's like, come on, people. Come on. Things are coming. But it was nice to have, Paul in town.
I mean, we're gonna try to do this on regular basis so he can, get to see some of the difficult we we we do have a lot of, difficult patients. You know? We have patients that come in with 20, 25 different complaints, A lot of vaccine related injury. I mean, Paul was able to see that. Unfortunately, we're seeing about 50% of what I see in the office is vaccine related injury.
But it was, very nice to have Paul around. He hasn't been in town for a while. Well, that's great. I'm sure it was a good experience for the patients as well and good, for you both to connect live. Well, thanks for everything tonight.
I know we also thank doctor, Donzelli kind of for prerecording. Kind of thing. This is the first time he's actually presented. There's a lot of information out there about his study, but I don't think he's had an opportunity to kind of present it. So exciting that our new senior fellow got to kind of get that stage with us tonight.
And, we kind of posted in the in the chat many people, all the links that people wanna, look at either, doctor Marek's slides or doctor Donzile slides. We'll post them tomorrow midday on the website with the webinar, and we also will have links to the full studies as well. Great. Well, thanks, gentlemen, and I thought we'll get to kind of some of our closing business. One item is after you read much of this, you're going to want to know about, you know, some people might be fearful of, what do I do?
How do you control if there's kind of a fear of some of these things? And FLCC always wants to be kind of an important resource. So both we have iPrevent for vaccine injury protocol, you can easily find on our site. We've got the URLs down here that you can look at easily. And, also, Irecover if you are experiencing any kind of vaccine injuries.
And, then the next one, Joe talked about the journal of the FLCCC, which and we're making really great progress on. We've already started to receive some fascinating papers that Doctor. Varon and editorial staff are reviewing. So we want to just kind of remind people to please submit any articles for those doctors and scientists that are kind of with us tonight, or if you know of any, and go ahead and send those to submissions at the flcc.org, please. And, then I saw doctor, JP Salibi is with us, tonight.
So, thank you JP for being on, but we've got a new, Whole Body Health, and this one is on the, I'm not going to pronounce this right, but what is herxene? I need to kind of watch this myself, JP, but related to kind of a Lyme disease and a pro inflammatory response. So go ahead and check that out. We've got the, short link for you here as well. And then next week, we're going to have a great episode.
Actually, doctor Varon is going to actually, do a case review with his partner, business partner, and practice partner, Doctor. Adel Veron, who's also his daughter. And, they're going to review a case. So, they're going to start with a patient and talk about the Western vaccine injured case, and Joe will go through kind of typical Western medication and therapies, and then Adele will actually focus on Eastern, you know, medical therapies. And then, they'll show how they collaborate and bring that together for the value of their patients.
I think that should be very interesting. That's next week on 16th. On 17th. Sorry, I realized there's a typo in our slide. And then, we just want you guys to forget to sign up for our newsletters.
That way, you can be on top of any of the other news that we have, get reminders on our webinars, and then you also have the forms, which are a great, safe, secure place to kind of continue the conversation. So we've got URLs for you there. And then most importantly, we just want to, last but not least, thank everybody for joining tonight. Thanks for staying with us a little later tonight. Really important data.
And again, we'll have everything posted on our site if you missed anything. Full video and all of the, slides that the doctors presented. Thank you so much. We appreciate all your help. Well, hi.
I'm Leslie Taylor, and I'm a health writer for substack@fastwell.substack.com. And I really wanted to share my mom's story just because I think a lot of people will be inspired by it. So my mom's story began in 2022 when she got severely ill with COVID. My mom asked me to emphasize the point that she wants everyone to know that she was unfortunately mRNA vaccinated and also had one booster, which she had to do to keep her job for work. But what happened with my mom was after she had had COVID for about 6 days, she suddenly took a turn for the worst.
And I called her on a Sunday night, and I, she answered the phone and she could barely speak. And I said, mom, I'm getting on a plane tomorrow, and I'm gonna come take care of you. So I got there on a Monday night. She was so congested. Like I said, she could barely speak, and she was coughing constantly.
Her breathing was very labored, and both she and I were very hesitant about taking her to the hospital because, first of all, the visiting girls were so strict, and I wasn't even sure if she was in the COVID ward, if I'd be allowed to see her at all. I get in Monday night, Tuesday morning. The second that her doctor's office opens, I start calling the front desk. So this is a practice that she had been at for 20 years, with the same doctor for 20 years. So I get a hold of the front desk and I say, I wanna talk to her primary care doctor and just explain to him what's going on.
So the front desk lady is real nice. She makes an appointment for me for 1 o'clock, and we hang up. And then a few minutes later, I get a callback, and she said the doctor said that because your mom has COVID, he just wants you to take her straight to the hospital. So I argued with her back and forth all morning long where she would say, okay. I'll go ask him, and then she'd call me back and say, he said no.
And then I'd argue with her some more, and she'd say, okay. I'll go tell him that. So, anyway, hours went by. She's getting worse, and my mom mentions that she knows of a doctor that attends her church, not a close friend, just an acquaintance. So I suggested, how about we hunt down his number and maybe I can at least talk on the phone to him just to see when I should take my mom to the hospital.
So I get his phone number. He picks up the phone as soon as I call him, and I just kind of explain. I just wanna, you know, what symptoms would make you think it's time to go to the hospital. And he said, I'll be right over. So he headed over to my house.
He was there in about a half hour. He had this old fashioned leather doctor bag that was something out of a movie. And he comes up to my mom's room and he begins examining her. And so I began telling him the story of what happened that morning with my mom's primary care practitioner. And he said, well, I had been retired for 5 years, but I came out of retirement, and I renewed my medical license because no doctors are giving patients outpatient care, so I'm going to.
And I was like, thank you. And so he prescribed, Ivermectin. He gave us a prescription for Zithromax and, prednisone. So finally at 5 PM, I get these medications in my mom. I know that they're gonna take probably 12 hours to work or more.
So at 9 PM, my mom tells me I feel like I'm dying. So somehow, you know, we just all went to bed. And I woke up at 6 in the morning, and I ran into my mom's room panicked to see how she was. And she wasn't in her bed, and, she wasn't in the bathroom, and I was wandering around. I was like, mom, where are you?
She was downstairs in the kitchen unloading the dishwasher. Okay. And I shoot her into bed, and I was like, you need to lie down. And she's like, you don't understand. I feel better.
I was like, I don't care. Get in bed. So I made her get in bed, but I had never in my life seen such a miraculous turnaround. So, yeah, that that was just our guardian angel, and it's just a reminder of how good medicine actually can be when doctors are willing to do the right thing. So just, yep, just wanted to share that story.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dr. Paul Marik Speaking at the 2023 Florida Summit on COVID (November 11, 2023)
The next hero who is actually totally persecuted by his hospital system, this man that gave up a incredible career in critical medicine, critical care medicine. He is a true hero. He's a godly man, a good man. Doctor Paul Marrick, come on over here my friend. God bless him.
Okay. So, It's impossible to talk about COVID without looking at our health care system. And our health care system is a hoax. And so my advice to you, don't get sick. Don't go to the hospital because they're gonna kill you.
What you gotta do, you gotta eat right, sleep right, get sunshine, relax, and and take care of your lifestyle because the medical system will kill you. I don't know how to make this go forward. Darrow. So, John, I'm not too good at this. It's not going forward or backwards.
Uh-huh. There we go. So basically, this graph shows on the, y axis, life expectancy. On the x axis, it's, per capita healthcare expenditure. So us in America are proud to say, we spend more on health care than any other country in the entire world, in the western world.
Yet look look at our life expectancy. It's significantly less. We have a big problem, and what you may not know is the life expectancy of Americans has gone down in the last 3 years by 3 years. And how did that happen? Well, according to the White House, it's global warming.
The only explanation they have. And so the other thing which is terrifying, the US makes up 5% of the world's population, prescription medication. This tells you how sick Americans are, that 55% of the world's consumption of medication is in this country. We are sick people. And so what do you think is the most commonly prescribed medication?
Atorvastatin. Would people put up their hands if they take a statin just out of interest? Okay. We have a few. Atorvastatin.
There's something called the great cholesterol myth. Why lowering your cholesterol won't prevent heart disease. It's called a myth. It's a hoax. What is what do statins do?
They increase your risk of diabetes. They increase your risk of Alzheimer's disease and dementia. Yet, they are the most commonly prescribed drugs in this country. And how do you like this study? Survival of elderly patients stratified by cholesterol levels.
Those patients with the highest cholesterol levels had the best survival. The British Medical Journal. Okay? Here, we're talking about a reputable or a so called a reputable journal. Lack of an association or an inverse association between low density lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly, a systematic review.
This is one of the biggest hoax in medicine. But you know you can say the same thing to diabetes. The use of diabetes medicine is a hoax. Alzheimer's medicine is a hoax. And if you look, Pierre spoke about the misinformation playbook.
What the big pharmaceutical companies do is they cheat. They lie. They're deceptive. So in this study, a meta analysis found that nearly 80% of the trials of statins had a conflict of interest, and almost 60% involved over half of the authors. So the people doing the study have a conflict of interest.
And just by coincidence, those studies with the greatest conflict of interest had the most favorable studies. So just to con conclude on this little section that I was gonna start on, this is by Marcia Engel, who resigned from the New England Journal of Medicine. She was the editor. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines, we in big trouble. I took take no measure pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my 2 decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.
So I just started that off just to put in perspective that our system is broken. We have a broken health care system. Now when it comes to COVID, I'm just gonna make a few points. Firstly, as Pierre has said, it's a treatable disease. We knew it was treatable as Linfen and many others, Richard Erso, have said in March April of 2 20.
We knew we knew this was a treatable disease and that if we had treated this disease appropriately, we wouldn't be where we are today. But I want Lynn gave us some some hope with this new legislation in Texas. I just wanna oops. I wanna mention 2 things which really scare me. The first one is cancer.
We know and there's some recent data come out the last few days from the VARZ database, that those people who've been vaccinated, particularly the booster, it seems to be the booster, and it may be related to depression of cell mediated immunity, that once you get your abuse booster, the risk of cancer goes up exponentially. Cancers that we've never seen in people before. Colorectal cancer in young people, breast cancer in young women, cancer that was previously well controlled is now completely out of control. And there are multiple biological mechanisms by which these these genetic therapies can induce cancer. We do not know how long the effect lasts for.
We have really seen in Massachusetts, there's been a big uptake in the in the risk of, lymphatic tumors. So this is a very scary concept, and we don't know. The second thing is shedding. Pierre has written a brilliant substack on shedding, which I would suggest everyone reads. Shedding is a real thing.
Shedding is a real thing. People who've recently been vaccinated will shed to people who are unvaccinated. And I'll just rec just recite one study which is truly fascinating, and thank you, Pierre. So there was in the initial stage of this shenanigans, they were just vaccinating the elderly, or should I say adults, not children. So there was a study that looked at the children of vaccinated versus unvaccinated parents.
Okay. So the children were unvaccinated parents or from vaccinated parents. Those kids from vaccinated parents were shown to have a significantly higher risk of dying independently up to about 18 weeks. So we know that shedding is a real thing and it affects people. There is a study that's gonna come out in the next 2 weeks, which actually prospectively looked at shedding in in in in women.
They exposed women to people that have recently been vaccinated, and they looked for changes in their menstrual cycle, and they found an astonishing change. So, I think 2 of the most important things that we face are shedding tumors. And then as doctor Erso said, even in asymptomatic patients, if you do MRI scans, you can find evidence of myocardial inflammation. So the long term consequences of these genetic therapies is a really scary concept, and we still don't know the answer. Thank you.
Doctor. Marek, thank you so much.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
De-Spike’ Naturally: Recovery Insights from Dr. Paul Marik
https://dailyclout.io/de-spike-naturally-recovery-insights-from-dr-paul-marik/
June 9, 2023 • by The Vigilant Fox
“Cyanide kills you quickly; spike protein kills you slowly.” Here’s what you can do to counteract its negative effects while achieving peak health along the way.
“Spike protein is probably one of the most toxic compounds that human beings can be exposed to,” remarked accomplished physician and author of 500 peer-reviewed journal articles Dr. Paul Marik.
“And its toxicity is through multiple different pathways that we’re just beginning to understand,” he denoted:
• “Spike causes profound inflammation.”
• “It activates clotting.”
• “It causes autoantibodies.”
• “It causes damage to the endothelium of blood vessels.”
• “And then it has some really bad effects on genes and many of the genes involved in cancer suppression. So we now know that spike protein, and although people want to ignore and deny it, actually activates many genetic pathways which lead to cancer. And it’s a form of cancer called ‘turbo cancers.’”
“And this is related to the spike protein,” he concluded. “Cyanide kills you quickly; spike protein kills you slowly. And so, it’s as toxic as cyanide. But this is a slow, progressive organ dysfunction leading to death.”
So, what can we do to address the harmful effects of spike proteins? And is there a way to get rid of it?
“We have enormous potential of self-repair — self-healing,” attested Dr. Marik. And we do that through an evolutionary process called autophagy, “which is truly astonishing.”
Image: verywellhealth.com
“What the body does is when it detects foreign protein, misfolded protein, dysfunctional protein — it destroys it because it figures out, this is not good, I want to get rid of it,” explained Dr. Marik. Autophagy does the same thing with spike proteins. “It’s like the garbage collection system of the cell. It collects the garbage and then puts the garbage through this garbage-slicing machine and trashes the garbage.”
“It’s an ingenious system,” he praised, “and it’s evolved over millions of years. So, it’s how the cell deals with these toxic proteins. So, what you want to really do is embrace it and enhance the ability of the cell to break down these proteins … What we really want to do is embrace the ability of the host to heal itself.”
How do we activate autophagy?
“The most potent method of activating autophagy is called intermittent fasting or time-related feeding,” relayed Dr. Marik, “because there’s this biological switch we have, and it’s called the mTOR switch. And so, whenever you eat, you switch off autophagy — just switches it off through the mTOR pathway. And so glucose and insulin and proteins switch this process. However, when you deprive the cell of glucose and protein, it switches on autophagy — and it breaks down protein.”
The mTOR pathway. Image: oxfordmedicine.com
What is intermittent fasting? And how do you go about doing it?
Intermittent fasting is an eating pattern that cycles between periods of fasting (not eating) and eating. Many who adopt this eating pattern skip breakfast and have an early dinner to reap the benefits of an extended period of no eating.
“People eat all the time,” lamented Dr. Marik. “They snack. Snacking is a Western phenomenon. And what’s even worse, they’ll sit in front of the TV after dinner. So they’ve had dinner, then they’ll sit in front of the TV and snack on processed food and carbohydrates, which is terrible because, first of all, it never allows autophagy to switch on.”
So to properly intermittent fast and activate autophagy, we need to “eat within a six to eight-hour window, and then the rest of the time you don’t eat,” explained Dr. Marik. “And it’s different from starvation,” he stressed.
“If you starve someone, the body adapts by decreasing the basal metabolic rate and decreasing growth hormone to switch things off. Paradoxically, with time-related feeding, you actually maintain or increase basal metabolic rate, and you increase growth hormone. It’s a fascinating phenomenon,” Dr. Marik lauded.
“I think the first step is to start eating food. Okay? It sounds absurd, but to concentrate on eating real food and not processed food,” he emphasized. “And so, what you need to do at your pantry at home is get rid of all the bad food, so you don’t have an opportunity to snack on bad food.”
Next, “What you want to do is maybe miss one meal. Breakfast is probably the best meal to miss. So you still have lunch, and you still have an early dinner — must be early,” Dr. Marik stressed. “And then what you gradually do is increase the window of time-restricted eating. Maybe you start off you eat within a window of 12 hours, then 10 hours, then 8 hours, then 6 hours. But it’s really important that when you eat, you actually have real food that’s good food.”
Dr. Marik also highlights the importance of drinking plenty of fluids when you’re fasting. It’s “really important not to get dehydrated,” he accentuated. “Water is fine — no juices. And coffee is fine.”
“Coffee actually activates autophagy and has really important phytochemicals that are important,” explained Dr. Marik. “Don’t add artificial sweeteners [to your coffee]. Don’t add milk to it.” He says you can add thick cream, but “you want to prevent adding glucose, which will break your ketosis.”
It’s also important to not eat before you sleep — or to get up and eat in the middle of the night.
“Autophagy is really important for brain recovery. When you sleep. You have to consider why do we sleep. It’s not an accident,” Dr. Marik concluded. “It’s really important for brain regeneration. [It] clears out all the metabolic products and allows all these synapses to regenerate.”
“We know that sleep is vital,” he continued. “During sleep, you undergo autophagy. And if you eat before you go to sleep, it does two really bad things. One is it switches off autophagy, so you don’t do it. And then secondly, there’s a remarkable system in the brain called the glymphatic system. So this is the lymphatic of the brain, and it does the same thing. It washes out the metabolic byproducts from metabolism to get rid of them. And impaired glymphatic flow is linked to many neurodegenerative diseases, as is deficient autophagy. So if you eat before you go to sleep, you limit autophagy, and you limit this glymphatic flow.”
Outside of “de-spiking,” there are other “truly astonishing benefits” to autophagy and intermittent fasting, detailed Dr. Marik.
“So, this [autophagy] is really important for getting rid of spike protein. But the implications are much further because we now know that it prevents aging. It prevents Alzheimer’s disease. It likely reduces the risk of cancer. It reduces [the] risk of metabolic syndrome and diabetes. So, we started this journey looking at intermittent fasting to get rid of Spike. But as you know, the implications are now far, far-reaching, and that’s why we’ve gone on this new journey.”
Dr. Marik gave two last health tips that are “really good for lymphatics and autophagy.”
The first one is exercise. “Imagine such a thing — exercise,” he smiled.
“And, of course, alcohol is bad.” Try to cut down or avoid it when you can.
So, overall, what we have are “very simple maneuvers that people can do to improve autophagy and improve glymphatic flow. This is really important for getting rid of spike protein.”
For more critical insights from Dr. Paul Marik, the full Epoch Times interview is available via the link below.
FLCCC’s guide to intermittent fasting is available here.
And to really get down to healing at the cellular level, Dr. Henry Ealy, who first pioneered the practice of intermittent fasting to counteract spike protein, has an extensive nine-lesson course to recovery on energetichealthinstitute.org.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
transcript to 40min podcast Dr. Paul Marik: Key Strategies You Aren’t Told That Help Prevent Cancer
https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/dr-paul-marik-key-strategies-you-arent-told-to-help-prevent-cancer-5556314
FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW] “The bottom line is that 30 to 40 percent of cancers are preventable. … And there are simple things that people can do to reduce your risk of getting cancer,” says Dr. Paul Marik, a founding member of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and former chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School.
“Cancer is big business. It’s highly profitable. The average cost of chemotherapy for a patient is probably $100,000,” Dr. Marik says.
He’s the author of “Cancer Care: The Role of Repurposed Drugs and Metabolic Interventions in Treating Cancer.” In this episode, he breaks down his key findings on preventing and treating cancer.
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Jan Jekielek:
Dr. Paul Marik, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.
Dr. Paul Marik:
Thank you, Jan. Thanks for inviting me back again.
Mr. Jekielek:
When we spoke last some months ago on American Thought Leaders, you were looking into cancer treatment and cancer prevention. You are a well-published medical professional, but you discovered there is a whole body of well-established, scientific literature that you were just simply unaware of. We were talking about how astonishing that was. You have since turned that into a monograph and what you revealed is absolutely astonishing. Please tell us what you discovered.
Dr. Marik:
Yes, this was all by accident. I certainly didn’t know this information three or four years ago. Obviously, Covid opened up our eyes and it started this quest looking at repurposed drugs and alternative therapies. The bottom line is that 30 to 40 percent of cancers are preventable.
Just through simple lifestyle changes and through supplements, you can reduce your risk of getting cancer. This is really important, because about 10 million people on the planet die of cancer every year. Approximately 600,000 Americans die of cancer every year, and cancer will become the leading cause of death.
It’s going to affect one in two men and one in three women, so it is a very common disease. There are simple things that people can do to reduce their risk of getting cancer. This is well published, and it’s just been hidden in the literature. This is really important.
Similarly, there are very simple, effective measures that people who have cancer can take to improve the quality of their life and to increase their chances of going into remission. These are simple lifestyle changes, dietary changes, and the use of many over-the-counter supplements.
Mr. Jekielek:
I once watched a very interesting documentary about Dr. Burzynski from Texas who has been in practice for decades. He discovered antineoplaston, a way to treat cancer. He developed a clinic which was successful. People in industry and in government had been trying to shut him down for decades, but they were unable to do so.
He continued on and his clinic became a place where cases that were deemed untreatable, maybe people could try there, because it had helped a few people. The message of the documentary was also that industry didn’t want to validate his findings because he owned the patents. At the time I thought, “This seems very compelling,” and then I just left it at that.
But now with everything you’re saying, this whole picture takes on a new meaning. We talked about diabetes and there are treatments for type II diabetes that have very few side effects. They actually work very well, but again, they are largely unknown by the broader medical community. In how many areas is this actually the case? You dug into cancer. How many methods are there that actually could work that we’ve been told are some kind of snake oil or dangerous or problematic?
Dr. Marik:
Obviously, cancer is a big business, and it’s highly profitable. The average cost of chemotherapy for a patient is around $100,000. Big pharma makes a lot of money, and the oncologists in this country make a lot of money. The drugs we are talking about are cheap, off-patent drugs, so you can understand this narrative.
It goes against big pharma and it goes against traditional medicine. It is a tragedy because these are very effective therapies that can really improve the patient’s outcome. Some of these can be used in conjunction with standard chemotherapy.
We are not saying to throw away standard therapy. These can be used as adjuncts and as supplements to standard chemotherapy, if patients so choose. I was stunned recently to discover that MD Anderson Cancer Center, which is probably one of the biggest cancer hospitals in the world, indeed has an integrative oncology program.
There they advise and they recommend and they coach patients in comprehensive lifestyle changes. These lifestyle changes, which include relaxation therapy, sleep, improved diet, improved relationships, and exercise, can significantly reduce the risk of patients dying of cancer. It’s an astonishing finding.
Mr. Jekielek:
They seem to be applying it in isolated cases. But it’s not really there yet in the collective understanding of how the disease needs to be dealt with.
Dr. Marik:
No. You can go to a traditional oncologist and ask, “What dietary advice would you give me?” The oncologist will say, “Diet has nothing to do with it. You can eat whatever you want to.” We know that’s just simply wrong. There is overwhelming scientific data that specific dietary interventions can have a profound effect on cancer, and this is challenging the standard narrative.
Mr. Jekielek:
With Dr. Burzynski’s method, is this a real therapy?
Dr. Marik:
Yes, I think it’s real. It’s been subject to scrutiny and I think we should be transparent and open. From my understanding, it seems to be an effective treatment for cancer. I don’t understand all the biochemistry, but it doesn’t mean that we can’t study it. It doesn’t mean that it should be outlawed by the FDA. It should be investigated.
Mr. Jekielek:
A lot of cancer therapies have extreme side effects. There are serious quality of life issues with radiation and chemotherapy. On the other hand, these antineoplastons and vitamin D may not be a panacea, but they are not associated with these types of dramatic reductions in quality of life, so that should be part of the equation.
Dr. Marik:
Absolutely. For many patients, the treatment of the disease is worse than the disease. We know about the extreme toxicity of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, but these antineoplastons seem pretty benign. All of the repurposed drugs that we recommend are extremely safe and effective. What does the patient have to lose? When you have an intervention which is cheap, safe, and possibly could completely change the directory of the trajectory of the patient’s disease, what do you have to lose?
Mr. Jekielek:
When we talked about Covid in the past, we talked about vitamin D. Vitamin D seems to be a miracle vitamin that significantly affects the immune system in conjunction with some other supplements. But from what you’re saying, it also has a positive impact on cancer, not just on Covid.
Dr. Marik:
Yes. Vitamin D truly is an astonishing vitamin, and it should almost be called a hormone. As we know, it’s very effective for Covid, it’s effective for depression, it’s effective for Alzheimer’s disease, and it’s effective for diabetes. It just so happens that it is highly effective in both the prevention and treatment of cancer. There is overwhelming data that patients who are vitamin D-deficient have a much higher risk of developing cancer.
As you go further away from the equator and get less ultraviolet B and less vitamin D, your risk of cancer goes up and your risk of Alzheimer’s goes up. There is really good data that if you give patients vitamin D, you can reduce their risk of getting cancer. With patients who have cancer, if you give them high dose vitamin D it significantly improves their chances of going into a remission. This is a simple over-the-counter medication.
Mr. Jekielek:
Presumably some of these things could also be used in combination. You could do a diet change, you could do vitamin D, and you could also do chemo at the same time. Should that help you?
Dr. Marik:
Absolutely. What you say is true, these things work much better in synergy when they’re done together. For example, one of the things we recommend is intermittent fasting or time-restricted feeding. It’s been shown in the oncology literature that if you do time-restricted feeding at the same time you’re doing chemotherapy, you get a much better response.
For patients undergoing standard chemotherapy, there’s absolutely no reason that it should not be combined with these supplemental or complementary techniques which can only enhance the patient’s response to therapy.
Mr. Jekielek:
One of the big findings in your monograph is that you essentially believe cancer to be a metabolic disease. That is not the conventional wisdom.
Dr. Marik:
What you say is true, and this is based on the work of Dr. Seyfried. This is his area of expertise and he has written hundreds of papers. He has written a book on cancer as a metabolic disease, which basically challenges the conventional wisdom that cancer is due to a chromosomal mutation. That has profound implications. If indeed it’s a chromosomal disease, then the current chemotherapy does fit with that narrative.
But if cancer is a metabolic disease, then the standard approach is not going to work. There is overwhelming evidence in the literature that it’s not a chromosomal disease, it’s a metabolic disease. In fact, one of the people that discovered DNA, Dr. Watson, has basically said in an op-ed that he doesn’t think cancer is a chromosomal disease and that we should look at the metabolic changes that happen in cancer.
Mr. Jekielek:
The question is, could it be both? Could there be genetic mutations? We know that mutations can cause cancer, but the question is how that happens. Couldn’t both mechanisms be right?
Dr. Marik:
Yes, you’re right. There is a complex interplay between metabolism and genetics. We know there are some genetic predispositions. For example, we know that women with the BRCA gene have a much higher risk of developing cancer. But what’s interesting is that the risk of getting breast cancer nowadays is about 60 or 70 percent, whereas 30 or 40 years ago, it was 40 percent.
It does illustrate that it’s an interplay between environmental and lifestyle changes and genetics. Most current thinking is that maybe 5 percent of cancers are due to chromosomal or genetic defects. It appears that most cancers are not genetically determined.
Mr. Jekielek:
There’s a significant increase in a variety of metabolic diseases. In America, there is an obesity epidemic, which has a significant impact on metabolism. What did you find are the core causes?
Dr. Marik:
There’s a strong link between obesity, insulin resistance, and cancer. Probably 30 or 40 percent of cancers are due to obesity and insulin resistance. There’s a very strong association. There’s an association between the intake of high glycemic index foods and sugar beverages and cancer because of its effect on insulin resistance.
There’s overwhelming data, and the incidence of obesity is increasing. In parallel, it seems that the incidence of cancer is increasing. Then obviously, there’s the problem of environmental carcinogens, just to layer on top of this problem.
Mr. Jekielek:
I’ve noticed a perspective in the literature and in the health-related discourse in the media that obesity is more a genetic disease than a lifestyle disease.
Dr. Marik:
I don’t think that’s true, because people’s genes haven’t changed much over the last 30 or 40 years. But the incidence of obesity, particularly in the U.S., has increased exponentially, so it is a lifestyle disease. Like most things, there may be a genetic predisposition, but without a doubt, obesity is a lifestyle problem.
We eat processed foods and foods high in carbohydrates and glucose, and we snack all the time. Western people tend to eat all the time, rather than doing what our forefathers did, eating one or two meals a day. Western people eat all the time. They eat processed foods high in carbohydrates and glucose. In essence, we have become processed food addicts.
Mr. Jekielek:
Does it make sense to say that if you just focused on the obesity issue, you would deal with a whole bunch of other issues, perhaps even including cancer?
Dr. Marik:
Yes. With lifestyle change, which would start off with diet, exercise, and sleep, you could eliminate almost all the chronic diseases of Western society. That would include cancer, cardiac disease, and Alzheimer’s disease. All these chronic diseases are related to bad lifestyle and lifestyle choices.
Mr. Jekielek:
You don’t think it has to do with increased radiation? That’s one of the things you often hear.
Dr. Marik:
Obviously, environmental carcinogens are important, and people that live near power lines are at an increased risk of certain kinds of cancer. The problem is that pesticides and toxins are so pervasive that it’s very difficult for any individual to completely eliminate them.
However, there is good data showing that people who eat organic food have a lower risk of cancer. There is data showing that if you eat a diet of organic food, your risk of cancer is less. There are things that you can do, but it’s pretty difficult not to breathe the air that we are exposed to or not to drink the water. But there’s no question that environmental carcinogens have played a role.
Mr. Jekielek:
You found a series of lifestyle decisions and perhaps supplements. Let’s go through that in order of importance based on your study of the literature. Maybe there are some things that folks watching could implement right now that would help them.
Dr. Marik:
I can quote a randomized control trial, which is the gold standard that the ivory tower uses. They did a simple intervention with three things to see what would happen to the risk of cancer. It was vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, plus an exercise program. They showed the combination of all three reduces the risk of cancer by 60 percent. Those are very simple things that people can do. It’s a matter of exercising, taking vitamin D, and modifying your diet, which can significantly reduce your risk of getting cancer.
Mr. Jekielek:
I’m just going to repeat that. The combination of vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, and exercise reduced cancer by 60 percent?
Dr. Marik:
That’s correct. That doesn’t get a lot of press because you can’t make money on it. In fact, it’s counterproductive for the pharmaceutical industry and the medical complex if people don’t get cancer. This was published in a peer-reviewed paper in a peer-reviewed journal. It’s a really good study that is supported by other studies.
There are many studies that show that exercise reduces your risk of cancer. There is data showing that simple relaxation techniques, including meditation and yoga, improve your outcome if you get cancer. There are some very simple lifestyle interventions that can reduce your risk of getting cancer. If you have cancer, these interventions can improve the outcome.
Mr. Jekielek:
The risk of cancer is high for every person in this society. If you can reduce that by 60 percent, we should all be rushing off and starting this regimen.
Dr. Marik:
It doesn’t get the attention that it should get. The data on vitamin D in preventing cancer, in preventing Alzheimer’s disease, and in preventing depression is overwhelming. It’s a safe, cheap intervention that has minimal adverse events. From my perspective, there’s no reason that everybody should not be taking vitamin D.
Mr. Jekielek:
Let’s talk more about vitamin D. Can you overdose on vitamin D?
Dr. Marik:
It is possible that if you take megadoses of vitamin D, it can cause high blood calcium levels which can cause kidney stones, but you have to take exceedingly high levels. We recommend 10,000 units a day, which seems to be a very safe dose. By all standards it’s a very high dose, but the data suggests that 10,000 units a day is safe and does not cause toxicity.
Mr. Jekielek:
Do you feel comfortable recommending this to a broad group of people, based on your understanding of the literature?
Dr. Marik:
Yes. Between five and 10,000 units a day, depending on your particular scenario, makes a lot of sense, and there is really good data for this. For patients with cancer and patients with depression, we would recommend 10,000 units. As a prophylaxis for people, 5,000 units a day is a very safe dose.
Mr. Jekielek:
This is also for Covid prevention. Even in a situation where people have been overly boosted and therefore more susceptible to being infected, this would still help. There would be no problem taking vitamin D to protect yourself.
Dr. Marik:
Yes. Vitamin D has enormous immunological effects and it affects gene expression. There are hundreds of genes that are affected by vitamin D. There’s really excellent data showing that vitamin D reduces your risk of getting Covid. If you do get Covid, it reduces the severity of the disease. Your chances of being hospitalized or dying are much less.
During the Covid pandemic, if it was a pandemic, we should have been boosting people’s vitamin D levels, particularly the elderly in old age homes. They don’t get much sunshine and are certainly vitamin D-deficient. Instead of vaccinating them, we would have done a much greater service to the population if we had just given them vitamin D.
Mr. Jekielek:
People with darker skin in northern climates don’t synthesize it as much, so they may have even lower levels of vitamin D and not realize it. That’s another very valuable use case.
Dr. Marik:
Yes. Elderly people don’t make vitamin D well, obese people don’t make vitamin D well, and people with dark skin don’t make vitamin D well. With certain groups it’s even more important to take vitamin D.
Mr. Jekielek:
Is there anything else vitamin D is good for?
Dr. Marik:
There’s really nothing that it’s bad for. The only thing it can be bad for is if you have high blood calcium. If you have hypercalcaemia you wouldn’t want to take vitamin D, but otherwise it’s very safe.
Mr. Jekielek:
You mentioned something about addiction to food. Recently, I heard about someone working in the food industry who quit, because she realized that her job was basically to make food more addictive.
Dr. Marik:
There’s no question that there’s a pervasive addiction to processed food. The sugar and fructose causes a high that then stimulates the appetite. It becomes self-serving, because the more you eat, the more you want to eat. Then your blood glucose goes up and you develop insulin resistance, so you become addicted. There’s animal data that shows that glucose is more addictive to mice than cocaine or heroin.
Mr. Jekielek:
Please say that again.
Dr. Marik:
Animal data suggests that glucose-
Mr. Jekielek:
Like sugar?
Dr. Marik:
Like sugar and sweetened beverages. They are more addictive to experimental animals than cocaine. It causes such a high.
Mr. Jekielek:
Of course, we’re not allowed to run those experiments on humans.
Dr. Marik:
There is no question that a large segment of the Western population is addicted to processed foods. You can improve just by switching to real food, which means if it looks like food, then it is food. If it comes in a carton or has a wrapper and it has a package insert or a list of ingredients and preservatives and chemicals, then it’s not real food. Just by changing your diet to real food, you can make an enormous difference.
Mr. Jekielek:
The moment you start doing keto dieting, that actually becomes very normal. You just have to overcome the initial desire to eat the sugary things, but after a while, it’s not an issue at all. The reason it actually works is because you just can’t eat most processed things. If you’re on the keto diet, it’s just not an option for you.
Dr. Marik:
Once you become adapted to eating real food, eating processed food becomes very difficult. It just becomes unappetizing and it doesn’t have the same appeal, so that’s why it’s not a difficult thing to do. It should be a lifestyle change, not a diet change. Once you start eating real food, then the processed food becomes unappetizing.
Mr. Jekielek:
It’s still nice to have that burger once in a while.
Dr. Marik:
Yes, I cheat every now and then.
Mr. Jekielek:
I do a lot of meditation and it has been very helpful to me. At the same time, I don’t get a ton of sleep. What is the cost of that? You mentioned sleep as something that is important.
Dr. Marik:
Sleep is really important for brain restoration. There’s something called the glymphatic system, which is the way the brain detoxifies itself during sleep. It’s like the lymphatic system of the brain, but it’s only active during sleep. We know that if you are sleep-deprived, it reduces your life expectancy and it increases your risk of cancer.
It is not true that people can get away with five or six hours of sleep and it won’t affect their health. The data is clear that an adult needs at least seven hours of sleep. Interference with sleep increases your risk of many diseases, including dementia. There is data showing that people who have cancer and have sleep dysfunction have a much higher risk of demising.
Mr. Jekielek:
You mentioned some repurposed drugs for use with cancer that are not generally known.
Dr. Marik:
There is a group called the ReDo project, which looks at repurposed drugs for the use of cancer. They list about 250 different drugs that have shown in experimental models to have activity against cancer cells. In the monograph that I wrote, I reduced them down to the 30 drugs that I thought were the most effective. There are already good studies showing that in a test tube, in an animal model, as well as in patients, these drugs have anti-cancer activity. There’s a list of these 30 drugs in my monograph.
Vitamin D is number one, but then we have melatonin and green tea. The antidiabetic medication Metformin is actually a very powerful anti-cancer drug. Then we have the antiparasitic drugs like mebendazole and ivermectin that have activity against cancer cells.
Mr. Jekielek:
Some people call ivermectin a horse dewormer.
Dr. Marik:
Believe it or not, this so-called horse dewormer is very effective against certain cancers. There were patients who had solid tumors who were given horse dewormer together with some other drugs. As I said, it’s not one magical drug. It’s a combination approach, These patients were given a regimen which included this horse dewormer and the cancer disappeared.
Mr. Jekielek:
Every day you could have your vitamin D, your concentrated green tea, and your melatonin. These things are very innocuous.
Dr. Marik:
Yes. The bottom line is there are some patients who would choose this approach rather than undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy, particularly for cancers that are not responsive to chemotherapy. But you can also use them as adjuncts to chemotherapy, so that in the end you need less chemotherapy. The data is clear that the combination is more effective than chemotherapy alone.
Mr. Jekielek:
The point is you have to approach any treatment regimen skeptically. You really have to do your own research. This became something that you were not allowed to say over the last few years.
Dr. Marik:
Absolutely. The bottom line is patients must be empowered. They need to be empowered by the truth, and they should do their own research. The days are gone where you can trust implicitly what the physician says, particularly the oncologists in this country.
In some European countries, the oncologists are integrative oncologists. They'll use a combination of standard therapy plus what would be considered unconventional, but it happens in the same hospital. In this country, almost all oncologists will just follow chemotherapy.
Mr. Jekielek:
With the exception of this one, which has this whole integrative approach.
Dr. Marik:
Yes. They focus on lifestyle interventions as part of it. They don’t look at repurposed drugs or other dietary manipulations. I was surprised that they actually do have such a program. But it should be the standard of care that patients should follow in comprehensive lifestyle changes as well as I would say repurposed drugs.
Mr. Jekielek:
How many papers did you look at for this monograph?
Dr. Marik:
I looked at over 1400 different peer-reviewed papers and I have a pretty good understanding of the literature. This data is out there and this data is published. There is really good data showing that if you have surgery for colorectal cancer, and then afterwards you control your diet to control your glucose, your risk of getting a metastasis and dying of a metastasis is much less.
This is in the oncology literature, so the data is out there. That’s why patients have to do their own research. In my book I compile all the data out there in one place where patients can read it and then decide what would fit their lifestyle.
Mr. Jekielek:
You started out running a big emergency room. You also developed the vitamin C Sepsis protocol, which has now been vindicated. You’ve published over 500 papers, but not really focused on cancer. Why should people trust this? People might say, “Stay in your lane. Dr. Marik.”
Dr. Marik:
Yes. I have been asked the question, and that is a good question. First, it was ICU, not emergency medicine, although it’s a small point. The reason is that I have no stake in the game and I have no conflict of interest. I can objectively look at the literature.
That’s what I’ve done in most of my career. I have looked at the literature objectively and come up with treatment plans. I have no conflicts of interest here. I can objectively look at the scientific data, assimilate the data, compile the data. That’s what I did.
I’m not claiming to be an oncologist. I’m just compiling and presenting the data that’s already out there. I have no conflict of interest, I have no skin in the game, and I can be honest and objective and transparent. If people don’t think it’s true, let them decide for themselves. But obviously, I’ve looked at the literature and I’m presenting it as honestly and as scientifically as I can.
Mr. Jekielek:
I mentioned the number of papers you have published. Sepsis is a huge problem in any hospital and it’s a significant cause of death in any hospital. You’ve developed protocols that are better and cheaper and can be applied almost anywhere in the world, including in places that don’t have great hospital facilities.
You’ve done a lot of thinking about how to treat people and help make them better, including during Covid. In fact, that is actually what cost you your career running the ICU, because you refused to use their protocols, which we now know were terrible. You tried to do something better, which indeed worked.
Dr. Marik:
Covid basically opened my eyes, to be honest. I followed the narrative, and then I realized that there was another story. The diabetes and the cancer treatment is a good illustration that there is another side. The data is out there, it just needs to be brought to the surface.
Mr. Jekielek:
Where can people find this cancer monograph of yours?
Dr. Marik:
In two places. They can go to the FLCCC [Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance] website. That’s flccc.net, and they can download it for free. You can buy the monograph on Amazon.com.
Mr. Jekielek:
Wonderful. Any final thoughts as we finish up?
Dr. Marik:
People need to be empowered to improve their own health. Cancer is largely a preventable disease and people should do what they can so they don’t get cancer. It’s as simple as that.
Mr. Jekielek:
Dr. Paul Marik, it’s so good to have you on the show again.
Dr. Marik:
Thank you, Jan. It’s always a pleasure.
Mr. Jekielek:
Thank you all for joining Dr. Paul Marik and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
transcript to 88min podcast VSRF Live #120: Victory for Ivermectin! with dr marik
https://rumble.com/v4lv0r6-vsrf-live-120-victory-for-ivermectin.html
Tonight on VSRF live, doctors Paul Merrick and Mary Talley Bowden join us to discuss the landmark supreme court victory to end state sponsored misinformation by way of the FDA. They censored the truth. They would not let people speak the truth. And when you censor the truth, you censor science. You decapitate science.
So the truth has been hidden from Americans and the rest of the world. And this has allowed them to get away with committing what what is one of the most severe atrocities of recent memory. When they went on that social media PR campaign, they they changed the narrative. They they, denigrated Ivermectin as an animal drug not safe for human use, and, you know, I had very I had a hard time getting, pharmacists to fill it. I had to convince patients it was safe.
I had my license threatened. So, yeah, it's been an ongoing battle for 4 years now, and I am just thrilled. I'm like a kid on Christmas morning today. Hello, and welcome to VSRF Live. I'm Livio Sanchez.
Tonight is a truly momentous VSRF Live. Last week, we have been given a huge victory in the fight for medical freedom, a promise to remove agencies from acting as doctors and advising the public where they have no business doing so. What I'm talking about is the landmark case involving a group of brave doctors, including 2 of whom we have here with us tonight, doctor Mary Talleyboden and doctor Paul Merrick, who went all the way to the Supreme Court in their battle against the FDA and the false claims the agency had made about Ivermectin during the pandemic. And we also have a surprise guest that will be joining us later tonight. It's gonna be a fantastic conversation.
And before we begin tonight's show, tonight is another very important night for us in our ongoing fundraising activities here at VSRF. VSRF live depends solely on public donations to bring you this weekly show and needs your financial support even better please consider donating to VSRF on a monthly basis. Your contributions are tax deductible and vital to sustain our efforts each week. We cannot do what we do without your help. For those willing to contribute, you can make a direct donation by simply texting VSRF to 53 dash 555.
Our goal for tonight and every show from here on out is $5,000. This is the bare minimum we need to cover our expenses in producing this weekly show, literally the bare minimum. And please remember, no donation is too small. Together, we can prevent health we can preserve health freedom for generations to come. Thank you for your support.
And now I'd like to bring on nurse Angela. Hello, nurse Angela. How are you this evening? Hey, Libio. It's so great to be here.
Good to see you. How are you doing? I'm doing well. I know you're very excited about our guests tonight. I am.
I'm so excited. You know, these are 2 of my favorite doctors. I've had the honor and the luxury of knowing them since defeat the mandates. And I for the last few weeks, I've actually been traveling the country alongside them. We've been in Vegas for the COVID litigation conference.
Then we were in Washington DC all within the matter of a week fighting for, you know, our free speech, and I just absolutely love both of them. You know, they are incredible human beings. They've been fighting all along for, you know, COVID patients during the deadly wave, you know, back when COVID first hit. They've been fighting for the vaccine injured. They've been fighting for those injured by hospital protocol.
They've been fighting against the corrupt institutions. They've been fighting for free speech. They've been fighting for all doctors to preserve, you know, to for doctors to to speak freely and preserve that doctor patient relationship. And the list can go on and on. They're just remarkable human beings, and I'm so honored to call them my friends and have them here with us and and so excited to share their their victory.
So and I'm I'm I'm even more excited as well at the end to bring on a very, very special guest and you'll understand why when we when we bring him on. Absolutely. How did you get to meet them, Livio? Well, great quest be before we bring the doctors on, I actually wanna share with you my personal story of meeting the great doctor Paul Merrick and how telling the story of brave doctors successfully treating patients with Ivermectin got me censored on YouTube and Facebook as well as being labeled a misinformation super spreader. Way back the 1st week of January 2021, I flew to Houston, Texas to shoot an interview with doctor Pierre Kory and doctor Paul Merrick.
It was the first time I met them in person. They were beaming with confidence, excited to tell the world about how their FLCCC protocol was saving lives and was going to help end the pandemic. But little did they know at the time that their announcement would be met with so much resistance. I ended up creating a video with Doctor. Merrick and over a dozen other brave doctors sharing their ivermectin story.
And it immediately went viral garnering like half a 1000000 views on YouTube before the view count mysteriously froze. Literally it hit, hit half a 1000000 and then, then it just stopped. And then several days later, the infamous FDA, you are not our horse tweet started blowing up my phone with text messages from friends and family stating you're spreading misinformation. So anyway, that was, the the brief recap of my, getting canceled. I'm gonna have to blame Paul and Pierre for it.
But before we bring them on, I wanna share that censored video. It's about 6 minutes or so with all these doctors. This came out, sometime in March of 2021. Let me play that video. If you were to say, you know, tell me the characteristics of a perfect drug to treat COVID, what would you ask for?
So I think you would ask for something firstly that's safe that's cheap that's readily available and that has antiviral and anti inflammatory properties? People would say, that's ridiculous there could not possibly be a drug that has all of those characteristics that's just unreasonable but we do The drug is called Ivermectin. It was such a benign medication, and it has such a great safety margin. And it's so inexpensive that if you didn't have COVID, you still felt better the next day. Here's this treatment that around the world are using.
We started reading articles about Peru, Argentina. Singapore had done a study in the summertime, and they were seeing pretty impressive results. And what's interesting about it, when you look at the medication, this is a medication that has only been prescribed 3,700,000,000 times. And I think the mortality rate from the medication was only 12, and that's incredible. And on top of that, it won the Nobel Prize.
So how can you go wrong? One of the things that's been very unfortunate about this pandemic is that at a time where we need, if anything, out of the box thinking and forward thinking and openness, we've really settled into this way of thinking where we wanna wait for large trials to just tell us what to do. There are several studies that have come across from across the globe, over a 100, that cover all primary research and the meta analyses, and the majority of them point to the fact that Ivermectin has efficacy in shortening the duration of disease, shortening the time that there are symptoms, and in reducing mortality. I think that patients' best interests should always be put first. And if we have a safe drug that we have huge amounts of experience using, We should be offering that to patients right away.
Number 1, we take care of friends, family, people who go to church with us. We don't wanna hurt them. Okay? And the safety of Ivermectin and the fact that I've been using it for 20 some years in practice gives me confidence that I can use it safely. With Ivermectin and a few other things we do in our protocols, we're managing to probably have a survival rate in hypoxic patients of over 95%.
If you saw that in your practice, I mean, you would be convinced. When you're reading a paper and it says, you know, oh, 33 patients, it's easy to blow off, you know, brush out. Like, come on. This is nothing. I mean, this is what kind of study is that?
None of the university and big institutional doctors are allowed to use Ivermectin. They've been told not to listen to patient complaints, not to read literature, not to prescribe Ivermectin. That they have all put blinders on. And I'm saying, holy cow. I got 260 people.
Okay, and I just give them this pill and 99.9 percent of them have not required anything other than the protocol. We've received patients from as far away as a 100 miles away from our office because their experience, unfortunately, has been a refusal adamantly on the part of their primary care doctor to prescribe Ivermectin and or a approach where they've been told if they get sick just to go home and if they get sicker to go to the ER. The hospitals, I feel, have an obligation to be transparent and to tell patients to tell every patient that there is this drug that's being used off label. There shouldn't be any, you know, any criticism because something that was unexpected worked. That's, you know, that's kind of a hallmark of science.
When I asked them why why why do you not use divergating with your COVID patients? They, the answer is, well, there is no evidence. When I showed them the evidence, they changed their mind. Take a look at the election returns on Ivermectin from all over the world. Yeah.
You know, India, Peru, Mexico, you know, Bulgaria, Slovakia, all these places, and ask yourself what are the odds that this could happen by chance? You know, unfortunately, when there's research that comes overseas, I think Western medicine sort of looks at them, looks down upon them as if their standards are not up to speed, As if they're not doing randomized control trials as well as we do it here in the United States, which is hogwash because some of the most incredible physicians and brilliant scientific minds have been from Latin America and Asia and Africa. It's, you know, I I definitely do think, unfortunately, there is there is this bias towards data that that's coming from overseas. Governments and health organizations are ignoring the evidence, and there's a mountain of it. And I think this is because they are heavily invested in novel treatments.
And one of the horrible things about this, you know, this whole pandemic is just shutting off people, you know, and canceling them. You know? People who are talking about things that work, you know, just booting them off of Facebook and booting them off of Twitter. I'm on my 26th day of censorship on Facebook for violating community standards. Who are these people to be telling frontline doctors how to practice medicine?
We need to look at the totality of evidence. We need to look at all the evidence. We need to interrogate all the evidence and have a multidisciplinary team, not just a few celebrity scientists, coming together to make a conclusion about all types of medicine. Why would we not use it? The worst possible outcome is we're gonna have a country of parasite free people.
The saddest thing for us is we know this can make a difference and save lives, and it seems like nobody really cares and wants to listen to us. That's what frustrates us is that we we have this massive force out there that's trying to silence us and yet we feel we can't be silenced. We just can't be because, you know, the truth will ultimately prevail. And the truth is prevailing. Welcome, doctor Marek.
Welcome, doctor Boden, to VSRF live. Thank you, Levio. So that's a pretty interesting video. You know? It 2,021 seems like decades ago, and there are some, you know, strange faces there.
But you know what? It it's, it's part of history, and it it it it it it was a historic historic time. It really was. Mary, I think you're muted, but I wanna be able to have you say hello as well before I wanna read both of your bios actually as well. And welcome, Mary.
Thank you for coming on tonight. Thanks for having me. Let me let me quickly read your bios. Doctor Merrick is a cofound is a cofounder of the Frontline COVID 19 Critical Care Alliance, the FLCCC, a world renowned physician and a pioneer in the practice of critical care. He is a specialist in internal medicine, critical and neurocritical care, pharmacology, anesthesia, nutrition, and tropical medicine.
Doctor Marek was formerly a tenured professor of medicine and chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School. He has written over 500 peer reviewed journal articles, 80 book chapters, and authored 4 critical care books. He is the 2017 recipient of the Outstanding Educator Award from the American College of Physicians for his work with medical residents and fellows. During the declared like health emergency, doctor Merrick successfully treated thousands of COVID 19 patients. Doctor Mary Talleyboden is a a board certified in both Odell help me with this word, Mary Odellert learn ecology.
Getting that I had practiced earlier and I still stumble on it, and sleep medicine. She specializes in sinus, sleep, and allergy disorders and treats both children and adults. As a mom of of 4 boys, she has spent many years being on the other side of the doctor patient relationship. Her frustrations with the med traditional medical system inspired her to open BreatheMD in 2019 with the goal to simplify and improve patient's office visit experiences. Along with a successful practice, Mary is now fighting to limit government overreach into the doctor patient relationship.
The doctors had quite a victory last week in court, and we can't wait to hear all about it. Thank you for being here tonight. Thank you, Olivia. It's so good to see you both. I I think in order to discuss this case, we kind of have to go back to the beginning.
You know, back in August, ivermectin that the sales of ivermectin were through the roof. The prescriptions, you know, people were wanting it. Doctors were prescribing it. There were so many clinical trials showing how effective and safe it was at prophylaxis and early treatment. And then on August 21, 2021, there was a tweet that went viral that the FDA put out.
And that tweet, for me, in my opinion, kind of changed the trajectory, and it was the biggest smear campaign. I think it was one of the most deadly smear campaigns because it then allowed for the vaccines for the deadly hospital protocols like remdesivir. And so tell us a little bit of more about the beginning. I yeah. Olivia, I think, is gonna put up there's that tweet.
So you are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, you all. Stop it. Yeah.
So so you you're correct, Angela. So, Ivermectin had become quite popular, And the FDA then embarked on a campaign to disparage Ivermectin and discredit Ivermectin. And, you know, obviously, there's the famous tweet, not a horse, you're not a cow, stop it. But they they went on a full blown campaign to basically discredit Ivermectin. What they also did is they sent a letter to the Federation of State Medical Boards and the boards of pharmacy telling them that Ivermectin should not be used for, the treatment of COVID.
And, obviously, that had a profound effect on all the medical boards, and as Mary knows, on the pharmacies, because the pharmacist refused to dispense Ivermectin. And so the question is why did they do this? And so Ivermectin was and still is a great threat to the establishment because it is such a safe, cheap, and effective drug. And in order to get an EUA for the for the jabs and for these experimental therapies, there needs to be no alternative effective safe therapy. That's the FDA requirements.
And clearly, Ivermectin met those requirements. So it threatened the very existence of the jabs. And so this is a $1,000,000,000,000 industry, and so they had to do everything in their power to, discredit and, disparage Ivermectin, which as we said is very effective for the treatment of SARS CoV 2 if used particularly if used early. Mhmm. And I remember back then I mean, it it feels like forever ago.
It was just obviously several years, but I remember when doctor Bowden kinda first came out, and I think why you're such a, you know, a big figure in this case is that you actually had recorded phone calls and conversations where you were trying to prescribe Ivermectin and the pharmacies were denying it for your patients based on bogus, you know, lies from the FDA. It was it was so smart of you back then to have an inkling to know that they were gonna use this, you know, and and and for you to be able to actually get that information and and be able to use it in this court case that you just have finally gotten a victory from. Do you do we have those videos, Libio? Or I wasn't able to find my archive of the recordings. I had them at one point.
Yeah. I'm getting ready to do another one because I had I tweeted today that a patient of mine got the Ivermectin, but I spoke too soon. And they canceled his prescription for no reason. So I will be calling them tomorrow and recording that, I'll share it. This is recently?
They just stopped you? K. Yep. Wow. Oh my goodness.
I didn't have time to call. But and, you know, that's part of our lawsuit is it just delayed care. I mean, I was able to find other pharmacies. I have this long list of it's just interesting because it's all scratched out. Okay.
This place is no longer doing it, but this place is, write one then. It was just like the underground railroad trying to find pharmacies that would fill these prescriptions. And, you know, there's only so much time in the day to you know, you know, when you call a pharmacy, it's like a 20 minute ordeal. So you can't call for every patient. But when I did have that time and when the prescription wasn't urgent, I would call.
But it really did delay care because these compounding pharmacies, you know, most of the time aren't open on weekends. They don't take insurance. So it created a lot of problems. And the courts were using the FDA as well. And that was that's another thing that I've become involved in with the medical board over a patient that I was trying to help get Ivermectin.
And time and time again, I mean, there were there was 2 lawyers that really helped these patients, Ralph and Ralph Lorigo and Beth Perlado. They did a 189 cases around the country, trying to help inpatients who were refused Ivermectin in the hospital. And the in the courts, the courts themselves, the judges in the decisions were saying, well, this is not FDA approved for COVID, and that was their reasoning. So really deadly, you know, not just delays, but, like, life or death decisions, based on this this FDA tweet. Yeah.
And then what continued after that was it it just went went from bad to worse because then the CDC got involved, then Fauci went on CNN saying that, you know, it was potentially toxic and it wasn't effective. And then there was that Rolling Stones hit piece that was done by that PR firm, Weber, Shandwick. Yes. And that to me was probably one of the most shocking things, and it really woke me up to the lies that that media tells us. So there's this hit piece from Rolling Stones saying that in Oklahoma, people were waiting.
Gunshot victims were left outside as, you know, these horse dewormer overdoses were overwhelming this Oklahoma hospital. And having been a trauma nurse and worked in the ER, I can never imagine being in an ER where we're leaving gunshot victims bleeding outside while people are while we triage, we take care of the most critical. And the very next day, the hospital came out. Oh, there's another picture too there, Livio, where it shows this hospital, Oklahoma, September. And clearly, that's not a correct photo because they look like they're dressed for snow weather.
No. I think it came out that that was not didn't match the story. It did not match the story. And then the very next day, the hospital that this article was talking about came put a statement out saying that this doctor, the so called doctor, hadn't worked there for months, and they had not had one single overdose of ivermectin. And Rolling Stones failed to retract that article even though, the own hospital admitted that this was not the case and it was a lie.
So it just completely mind boggling and shocking what they did to us, what they did to patients, what they did to doctors, and, you know, it just went downhill from there. But I'm just, you know, forever grateful for the 2 of you for stepping forward. You guys never stop. I mean, it would have been so easy to quit and give up and just carry on with your your lives, but you would not stop until you carried it all the way. So tell us about the lawsuit.
Tell us how that came about and Yeah. And you you both were fired, right, from your hospitals or had to leave? And then did the can you give us a little background on the story for each of you and what happened, where you were working, and then what led to the lawsuit? Yeah. Yeah.
So my back my story is somewhat different from Mary's. Mary, fortunately, is still able to work. She works in private. I worked in a hospital setting. And basically because I didn't follow the narrative, I was targeted and was really forced to resign.
Mary had her only issues with Methodist Hospital. Perhaps she can tell us. Right. So and this was in the fall of 2021. And remember, we had that big surge that summer, and this is right after Biden allowed the mandates to go forward for the whole country.
But I had privileges at Houston Methodist, which was the first hospital in the country to mandate the shots. This was in the spring of 2021, so this was preceding Biden. And, you know, I just went on social media and said vaccine mandates are wrong, and I did that 25 times in one day, and I put a patient testimonial with each tweet. I didn't think I'd get noticed because, I mean, I had very few followers. There's just a solo doctor, in quiet practice.
And then next thing I know, Methodist has told a reporter in the Houston Chronicle that they were suspending my privileges based on comments I made on social media. But, you know, it's all it was all orchestrated, the timing. It was around Ivermectin. They went after Ivermectin right when they were trying to mandate the shots. So and you look at Biden announced a $10,000,000,000, slush fund to combat vaccine hesitancy right right after the Ivermectin tweet went out.
So it was very orchestrated, and I I just stepped on some toes I shouldn't have stepped on. These are some powerful forces, behind the scenes. So so then did you how soon after did you start to investigate a legal remedy? So it kind of happened just, you know, organically that, Mary, doctor Abdo, myself got together and we connected with this law firm in DC, and we decided, you know what, that, this was not right, that they were spreading misinformation, and we should we should go after them. And so we are really grateful to the law firm because they were very supportive and did a truly astonishing, job in getting the outcome that we did.
So, you know, essentially, you know, the case, was it firstly was thrown out Mhmm. By the lower court because they said that the FDA had sovereign immunity, I e you can't sue the government. And then we contested that, and that was then reversed. And then it went to the 5th Circuit Court. And, basically, the judge said that the and I think this was really a turning point that, you know, the FDA is not a physician.
The FDA does not have the the, legislative and authority to act as a physician. They can, you know, approve drugs, but they can't tell physicians how to practice. And I think that that was a a seminal decision made by the court. And then, obviously, we went you know, the case went further, and the FDA then decided to settle with us. And so, you know, people have argued we should have gone forward, but we actually achieved what we wanted to achieve, which was the FDA was told they have to remove all their their incriminating tweets, all their false tweets, all their false information, they had to remove.
And so that that was that was a a a a major win. You know? There was no punitive or financial reward, but at least the FDA were told that they had exceeded their statutory, you know, authority. They had behaved in a way that was not acceptable, and that they had to remove these false and misleading tweets. So, you know, it was a a pretty much a landmark decision for for for us and for patients because, basically, what it said is that the FDA is not a physician, and they can't tell physicians how to practice medicine.
Yeah. And they they can't Do you wanna add to that? Yeah. I don't I mean, it was a long it it started in November of 2022. So it's been two and a half years.
We had to weigh the pros and cons of offering their settlement agreement or continuing on. And just like you would if you went to a doctor and you had to decide, okay, what what's the best route? You don't always know. But like Paul said, is our goal was to stop interference of the government into the patient physician relationship. That was our goal.
We were not putting them on trial for murder, although that would have been nice. It was just to stop this as one little aspect of a whole pile of things we need to address during this pandemic, but it sets a precedent. And then, you know, the next time they wanna go giving out clinical advice to patients, they'll have to think twice. And it's hugely embarrassing for them, which is nice. And I'm just trying to figure out when they're actually gonna take the tweets down.
Is it gonna be day 21, or what what's the plan? Because they don't seem to be wanting I don't know. Yeah. I was I was gonna ask because I keep searching just to see when it's coming down, and I still find it everywhere. And a couple questions.
I was wondering if any of your either former or current colleagues who didn't speak up, have they reached out to you and said congratulations or, like, maybe now they might wanna actually start prescribing? What any anything or is it crickets out there? Well, I sent the the article from Newsweek and CNN to one of my longest friends. I mean, I've known him since we were 5 years old. He said I was a crazy something, like, he was he was on the yeah.
He lives in New York City. He's total opposite side of the spectrum. We got into a little altercation over this. This was 3 years ago. So I sent him the the articles today.
I said, crazy you know what, just beat the FDA. Brickets. Brickets. Nothing. No.
But I'm gonna keep pestering him. We'll see what happens. I want his number. I wanna I wanna go and pester him as well. You know, and it's interesting too because I've I've been looking for any legacy media.
There's only been, like, what, like you mentioned, CNN and, like, Newsweek and maybe one other. And I also noticed that the LA Times put out a hit piece, an opinion piece written by a business guy saying that the FDA made a mistake or something. Like, I don't know if you've seen this, but, here, I'll see if I can share it because it it is a bit, disturbing that they're not that they're still trying to attack the, like, as if the FDA was wrong. Hold on. Let me share this screen.
This is from the LA Times. The FDA shoots itself in the foot by settling a groundless lawsuit over its ivermectin warnings. So they're still and they got the big picture of the horse, and and the article goes on to basically say they made a mistake and they're setting bad precedent. And it's just, to me, as Paul likes to say, astonishing that even after the settlement there's media out there still going against the courts. Yeah.
And I personally, I think they settled because they they either knew they were gonna lose or they knew that they would be screwed in discovery. I mean so they Yeah. I'll say something about discovery because I'm in the midst of, my legal battle with the Texas medical board, and we're in discovery. And I was very excited about that because I'm like, oh, I have so much I wanna uncover from the Texas medical board. I have gotten spot.
I mean, they have redacted or dodged or, I mean, I'm not getting anything. And so that's one consideration we had about discovery with the FDA. I mean, you look at what happens when you do a FOIA request. Remember the the myocarditis data was completely redacted. We were not optimistic about what they would actually disclose.
So that was one consideration we had, when we settled. Yeah. And essentially, Angel, we, you know, we achieved what we wanted to achieve because essentially the FDA, although they never admitted wrongdoing and they refused to apologize or admit wrongdoing, But essentially, that's what they did because they were forced by the courts to take down these tweets and all their, posts which were completely false and misleading. And, the court clearly said that the FDA is not a physician and does not have the right to dictate the practice of medicine. So I think that in itself is a a a landmark decision, which is important going forward as Mary said.
Yeah. They got their cock on the hand. They definitely got slapped on the hand. I love it. I you know, For the case to be dismissed and then to appeal and then to have the FDA, the judge tell the, I mean, I have it right here on my phone.
It's amazing. The FDA, the judge went off on the FDA with the following statements. FDA can inform, but it has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers stop taking medicine. FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise, but not to endorse, denounce, or advise.
And then, you know, even tweet sized doses of personalized medical advice are beyond the FDA statutory, authority, and so I love it. I mean, it's a huge slap on the hand. Hopefully, they learn their lesson. They'll never do this again to us. And I think, you know, with the 3 of you and you know, I think you've set the precedent.
You've set the bar to to show that they can't get away with this. They they tried. They didn't succeed. And going forward, they can never do this to us again because there will be doctors just like you who will do the right thing and put patients before profit and and not allow them to do this to you. So I'm so proud I am so honored to know you guys both, you know, personally and and have you fight so hard for us and take it all the way till the end.
The the tragedy though, Angelie, is that they prevented, you know, doctors like doctors Boden and others from prescribing Ivermectin. And Ivermectin really is very effective in the early stages of COVID. And so millions of patients died who needlessly should not have died. And I think that's the tragedy. So the FDA really has blood on their hands because they they really, you know, what they did to Ivermectin, they essentially, you know, prohibited or eliminated its use.
And, you know, part of the other problem was the the, you know, the involvement of the Federation of State Medical Boards. So, you know, doctor Boden has her legal issues, but there are many doctors and health practitioners who've lost their medical license or their ability to practice because they prescribed Ivermectin. And so, you know, we need to be clear. Ivermectin is an FDA approved drug that's being used off label. And prior to COVID, the FDA encouraged, endorsed the use of off label drugs.
Indeed, 40% of drugs used in the hospital are used off label. So this this was not an attack on off label drugs. This was an attack on Ivermectin because it was such an effective drug against COVID, and it threatened them, and it still threatens them. Yeah. Well, we never would have had the vaccines.
We would not have had remdesivir if you know, it was a huge threat. It was the biggest threat. And so that's why, you know, it was the war on Ivermectin. I'm curious. Has there ever been a situation like this before where a drug or a medication was barred from use by the FDA.
Is this the first time this has happened? Because my understanding was doctors treat patients, and they prescribe what they think is best for their patient, and you don't get this outside intervention. Had had we experienced that before? I believe there was inklings of it, but nothing like that. Nothing to this degree.
I can't remember, Paul. Yeah. So this is pretty this is pretty unique that the FDA, and then obviously together with the federal government and the, CDC went on this massive campaign to discredit ivermectin. And, you know, for example, many drugs that that are in common use, for example, Mary Bowden probably uses amoxicillin to treat severe otitis media. That that's indicate that's an off label indication.
So, I mean, it would be absurd to say you can't use amoxicillin. So this was specifically COVID related and ivermectin related. And so hopefully, this won't happen again. I'm I'm curious if you can share the stats, or numbers if you've, a, had any patients have any adverse reaction to the protocol, including Ivermectin. Did anybody get sick that you're aware of that took Ivermectin?
I always say I have a harder time with antibiotics in terms of side effects, patients calling me with issues. I mean, I've had minor things. I had some diarrhea or most common sort of unique would be blurry vision, but it goes away when you stop taking it. And that's even that is pretty rare. But it's you know, before I started using it, I was I was worried about the safety.
I went to the toxicity studies that are listed on the FDA's, website for Ivermectin. I looked at the LV 50, which is the lethal dose that would kill 50% of a lab animal in testing circumstances. And the amount of Ivermectin that you would have to give to harm somebody is multitudes. I mean, it varies, but 60 to a 100 times more than what we're prescribing. I also looked I did a literature search on PubMed to see, okay, how many accidental or intentional overdoses are reported in the literature.
0. I could not find a single case. Whereas if you go on the area for Tylenol, it's abundant. So once I was assured it was safe, I was like, why not try it? I wasn't convinced it was gonna live up to the hype, but then I found it it certainly did work.
So One of the things I learned when I was in Houston interviewing Paul and Pierre was that the the medications when they're distributed for animals or humans it's all the same it's just the dosage and the packaging it's not like they're different ivermectin for animals and different ivermectin for humans. Is that correct? It's it's the same, but it's packaged differently and the obviously, a horse is a big animal, so they get that big giant syringe where a human gets a tiny little pill. What is is that true? There's not, like, different completely different medications for animals and humans.
You're absolutely correct. I mean I mean so Ivermectin was eventually was originally used veterinary medicine and then it was discovered it had this profound antiparasitic effect. But the molecule is the same molecule. The problem the difference between veterinary medicine is often the purity of the compound is somewhat different. The carrier substances may be different, and the dosage is different.
But, I mean, animal you know, veterinarians are gonna use penicillin, amoxicillin. They're gonna use the same kind of drugs that doctor Bowden uses in her practice because, you know, they they're mammals. They they they they physiologically not much different to ourselves. Yep. Part of the whole smear campaign too was when all these articles were coming out that patients were overdosing and it was toxic and deadly, In reality, there was there was 2 amazing investigative journalists.
One of them was Lindy, is it it's, Linda Bonvy as well as, right about Pfeiffer. And what they found was that there was actually 4 phone calls to a poison control where people had just general questions about Ivermectin. So here in the media, we're hearing that it's toxic, that patients are overdosing and having all these side effects. But in reality, when they FOIAed and and did these, you know, investigative journaling, journal request, they they found that, really, there was 4 phone calls. So all of this mass hysteria about how dangerous Ivermectin was was based on 4 phone calls to poison control, which were not truly overdoses.
They were just questions. And so it's really just unfortunate that we had lost so many lives that could have been saved. We've damaged so many people. We've injured so many people. And, you know, there's no amount of money or justice that will will be enough to cover the damage that has been done.
But what you guys did with this case was just really remarkable and a step in the right direction. So it's a huge victory. Did you guys celebrate last Thursday when you got the news, or what did you guys do? We had an ivermectin cocktail. Yeah.
Well, speaking of ivermectin, we have a really special guest. Yeah. Now is a good time to, bring on our our our special guest and Right. Right. I'm gonna bring on Paul Mann.
Paul Mann, welcome to VSRF live. Thank you, and thank you for inviting me. I'm gonna I'm gonna start a quick bio and then I'm gonna let Paul take over. But, you are, I guess, known as patient 0. You're is that right?
You're you're 55, and you had terminal cancer. And after countless rounds of chemo and radiation, your doctors referred you to hospice. So I'm I'm gonna start it there, and then I'm gonna let Paul take over the rest of the story. Well, after I finished, with chemo and, radiation treatments, I'd ask the doctors, like, well, after the you know, we wait a couple weeks, 6 to 8 weeks, I get more scans. If I still have cancer in me, do I do I get more chemo?
What do I get? I have stage 4 prostate cancer. I still have stage 4 prostate cancer. And at that time, his answer was, this isn't curative. And I was just kinda looking at him thinking, you know, why are we doing this to me?
And I I guess he read what I was thinking. He's like, you know, you're completely full of very advanced, very aggressive cancer. There is no curative. And that's kind of when, you know, I was referred. And so, about a month or so after that's when I got in contact with doctor Ruddy who, and who told me to try Ivermectin.
I'm here in Saint Louis, and it's probably easier to get heroin than it is ivermectin. I found a compound pharmacy in Tennessee, which is about 4 and a half hours away, and I was able they kinda, they had a law where they could kinda sell over over the counter. The pharmacist can prescribe it to you, and I would go down there and pick up some and come back. Currently, now, the last month or so, I've been, ordering it from, through India Mart, and that's been very successful for me. But I I I remember Paul, you know, I I've been to all of the FLCCC conferences, and I always learn so much, you know, from all the doctors that speak.
And this last one that I went to, your story was just so heartwarming. And, you know, on these shows, we we speak with these doctors and we talk about injuries and the rise of cancer. And it's really hard and depressing and and very, very sad, but listening to you up there speak on stage was gave me so much hope. And you were literally in the hospital. You were, like, as doctor Reddy said, you were circling the drain.
You were you were referred to hospice. You you were fighting for your life every single day. They didn't you asked how much longer you had to live, and and they told you, well, days, if not weeks. And that was, what, 20 months ago? Or Yes.
And now Yes. Yeah. Go ahead. At one point during that conversation with the doctor, I'd I'd said something about plans, and he's he commented, your only long term goal is to make it to your next appointment, which was a week away. And I was like, am I living week to week?
And he's like, no. You're squeaking by day to day. I'm trying to get you to week to week. Wow. Which was kinda news to me even.
And I was just like, well, that's not good. And he's like, no. It's not good at all. So, yeah, I was I was even in worse shape, I guess, than I knew what I knew, but I'm still here. You're still here.
You're dancing? I do go dancing. You do go dancing. And and, you know, for me, what makes me so sad is that you having, you know, had terminal cancer and tumors, you know, in your pelvis, your spine, your brain, like, all over your body. Here you are having to drive 8 hours to Tennessee to get a safe and effective, you know, anti inflammatory, anti tumor medication, just blows my mind.
And and in all transparency, you are taking other why don't you tell us about some of the other things that you're combining, with your with your ivermectin? Because for me, it's such a story of hope. And with all these people, I've got personal friends who are young, in their early forties dying of cancer. We have vaccine injured that are that have cancer. So your story is just such a beautiful story of hope not giving up, and then, also, we wanna hear from doctor Merrick about what he's gonna be doing next, which is so exciting.
But, yeah, what what else are you taking, Paul? One of the biggest things I did was cut out sugar as much as possible. I eat very little sugar anymore, And, I take the ivermectin. I take my bendizole. I take mushroom, ground mushroom, chaga mushroom.
That's claims to have some antioxidant, you know, properties to it. I take ground flaxseed. So I take a lot of a lot of alternative type things. And it you know, the mainstream doctors have kind of finished what they can for me. I can't get any more radiation treatments.
I can't get any more chemo. I get hormone shots still, and I I take a a hormone drug daily. But everything else is what's being suggested to me by from doctor Reddy or doing research and stuff like that. So here in Saint Louis area, it is impossible to find a doctor to prescribe Ivermectin, and it was basically impossible to find a pharmacy that would even fill that prescription even if you could find a doctor to prescribe it to you. Yep.
So you had to drive 4 and a half hours each way to go so that you could and and they probably had a limit on how much to purchase. So how often? They did. They would they would sell it as a prophylactic for COVID. So they would give you enough capsules to take 2 capsules a week for 3 months, and I needed quite a bit more than that.
So I had some friends that also had a prescription that I would pick up, and I was able to get in enough pills that I I could kinda divide them up and take take enough every day. But now that I get them through India Mart, I'm about 24 milligrams or so a day. Yeah. It just it makes me so sad, Paul, that, you know, for such a safe drug, here, they would have no problem putting well, they did. They they referred you to hospice, which they'd give you Fentanyl.
They'd give you morphine. They'd give you, you know, sedatives and harmful drugs and and and a way to basically end your life as comfortably as possible. And here you're wanting to just take these safe and effective, potentially life changing medications. And here you are. You know, you were living day by day, and 20 months later, I got to meet you and you're here and you're dancing and you're just, you know, a ray of sunshine for all of us.
And you give so many people hope, which is is important. For the first time in a couple of years, I'm actually kinda making plans a few months in the, you know, in the future. For a while, I was just living day to day, and I made no plans or for the future. And now I'm back to, you know, not years out, but months out. And you are back to work, Paul.
Is that not correct? Yes. I've I I am at work. Wow. I remember doctor Merrick at the at the conference.
You got quite emotional when Paul got up there. I I cause you're such a you're such a teddy bear and such a sweetheart. And so when when Paul got up there to speak, the first person I looked at was you, doctor Merrick. And I could just see your face full of emotion and tears and just so much happiness, at the success and and just having you there, Paul, at the conference was really for me in my opinion. You and the and the other little girl that had the amazing victory who was in the wheelchair, that was the highlight of s FLCCC for me.
So thank you so much for being brave and sharing your story and and giving others hope. It was a thing, didn't it? I think it highlights what a what a truly astonishing drug this is. So, you know, this is a product of nature. It was not manufactured in a laboratory.
This was found in the soil in a golf course in Japan. This is produced by a bacterium and is a product of nature. And it has anti parasitic activity, but is very effective against a range of, RNA viruses, and it has very important anti inflammatory effects. And as, obviously, we've now discovered with mister Mann that, Ivermectin is very effective against cancers, a whole host of cancers. In fact, almost all cancers.
And it has specific biological properties that, interfere with the biochemical pathways in the cancer cell causing the cancer cells to die, causing cancer cells basically to stop proliferating. It affects the microenvironment of the tumor. It, affects the cancer stem cell. So it has they're probably about 16 or 18 different pathways through which Ivermectin has anticancer activity. And so that is really exciting, and it has the potential to be used in all patients with cancer.
So, you know, as, you know, mister Mann may still get conventional therapy, and if patients still want to get conventional therapy, there's absolutely no reason that you can't use adjunctive, you know, medications such as Ivermectin, vitamin d, melatonin. There there are a host of repurposed drugs that are very effective against cancer. And importantly, as mister Mann said is that metabolic control is very important because cancer cells feed on glucose and sugar. And so that was really smart of him. It was probably doctor Rady or through his research that he figured out that patients with cancer really need to limit the intake of glucose and sugar.
And so, you know, there's really good data that ketogenic diets are really very effective. So you combine a ketogenic diet together with ivermectin, vitamin d, melatonin, green tea, it's a potent it's a potent attack on cancer. Yeah. And, Paul, I understand you're doing some sort of trial now with this information. Is that correct?
Yeah. So thanks to doctor Rady, actually, we're doing a, observational study. So there were a number of physicians in the country that are using a number of repurposed drugs to, to treat cancer. So it's an observational study. There's no single protocol that's used in all patients.
It's very individualized according to the patient's own preferences and the physician's preferences. And so, basically, we're just collecting data and looking at what's happening. So it's really very exciting because hopefully we'll be we'll be able to show that Ivermectin which which is the prime therapy, will have a, significant impact on the course of this disease much as it has in mister Mann's case. Yeah. And we need this so desperately because as we see in the news I mean, I think it's one of the the few things that I believe that the media tells us is that cancer is on the rise.
Yeah. Especially amongst young people. Young people under 50, for sure. And why do you think that is, Angela and Livia? There's this product that came out in 2021 that they forced people to take, an injectable.
I think that might have something to do with it. Yeah. It probably has something to do with it and because there's been a massive spike, spike being operative word in the risk or the escalation of cancers, particularly in young people in, 21, 22, 23. This explosion of cancers, particularly colorectal cancer, uterine cancer, pancreatic cancer in young people. And so, and there are multiple mechanisms by which the jab has been implicated in carcinogenesis.
So this is not a fantasy. This is not a, you know, people think this is conspiracy theory again. Mary, are are are you seeing some of this in your practice, arise in cancer patients? I don't see a lot of cancer patients. I do so much respiratory.
I tracked the people that have respiratory. I mean, I have seen a few but I haven't seen an explosion like what other people are seeing. And I've had just a couple of patients take Ivermectin as a supplement to their cancer treatment, and they've done well, but I don't have extensive experience. I I have anecdotal evidence no less than 33 different friends. They're younger than me.
I'm 55, and they fairly recently within the last year went for routine physicals and were like, oh, you you have aggressive stage 4 cancer, and they're all in chemo now and going through the process, and it's been difficult uphill battle. There doesn't seem to be a, like, paw recovery yet for them. In fact, they've been given, like, 2 years if they follow the radiation chemo treatment, and and I'm left with stories like Paul's and others. And and if I say something to them, they even then, they're not at the point yet that they're willing to try anything, which is startling to me. Yeah.
I think it's a tragedy, Olivia, as you say, because I think, you know, patients need to be educated and as well as physicians. So we're not saying abandon all all your chemotherapy. I mean, if you still wanna get chemotherapy, that's fine, but you can these drugs are very safe. As as Mary said, Ivermectin is incredibly safe, and so there's no reason that patients with cancer can't adjunctively take Ivermectin, vitamin d, and some of these other repurposed drugs. And so that's our goal is to, you know, hopefully through programs like yours and through the media and social media is to make people more aware that they do have alternatives and patients can be empowered.
Yep. You've you've put together an amazing protocol. You know, I know you worked so hard on that call, doctor Merrick, the the cancer protocol, which is on the website, the FLCC website. So I think everybody should have that in their back pocket. And even just prophylactically, doing some of those things, like cutting back on sugar and getting rest and taking melatonin and making sure your vitamin d levels are up and and eating non GMO foods and organic if possible.
Just all of these things. I I think we have to be proactive and help us prevent from getting cancer, especially those of us who've been vaccinated. So I I love the protocol. You know, I just I actually look at it and just see what other lifestyle choices I can make, to shift, you know, what I'm doing because we I I don't wanna be one of those statistics. Yeah.
And I think, you know, poor man is a walking example that, you know, this is not conspiracy theory. This is this is science, and this is based on good science. And you can see how well he he has done. And there are hundreds of patients like him. Yeah.
So, you know, we we hoping that, you know, that more people will become aware that there are alternatives to, conventional chemo and radiation therapy which is very toxic. Yeah. Absolutely. Well, what do you say we move on to q and a from the audience? Just wanna remind people, if you have questions, and I've seen many, put in all caps question and put your question and who you're directing it to in the rumble chat so it's easy for our team to spot them.
And, again, if you're able to make a donation with your question via Rumble, click on the Rumble rants, and we'll prioritize those questions to show our appreciation. So let me go to the q and a list, and I'm gonna start with, let's start with doctor Boden from pickles v v 8 love that name where to get ivermectin for non vaxxed but cheddar receivers Not sure how to phrase that any differently. Where to get ivermectin for non vaxxed but shedder receivers? Well, I guess it depends on which state you're in, but my free doctor.com has like minded physicians in all 50 states that do text or telemed and it's free. They they rely on donations to stay afloat, but you're there's no obligation.
And then they can usually find a pharmacy near you. I can't specifically say go to India, but I I have lots of patients that do go to India like mister Mann. Mhmm. So but, you know, it's it's accessible if you yeah. I would probably just start with my free doctor.com if you don't have a doctor that will prescribe it.
And feel free to reach out to me as well, nurseangela@vaxsafety.org because I have lots of options for getting, ivermectin, especially here in California where it was a lot more difficult to get it. I have I have doctors in every state that can can prescribe it. So Yeah. So I think, you know, contacting people like Angela helps. And then obviously, like mister Mann is doing that there are compounding pharmacies in India that are very reputable that provide high quality Ivermectin and you don't you you don't need a prescription, do you mister Man?
You do not. So it makes it quite, quite accessible. And it is high quality, so people don't really need to be concerned about, the the quality of the medication. I'm gonna follow-up with a question from Bell c m one. How much should we take prophylactically?
And, and I'll say that I took it prophylactically for at least a year and a half, and I never got the COVID, and I didn't get the injectable. I'm one of those rare people. Yeah. So that's a good question and so, you know, it and by prophylaxis, I mean, I presume, I mean, to prevent COVID 19. And so COVID, you know, obviously, the the the threat of the virus is going away.
Omicron is, obviously less, pathogenic than the previous variants. So it it depends on your risk factor and your risk tolerance. But for a general person, you know, 12 to 18 milligrams once or twice a week if they had high risk. So what I do is when I travel, obviously, being exposed to a lot of people, before I go, I take 18 milligrams of of Ivermectin. But I think it depends upon your particular, you know, risk and your, and your threshold.
Question for Paul Mann from tleighr. Did you take the COVID vaccine? I did. I waited till the very end. I'm a civilian federal employee.
We were mandated. I waited till the very, very end where you had to be completely vaccinated by October 1 or something, October 12, some date like that. So I waited until the very end because they were making it perfectly clear that, you know, you were going to lose your job. You couldn't go become a contractor. They were all forced to they were saying any company with a 100 or more employees, everyone was gonna have to get, vaccinated.
And, I really put a lot of thought into it. I did not want to. You know, I waited till the very end, and I made the wrong decision. And did you get a booster as well? How many or which one did you boosters.
No. No boosters. Which which one did you get, if you don't mind me asking? Got the Pfizer. And you were perfectly fine for the most part before that?
I was. I'd had a physical April of 2,001, and then I was I was fine. I was forced to or I I submitted to being forced to take the vaccine September of 21. And in June 3rd 22, I was diagnosed. So I was completely as one doctor said, you know, you're completely full of very advanced.
He's like, you're beyond any kind of surgery and any treatments, really. So And prior, Paul, you were a marathon runner. You've run Yes. Multiple marathons in your life. I mean, you've you're like the.
You know? And and clearly, you're very strong. You're you're you're strong physically and you're strong mentally because I love what you have on your wrist. I mean, I think that is so motivating and it's what you looked at when you were in the in the hospital, not doing so well. It's like that's your he's got these 2 tattoos, 1 on each rest that have just beautiful motivational writings that he could look at and keep him going.
One says he believed he could, so he did, and the other one says I won't give up. I won't give in. And that's the one that saved my life. Mhmm. I was in the hospital.
I was they didn't think I was gonna last. You know? I thought I wasn't gonna last. It's really hard, and the thoughts of just giving up kinda do cross your mind. And I I I thought, you know, I can't give up.
I literally have it inked on my arm that I won't. You know? So I kinda credit getting that tattoo with actually, you know, keeping my mind from giving up. Yeah. Keeping it slow.
I see some of the questions of what dose of Ivermectin for cancer. Right. It's something it's something that we're looking at, but we think, you know, a dose of 12 to 18 to 24 milligrams is probably adequate. You don't really need massively high dose. What dose do you take, Paul?
I take 24, or 2 2, 12 milligram tablets Twice a day. A day. Yeah. So it's 24. Someone told me that it might not be exactly 12 milligrams in each tablet, but they're close enough.
Yeah. So we think that the dose is somewhere between 12 to 24 milligrams in that range. Obviously, you know, we need more data. But it's not the massive doses that, some people are suggesting. So you think I should start taking it prophylactically, Paul, for, cancer prevention?
No. Just just making sure. Yeah. So there are other things that you that you should be doing, vitamin g, exercise, omega threes, you know, a good diet. Those are take all vitamin g.
Yeah. I need to exercise more. That's for sure. Yeah. Question for you, Paul.
From Bobo Lives Here, Can you please compare the western COVID shots to the Russian Sputnik COVID shot? This will really provide crucial information to the world. Also can add the childhood vaccine comparisons, if you have an answer to that. Or doctor Merrick? Yeah.
Yeah. Or Mary. Or Mary. Think the the Russian Sputnik is an antigen test rather messenger RNA, form platform if if I understand it correctly. You know, obviously, because it's unavailable here, you know, we don't get much access.
But that that's what I suspect that it's it's not an RNA platform. It's an antigen platform. Do you know Angela or Mary? I don't. Do you know Mary?
I don't know. Alright. Let's go to the next one from this is for doctor Boden from KRWRN. Does this open up the avenue for class action lawsuits? This is the lawsuit you were just in.
Does this open up the avenue for class action lawsuits on the FDA and state medical and pharmacy boards? Well, if they take my license, I'm going to law school and then I can answer that, but I'm not sure. So, it seems like you could use the this case to, you know, as a as a springboard for other cases. But, again, I don't I honestly don't know for sure. Yes.
That's a good question. I think as Mary said, I think it can be used as evidence for great cases going forward. But in terms of class action lawsuits, I think it's, you know, the government is so protected that I think it's it's very, you know, with all with the, they they they're so shielded. I think it's very difficult, to to to embark on, class action suits. Mary, is is you your are they gonna take away your license as an actual threat right now for you?
Well, Well, I just have to decide. I mean, I'm I have this administrative state up state office of administrative hearing, so it's, like, the next level up. It's a 5 day, trial. And if I lose, I have to decide I'm going to accept that or, you know, I don't know what I'm gonna do. I just yep.
I'm trying to fight until they dismiss all the charges. I'm gonna follow-up with the case from, this is probably for both of you, from an Alaskan. Why did the lower court throw it out, the case out, and then why did the appellate court reverse it? You wanna answer that, Mary? I threw it out on sovereign immunity, which basically means if the government is working within the realm of what they're allowed to do, so, you know, each agency has things that they are allowed to do, if they are working within those boundaries, you cannot sue them.
So that's what the lower count the lower court decided, yes, FDA was working within their boundaries and so we're dismissing the case. So then we went to the, appellate court and they said, actually, the lower court was wrong. So they don't have sovereign immunity. They were acting outside of those boundaries. And so then it went back to district court.
And then the next hurdle so then the government appealed again. Appeal might not be the right term, but they fought back saying that we don't have standing. So standing means that, okay, well, FDA may have done all this stuff, but it doesn't really affect the plaintiffs directly. So we had to prove standing. So once we got through that, then the FDA got scared I wanted to settle.
Uh-huh. Well, it's gonna continue. I hope, it would be interesting, though, to see you as a lawyer. I can say that. Question for doctor Merrick from Doctor Laura.
How is doctor Stone? This is referring she was in the video that we showed earlier. Did she survive the attacks on her license? As I understand, she's still they're still attacking her. So the the attacks, as Mary knows, these things get drawn out for a long time.
So as I understand, her case has not been resolved yet. Thank you for that. Question for Paul Mann from Genie. What were some of the immediate positive physical effects you witnessed in yourself when you started with Ivermectin? I think the positive I think it took a while to to dawn that I was getting better.
But, Isaiah, more stamina, more strength, just feeling better day to day. I feel better now than I have in a in a really long time. I still have a lot of cancer in me. I'm still stage 4. It's across my oops.
Sorry. It's across my pelvis, up my spine, the sternum, in the shoulder, in the ribs, but, I feel better than I have in a long time. We'll know in May 20th, I get a whole bunch of full body scans. And we'll know then that they'll be the first full body scans I've had in 9 months. So we'll get a good idea on how if Ivermectin, you know, hopefully has been doing its job.
So I look forward to that, actually. The fact that you feel good is such a great sign. You know? And just being able to weight. Everyone's a lot of people tell me, you know, for a while, I was a kind of a concrete gray color.
My colorings kinda come back. I've I've started gaining weight again. So You look you look fantastic. Yeah. Hey, Angela.
Unfortunately, I have to jump off if that's okay with you guys. Yeah. I I think we've pretty much reached the end of the line. So I know, Mary also probably has to go shortly. So I'm gonna leave it at at can I ask one more question before you go, Paul?
Because this could be for you and Mary. And this is from Uli on Webb. Ivermectin also helped me with the flu. After taking Ivermectin, my fever was gone. Was that a coincidence, or does Ivermectin also help with other viruses?
Is it also a protease inhibitor? Yeah. So that's a good question. It acts The influenza is an RNA virus. So we do know that, Ivermectin is effective against a whole bunch of RNA viruses, Zika virus, chikungunya virus, influenza virus.
So it likely was, worked against influenza. It is a truly multipurpose miraculous drug. Yep. Yep. You know, you just have to look at Paul Mann, and and I think you you one can see what a, what a fantastic drug this is.
Yeah. Yep. Thank you so much, Paul, for coming on. This was such last minute. I mean, we literally asked.
I I thought about you. I think about you every day ever since FLCC. I think about you every day. And, you know, when I reached out to doctor Merrick last night and said, hey. We've gotta bring him on.
Like, we're talking about ivermectin. This is such a beautiful story of hope. You know, I thank you so much for your time and for for coming on, and thank you so much, doctor Boden and doctor Merrick, for being warriors and for being you you the 2 of you are truly an example of what all doctors should be like. You know, all doctors should look up to you. You guys went into medicine for the right reasons, and you put patients first.
You don't care about the profits. You both have lost so much, to fight and do what you do and all this traveling. And anytime I ask you guys, literally, doctor Boden, we were just in Vegas, and she got off the stage. And I walked over to her and I said, doctor Boden, how do you feel about traveling to Washington DC next week and being outside in front of the steps fighting for for free speech? And she's like, sure.
Okay. I've just been traveling, you know, nonstop, and I know you have a family and children. And so I just really thank you so much for all all that you do. It means so much to us. So thank you.
Yeah. Thank you both. And, Paul, man, thank you in continued recovery in in your cancer treatment. And, Mary, thank you so much for your time and your bravery. And, Paul, I'll see you next Wednesday.
Thank you, Angela, and thank you, Labeo, for putting this on. It's been great. And thanks, mister Mann and Mary. And so I'm gonna say bid you farewell. So thank you.
Thank you. Congratulations. Congratulations on the win. Yeah. Congrats.
Okay. Everyone, stay stay with us. We got a few announcements to make. Angela, that was a fin incredible conversation. Just, the bravery of these of the doctors and Paul Mann to share his story with us and continue the fight after literally literally being left for for debt.
Yes. He was. He was given the option of hospice, and and now he's you know, when he was up there on stage telling us and he looks fantastic, by the way. When you see him in person, he looks fantastic. And, hearing that he's dancing and he's, you know, living living every single day as we should be.
And so just a a beautiful story of what repurposed drugs can do. And and so yeah. He's an inspiration. And Yes. And I I wanna send this to all the deniers and to the the people that are still writing hit pieces on Ivermectin I know.
When we have so many success stories, yours truly included. Couple of announcements, we are not having Twitter Spaces this evening, so you can have the the the night off after that. I want to also share, that we're saying this again. This is an important request for support for VSRF live that, we depend solely on your donations, on public donations to bring you this weekly show, and we need your financial support. And tonight, we are introducing a new segment as well where we highlight our donation heroes here at VSRF.
Many of you choose let me pop this on the screen, over here. Many of you choose to remain anonymous, but we want to tell their stories of their incredible generosity and thoughtfulness as they support this team's efforts at BSRF. So tonight, we'd like to introduce our first donor spotlight, KS from Rochester, New York. KS wrote to us recently and said, I have no family and no friends that need money, so I'm going to leave in my will the 3 most important groups to me that have gotten everyone through the pandemic, the people who put their necks on the line. My contribution will be modest, but at least it's something.
Lord knows you guys deserve it. Wow. Thank you, KS, for your kind words and unforgettable generosity. God bless. Thank you so much.
Yes. Thank you. And so for the rest of our audience willing to contribute tonight, you can make a direct donation by simply texting VSRF to 53 dash 55 5. Again, our goal for tonight and each show down the road is $5,000. And please remember, no donation is too small.
Together, we can preserve health freedom for generations to come. And and even if you can't donate, we're still glad that you're here with us, week in week out. And we'll be back next week with Steve. Steve is so sorry that he had to miss this episode. He's actually traveling as we speak.
So I know he's sad not to be here, but we will look forward to having him back with us next week. Absolutely. And, last week, I made a mistake in sharing the wrong Turtles All the Way Down book, Steve. So I'm gonna show the correct version this week and the Turtles All the Way Down is now available as an audiobook and is currently on sale on Amazon. If you haven't listened to it, here's your chance.
And, if you order the audiobook, 10% of the proceeds goes to VSRF, and this is the correct one, not the one I flashed last week. And another way to help us is for is if you go to our swag shop at support vax safety dot my Shopify or just go to vax safety dot org and click on the shop button, and you can get all the great wonderful gear. I almost wore my misinformation super spreader shirt tonight, but then it looked too black. So I I changed it at the last minute. I like my DTM one.
This is also one of my favorites because it it reminds me of meeting all these wonderful doctors. That was the first time that we all actually got to be together, so I love it. Yeah. There's the mug, and I and I got a sticker when we were in Vegas. So, yeah, the DTM one is pretty awesome.
And then also next week, we have on April 4th, we'll have film director John Davidson. His new film, epidemic of fraud, explores the bizarre media, medical, and partisan political attacks levied against a class of ancient medications. John has devoted the last 4 years investigating medical fraud around COVID to tell the story. It's gonna be an awesome discussion, and, you know, I love talking to filmmakers, Angela. So and we'll have Steve back.
And I think he used to work for CNN as well. He worked for you know, he he he he was on that side of history, and now he's gone over to the dark side like us. That's right. We're so, I look forward to that. If, if you guys you can watch the film, I believe, on YouTube, and we're gonna close out with the trailer, from Epidemic of Fraud.
Angela, it's been awesome, as always, sharing the show with you tonight. Thank you for being here. Yes. Thank you so much. So great to see you, Olivia, and looking forward to seeing you next week.
Yeah. You too. And for everyone out there, thank you. Have a great rest of your evening. Thank you to those of you who have donated to VSRF, and, we will see you next week.
Here is the trailer for epidemic of fraud. Many doctors are actually working in employed positions, and they were told if you use these drugs, you probably will be fired. This is something that could have ended the pandemic if people had understood it and instead it's being suppressed. It's in such a violation. I have to stress has never occurred before for any medication ever.
The federal government is incentivizing hospitals to prescribe a medication which is toxic. This is a study designed by the World Health Organization that is not only designed to fail, it's designed to kill. Guess what they did? They gave her a 5 day cycle, and my mom is dead. Is this about money?
Because if it's about money, then it's disgusting that we killed a person for the price of a stock. Academic medicine is committing a fraud, is committing, I think, a crime against humanity. If you ask me, this isn't a hospital. This is a concentration camp. I've interviewed doctors, nurses, vaccine injured, mal practice survivors, and even interacted with heads of the FDA.
And my work has been repeatedly censored. What I've found is an unholy alliance of public, private, and political groups that seem hell bent on turning all of us into lab rats. There's something that has gone wrong here. History is unforgiving. It will become very clear very soon who was on the right side of history, who was on the wrong side of history.
My name is John, and I am a storyteller. And this is kind of my story.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
GUESTS
Paul E. Marik MD, FCCM, FCCP | See bio
Prior to co-founding the FLCCC, Dr. Marik was best known for his revolutionary work in developing a lifesaving protocol for sepsis, a condition that causes more than 250,000 deaths yearly in the U.S. alone.
Dr. Marik is an accomplished physician with special knowledge in a diverse set of medical fields, with specific training in Internal Medicine, Critical Care, Neurocritical Care, Pharmacology, Anesthesia, Nutrition, and Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. He is a former tenured Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS) in Norfolk, Virginia. As part of his commitment to research and education, Dr. Marik has written over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles, 80 book chapters and authored four critical care books and the Cancer Care Monograph. His efforts have provided him with the distinction of the second most published critical care physician in the world. He has been cited over 54,500 times in peer-reviewed publications and has an H-index of 111. He has delivered over 350 lectures at international conferences and visiting professorships. As a result of his contributions, he has been the recipient of numerous teaching awards, including the National Teacher of the Year award by the American College of Physicians in 2017.
In January 2022 Dr. Marik retired from EVMS to focus on continuing his leadership of the FLCCC and has already co-authored over 10 papers on therapeutic aspects of treating COVID-19. In March 2022 Dr. Marik received a commendation by unanimous vote by the Virginia House of Delegates for “his courageous treatment of critically ill COVID-19 patients and his philanthropic efforts to share his effective treatment protocols with physicians around the world.”
Pierre Kory MD, MPA | See bio.
Pierre Kory is the former Chief of the Critical Care Service and Medical Director of the Trauma and Life Support Center at the University of Wisconsin. He is considered one of the world pioneers in the use of ultrasound by physicians in the diagnosis and treatment of critically ill patients. He helped develop and run the first national courses in Critical Care Ultrasonography in the U.S., and served as a Director of these courses with the American College of Chest Physicians for several years. He is also the senior editor of the most popular textbook in the field titled “Point of Care Ultrasound,” now in its 2nd edition and that has been translated into seven languages worldwide. He has led over 100 courses nationally and internationally, teaching physicians this now-standard skill in his specialty.
Dr. Kory was also one of the U.S. pioneers in the research, development, and teaching of performing therapeutic hypothermia to treat post-cardiac arrest patients. In 2005, his hospital was the first in New York City to begin regularly treating patients with therapeutic hypothermia. He then served as an expert panel member for New York City’s Project Hypothermia, a collaborative project between the Fire Department of New York and Emergency Medical Services. This project created cooling protocols within a network of 44 regional hospitals – along with a triage and transport system that directed patients to centers of excellence in hypothermia treatment – of which his hospital was one of the first.
Known as a Master Educator, Dr. Kory has won numerous departmental and divisional teaching awards in every hospital he has worked. He has delivered hundreds of courses and invited lectures throughout his career.
In collaboration with Dr. Paul Marik, Dr. Kory pioneered the research and treatment of septic shock patients with high doses of intravenous ascorbic acid. His work was the first to identify the critical relationship between the time of initiation of therapy and survival in septic shock patients – an aspect of the therapy that led to understanding all the failed randomized controlled trials that employed delayed therapy.
Dr. Kory has led ICUs in multiple COVID-19 hotspots throughout the pandemic. Having led his old ICU in New York City during their initial surge in May for five straight weeks, he then traveled to other COVID-19 hotspots to run COVID ICU’s in Greenville, South Carolina and Milwaukee, WI during their surges. He has co-authored five influential papers on COVID-19, with the most impactful being a paper that was the first to support the diagnosis of early COVID-19 respiratory disease as an organizing pneumonia, thus explaining the critical response of the disease to corticosteroids.
About FLCCC | See here.
Founded by a group of leading critical care specialists in March 2020, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) is dedicated to helping prevent and treat COVID, and to help patients take charge of other areas of their health.
We aim to save lives and improve health by advancing protocols based on the latest science, data, and clinical observations.
Our founding physicians are highly published and world-renowned thought leaders, with deep knowledge and expertise in a range of important health issues.
The organization has reached millions of people through its protocols, website, webinars, newsletters, social media, speaking engagements, and media appearances. Our protocols are used by healthcare providers worldwide and have helped countless thousands of people.
FLCCC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit funded entirely by voluntary donations from individuals and charitable organizations.
SOVEREIGNTY COALITION CO-HOSTS
Dr. Kat Lindley
Dr. Kat Lindley, DO, is a Croatian-born, American-trained, board-certified family physician with a direct primary care practice in Texas. She became a family physician because she loved the idea of taking care of the whole family and seeing the family grow. Later in her career, she became interested in helping find solutions to improve the overall healthcare system. Doctor Lindley is involved with many medical organizations, including the American Academy of Physicians and Surgeons and Global Covid Summit, and is the current President of the Texas Osteopathic Medical Association. She is a passionate advocate for her profession, her patients, and her children. As a mom of 5, she understands the importance of being involved in her children’s lives and is actively involved in her community.
Patrice Pederson, President, First Freedom Foundation
Patrice has over 20 years of experience in the international pro-family movement, including almost a decade as Founder and President of the International Family Caucus, founder of the UN Coalition for Women, Children, and the Family, and as the Executive Director of the World Congress of Families IX. She has worked for more than 20 political campaigns on five continents and consulted for dozens of non-profit organizations around the world. She studied political science at Brigham Young University, and trans-organizational collaboration at Pepperdine University’s #1 ranked Master of Science in Organization Development Program.
transcript of 77 min podcast Sovereignty Coalition Zoom Meeting w/ Drs. Paul Marik and Pierre Kory | 5-13-24
https://rumble.com/v4v7cc5-sovereignty-coalition-zoom-meeting-w-drs.-paul-marik-and-pierre-kory-5-13-2.html
Hi there, everyone. Welcome. Thank you for being here tonight for the sovereignty coalition's mobilize for sovereignty know who. We're so glad to have you here. This is our, opportunity to, meet with the public and really, give you the important updates and developments this week and also just to really encourage one another that we are the movement that we hope to be.
Every single one of us here, it doesn't matter what your position in life is, what your status in life is. You can do something to counter the who, and so we're glad to be here together working with you as members of our coalition, very vital members. You can get information at sovereigntycoalitiondot org. Sovereigntycoalition.org. Be sure to look at, the resources tab and the take action tab.
Also, news is are is there. We have a meme library. You can, be doing social protests, social media protests, and and all kinds of things that, really creative ideas that, you can be doing on the resources tab there. So happy to have tonight, we have doctor Paul Merrick and doctor Pierre Kory with the FLCCC. See tonight, our host is doctor Kat Lindley.
She is a Croatian born, American trained, board certified family physician with direct primary care practice in Texas. She became a family physician because she loved the idea of taking care of the whole family and seeing the family grow. Later in her career, she became interested in helping find solutions to improve the overall health care system. Doctor Lindley is involved with many medical organizations, including the American Academy of Physicians and Surgeons and Global COVID Summit and is the current president of the Texas Osteopathic Medical Association. She is a passionate advocate for her profession, her patients, and her children.
And as a mom of 5, she understands the importance of being involved in her children's life and is actively involved in her community. Doctor Kat, welcome. The floor is yours. Thank you, Didi, and, thank you all for joining the sovereignty coalition, the weekly Zooms that we have. It's a privilege and honor to have my 2 colleagues and good friends with us tonight, doctor Pierre Kory and doctor Paul Merrick.
And, they have been leaders in the medical freedom movement, and it's really an honor to have them both. I'll give a little bit of a bio for both of them for those of you who who don't know much about them. So doctor Merrick is an accomplished physician with special knowledge in diverse set of medical fields with specific training in internal medicine, critical care, neurocritical care, pharmacology, anesthesia, nutrition, and tropical medicine, and hygiene. He's a former Kenya professor of medicine and chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia. As part of his commitment to research and education, doctor Merrick has written over 500 peer reviewed journal articles, baby book chapters, and authored 4 critical care books and the cancer care monograph.
He in January 2022, he retired for from EVMS to focus on continuing his leadership at the FLCCC that he helped cofound with, doctor Pierre Kory, doctor Joe Baron, and, several other physicians. In his leadership role at the FLCCC, he has authored over 10 papers on our therapeutic aspects of treating COVID 19. And in March of 22, he received recommendation by unanimous vote by the Virginia House of Delegates for his courageous treatment of critically ill COVID 19 patients and his philanthropic efforts to share his effective treatment protocols with physicians around the world. So welcome, doctor Paul Merrick. And, we also have doctor Kory, doctor Pierre Kory, who's pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist and former associate professor in chief of the critical care service at the University of Wisconsin.
Prior to COVID, he was an internationally renowned pioneer in the field of critical care ultrasonography, having served as senior editor of an award winning test book in its second edition translated into 7 languages. During COVID, he cofounded and served as the president and chief medical officer of the Frontline COVID 19 Critical Care Alliance, a nonprofit organization dedicated to developing the most effective treatment protocols for COVID 19. He has since left the organization and carries an Emeritus title. Having coauthored over 12 peer reviewed manuscripts on COVID 19, he's considered one of the world's critical experts on the role of Ivermectin and other early treatments. Doctor Kory is also considered a master educator, having won major department teaching awards at multiple institutions in his career.
He's currently in private practice with a focus on treating patients with long haul and post COVID mRNA vaccine into syndromes. That was a mouthful for both of you. Thank you both for joining us tonight. It's really a privilege to be on this end of the Zoom. Usually, you you guys are the ones leading the webinars and conversations.
So thank you both for coming in. Hey, Pierre. How are you doing, my friend? Hey, Paul. Good to see you.
Yeah. It's been a while. Yeah. Totally. Hey, Pat.
It's an honor. You you you give us such nice, introductions, but, we we me and Paul go way back with you, my friends. So it's it's good to be together again. Yes. It it's really wonderful.
And I know this is actually usually my subject matter, and you guys are the ones asking questions, but we're gonna turn the tables a little bit. I know we've discussed on different webinars and different meetings we we both we'd all been on, this idea of the pandemic treaty that World Health Organization is trying to, pass, at the end in May. And, do you guys have any concerns? You know, I know specifically, you know, when it comes to patient physician relationship, I talk about this article 18 in amendment that says the director general can call for the, public health emergency. And once he does, that he can tell us what type of medicines we can use, treatments, diagnostics, vaccines, you can order isolation, quarantine, restrict travel, and things like that.
So what do you guys think about that from your own experience? Right? Yeah. I mean, I'll give you my 2¢ worth and then Per can chime in. Obviously, it's a bad idea.
We should not have governmental or any administrative body telling doctors how to practice medicine, what to do, and what not to do. We we we know it's a disaster. COVID was a good example for us where you interfere with the basic patient physician relationship. It leads to a really bad outcome. You know, the the physician is is you know, you you are a physician.
You look after patients. You know what's best for your patient. And then you develop a relationship with your patient and you decide together the best course. You can't have outside agencies dictating therapy, particularly when that therapy is toxic. You know, it's truly an astonishing evolution of medicine.
It was not the way it was meant to be. You know, it was meant to be a patient and a physician, and that was it. You don't have these outside forces dictating out of practice medicine. Paul, you're an expert on remdesivir, and that's exactly kind of an example of what you're saying where we had WHO recommend remdesivir as the only treatment for the COVID at one point. So, what is what has your experience been this past?
You know, I know both of you and Pierre felt the need to actually lead the medical, profession in showing everyone that there is alternatives to what these agencies were telling us we need to do? Yeah. So Remdesivir is a really good example of how a corrupt system can become corrupt and kill patients. So, basically, the randomized controlled trial on which the FDA approved remdesivir was a fraudulent study. They changed the endpoint halfway through the study.
They unblinded the study, then changed the endpoint to meet some kind of made up endpoint which was meaningless. And on the basis of that single study, it was approved by the FDA. And in fact, Anthony Fauci was sitting gloating in the White House in April of 21, I think it was, before the study had even finished. And so what do we know? We know that remdesivir increases the risk of kidney failure significantly.
We know that it increases the risk of death and yet it is the standard of care the standard of care in almost every hospital in the US. If you are admitted admitted to hospital with with COVID 19 and you had a certain time window, you get you get given remdesivir, which is absurd at multiple levels. Firstly, it doesn't work. Secondly, it's meant to be antiviral. By the time the patient's admitted to hospital, the virus has stopped replicating.
So the problem is, as you know, is that clinicians are like lemmings. They don't they don't follow independent thought process. They don't they don't think critically. They just follow. And that's the problem when you have dictated medicine.
And remdesivir is a good example of how patients have been poisoned and, their lives taken away by a drug which should never have been used. What do you think, Pierre? Am I overstating it? No. No.
I think you're absolutely right. Of course. I I wanna kinda piggyback on a couple of things you said, which is never in history have has there been a disease in which doctors weren't free to treat as they saw fit using their clinical experience, insight, knowledge of pathophysiology, mechanisms of action. I mean, doctors have always tried to figure out what to do best for their patients. And now we're in this new historical period where doctors are supposed to stand by and wait to be told from up above by literally captured agencies.
Right? So, you know, I wrote I wrote a book called The War on Ivermectin where I really go into detail on how not only our so so, Kat, you know, you started asking about, you know, what do we think about the who dictating what the world does to treat a disease? I would use examples let's just look at the United States. I mean, the United States, we literally were first told by our agencies to do nothing, that there was nothing that could that could work. Right?
And and I wanna credit Paul. You know, Paul wrote this famous letter to, governor Andrew Cuomo of New York very early on, like, March of 2020, Paul, where you said there is no disease that you cannot treat. And, yeah, we were being told by our agencies that there are no treatments. Right? And and, basically, the way the system is is that they don't want you to treat with anything unless there's some huge randomized controlled trial to show that it works.
And so, basically, that sends a message to the world's doctors that nothing works unless it's proven in some large randomized controlled trial. The challenge is the research funding and what they study is all controlled by financial interest. So they don't study vitamin d. They don't study well, when they do study, cheap, safe, effective medicines, they do it fraudulently. But, I mean, listen.
My my my short answer is our system is captured by financial interest. And the more power that they can concentrate at the top and the more power they can exert over physicians, the more money they make. And they literally dictate physician. And I like what Paul said, Physicians are lemmings that they really are. I mean, they just they follow orders.
Very few are willing to push back against, you know, consensus. I I I don't wanna, criticize them too much, but what I really think of physicians is the vast majority are unlike me and Paul in that what Paul and I discovered in COVID is that you can't trust the authorities. Prior to COVID, Paul will admit with me, we trusted the medical journals. We trusted the quote I'm using air quotes. The the the experts who spoke out, you know, from agencies.
We we thought that was all, like, the best science and and the best scientists, and we discovered the opposite. And so it's really scary when you see that these these physicians, these figureheads, these authority figures, they're all captured, and they're all controlled. And this this treaty is just gonna put that in place for the world. I mean, the US did so reprehensibly bad. I mean, we have so much of the deaths and COVID occurred in the US, and it was because of our policies.
And so so so to make to make the US model a global model is horrible. The you know, it's it's basically gonna attack doctors who think on their feet, use safe treatments that are effective. We get attacked. Right? That's another part of it is is those of us who stray.
Like, once you once you come up with a system where, like, you know, you have to do this. The WHO says this. And if you don't do this, then you're a misinformationist, a disinformationist, a quack, fringe, radical, anti vaxxer, you know, all of the things that they lodged at us just for doing what we've done our whole careers, which is to doctor. You know, using our best judgment, putting our patient as the primary consideration, using our our best logic as to what is safe, what is effective, and and what are the what are the alternatives to those treatments? And, you know, it's it's a sad thing, but but, Kat, I I gotta believe that your audience knows all the stuff that me and Paul are saying.
I mean, the the people here tonight, they know this. They know how bad the WHO is. I'm gonna stop, Kat, and I wanna actually put out something to you, which might be actually a little bit actually, I'm gonna put you on the back seat or on, because here's here's what I think. What I'm really scared of, Kat, is we've spent so much time defeating this WHO treaty, which I think your work, the work of Merrill Nass and and Lisa, you know, who works with daughter Freedom and all the organizations, global health project, you guys have done fantastically. I mean, legislatures across the world, legislators have, like, spoken out against the treaty.
It looks like I don't know what the latest is, but it looks like that treaty is not gonna happen. But here's my point, is does it make a difference, Kat? Because to Paul's point about lemmings, I don't think the world the WHO needs a treaty to exert their influence. I mean, if if you go back to early 2020, when the WHO said that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin didn't work, YouTube immediately put it in their community guidelines. You could not talk about those 2 drugs on any of social media.
You got the platform and all this. And that there was no treaty then. Like, I really think that the world's health agencies and leaders, they're all gonna look to the WHO anyway, treaty or not. What do we do about that top down influence and and this cowardice and lack of independent and critical thinking that Paul talked about that's pervasive in the medical community? How do we fix that?
That's like an existential problem. I'll stop there. Thank you. I'll give you my answer, and then I'm gonna defer to Meryl because she'll have better answer than I do. But the WHO needs the treaty because they want more money.
They're asking for more money from the member states. They wanna expand all these programs, and they do wanna, you know, share the pathogens. And they wanna do the 100 days vaccine over and over and over again without liability because their public product partnership partners are asking for these things. But do we really need it? No.
We don't. Because, we know what to do. You know, if there is another disease x or something, we will figure it out, and I know you and Paul will lead the way. So we don't need them. But you're right.
The corrupt agencies around the world will still look to them because they have this relationship that it's kind of feeding both of them. And our agencies are still gonna censor the doctors, and our government is still gonna come after us without WHO. But they're living in this symbiotic relationship where they're asking for more and more money from taxpayers. But we do have an expert on the panel, and Meryl has raised her hand. So please, Meryl, take over.
Thanks all. I wanted to just disagree with because I'm older than, Pierre. I actually remember many diseases that the government didn't allow us to diagnose or treat. And the big one, of course, is Lyme disease, chronic Lyme disease. And over 40 doctors lost their licenses for treating chronic Lyme disease in the 19 nineties early 2000.
And to the point that every state in New England where we have the most Lyme disease had to pass a law in its legislature that would allow doctors to treat chronic Lyme disease differently than the CDC guidelines and not allow the medical boards to take away their licenses for doing that. So, yeah, there was a there was a prior event where doctors lost their licenses This is for going against the the what the CDC had to say. No. That that you you point is absolutely spot on because what I think this is again, I haven't been so involved with WHO. I know that's been your, you know, deep passion, and you've done so much work.
But that's what I think the solution is. It's not so much defeating the treaty as in fortifying local and state, legislations which protect doctors for using their autonomy and all like, that's where I think the answer is because the WHO, treaty or not, is gonna dictate stuff. If we can get local protections, to doctors, I think that's really the answers. Is that a fair thought or or perception of this? So this is a really complicated problem, because the the things we're fighting against have been embedded in law at the state, the federal, and now ideally at the global level.
So, yes, I agree with you. On the one hand, it's very important that we start trying to be governed at the lowest local level possible. And trying to control the medical boards, is certainly part of that, but it's not nearly enough, because the the federal government got away with illegally mandating unlicensed vaccines on us during COVID by going through all sorts of crazy mechanisms. First of all, eventually starting in August of 2021 by issuing licenses that these products did not deserve and didn't have you know, they hadn't gone through proper FDA, regulatory procedures to get the licenses. But even before that, by man by illegally mandating unlicensed products, which goes against Nuremberg and goes against federal law.
What the WHO would like to do and remember, it's not the WHO. It's the globalist elites behind the WHO that fund and control the WHO and control the UN and control most of our western governments that are doing this. You know, the the bureaucrats at the WHO, they they get a nice salary. They're having a good time. And now they've been told they've gotta completely change what that organization is about, and they have to govern us.
You know? And they probably don't want it either because it's gonna be more work for them. But they're going along, as David Bell said in Australia this week, they have to work there for 15 years in order to get vested in their pensions. So these these guys don't wanna rock the boat. We know how that is.
Couple of other things that you weren't allowed to diagnose was environmental illness. So if you had chemical sensitivity, if you got sick from a building, you know, sick building syndrome, that that was not okay. The federal government built an EPA building in Washington that turned out to be a sick building, and its own employees at the EPA were getting sick from the building. And still, a report that was supposed to be published in 1998 got canned at the last minute because there were too many chemical companies and other companies whose products would have been you know, people could have started bringing lawsuits for illnesses caused by off gassing of chemical products. So Wow.
Yeah. Mold illness, yeah, food sensitivity, and then electromagnetic sensitivity are others, that still are basically not allowed to be diagnosed. So anyway, just wanted to mention that. I think that the laws have to be rooted out at all levels. You know, we have a model emergency health powers act that the CDC paid a guy named Lawrence O'Goston to draft, right before 911.
And then he shipped it around to all the states. And they passed laws that said the governor could be a dictator once an emergency is declared. We have the PREP Act, which requires a national security emergency declared by the secretary of HHS or another secretary. And then the FDA commissioner can start rolling out unlicensed drugs at with no data whatsoever on them. So you gotta get rid of that.
But the WHO treaty is attempt to globalize the worst things in US law and make them apply in every country so that every country would need to be able to legally roll out unlicensed drugs on their population. And in most versions of the treaty, there have been 9 drafts, the nation is required to put a liability shield on those products, those unlicensed products so that you can't sue anybody. You can't sue the country, you can't sue the WHO, and certainly, you can't sue the manufacturer. And what's stunning about that, Merrill, is that they're drafting that after everything that we've learned in COVID. I mean, the the the horrors and the the tragedies and I mean, we know the differences between countries.
The most highly vaccinated countries did the worst, and and now they're trying to put that into law where they can do the same thing again. And what what I find so disappointing is that the world hasn't woken up. I mean, that there's those of us who fight like you and and all of us, and I think that's a growing minority. But, I don't know. Let let me turn it around, Moe.
Or I tell me how encouraged you are about the actions this week against that treaty. Like, do you feel the world is waking up and that there are enough countries now that that are gonna, like, say no to this? No. No. We don't.
So I'm very encouraged and yet yes. We don't. Yet, we don't have enough countries. But we're relying, you know, the United States is relying on Africa and Asia to save us. There are 54 countries in Africa and we're hoping that they realize this is a scam.
This is actually more colonialism and that they choose to say no. After all, they have not, officially, they haven't been offered very much to go along. And so there's no real reason to go along based on what they're being offered with the actual treaty drafts. But probably in the back rooms, they're being bribed with more goodies. And the United States put out a a policy brochure from the White House last month that said the United States has already been paying off 50 countries to build out their own, what's it called, pandemic preparedness program.
And now the United States is going to pay off another 50. So a 100 countries in the world. There's a 190 4 members of the WHO. So a 100 of them are gonna be getting money from us. And what are the strings attached?
Those strings could include signing up for the treaty and the international health regulation amendments. We don't know. Yep. Hey, Merrill. When is the vote taking place?
It's not to find the future. Is that correct? That's correct. The meeting is the last week of May, and what the WHO attempts to do is not to have a vote at all. And if they have a vote, they don't want anybody to be able to identify how their members voted.
They would like to have a consensus procedure. And so Tedros has has rushed over to Slovakia where the prime minister said he was not gonna support these documents and said, well, please don't break the consensus. In other words, don't show up and vote no or don't demand to be heard. Don't allow the gavel to come down saying we've got a consensus here. And you say, no.
No. No. We don't. You know, get out of the room. If you're gonna vote no, don't show up.
That kind of thing. So that's what's going on during the 2 weeks until they meet, and, we'll see how effective that kind of diplomacy is. Hey, Merrill. What what about, this is just betraying my ignorance, but do do does the United States government, like the administrative branch, like the Biden administration, do they have the authority to make that treaty binding by signing it, or does it have to pass through con congressional approval? So turns out that recently in recent years, 98% of treaties that we signed never went before the senate.
Many of them do require domestic laws to be passed in order to implement the provisions of the treaty. And when if congress passes such laws, it is considered sort of de facto that congress has agreed with the treaty. Now the law on this is not very clear. And so Biden you know, if it goes to the Supreme Court, president Biden could potentially win, saying it doesn't need to go before the senate, and he could potentially lose. It there are many factors that have entered into court's decisions on whether treaties need ratification, by the Senate or not previously.
And, you know, this treaty because it and the amendments, which is another treaty, and they both go together. So they they, you know, in law they completely changed the meaning of the organization and its relationship to the nation state members. So instead of serving them as its as their servant, it is going to be their boss. Yeah. And so you would think that something like that would require a senate ratification, but it may depend who appointed the, members of the Supreme Court.
Gotcha. Thanks. Thank you both for actually taking over. It's always wonderful listening to the conversations we have together. So, Paul and Pierre, I do know that you guys have, some time constraints.
So if anyone has questions for doctor Corey or doctor Merrick, please come forward now. And if not, we'll go to the second part of discussion with Meryl and, Patrice Peterson. Go ahead, miss Lohr. Well, I'm a little bit proud to report that I put in my comments, public comments on May 3rd, the deadline for public comments to DHHS and James Rugoski. He gave the list of 40, members of DHHS and their staff that you could directly, do that with.
But in this last weeks, I've really come to see a possibility of, education information with the, oversight subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic. So now I've kind of leveled some information on gain of function. I'm gonna follow through with with a letter about the WHO treaty as well, because that would totally be in their purview. So I just wanted to have any comments about that. Meryl, do you want to take that?
Hi, Laurie. I didn't quite understand understand what what you were asking. It's targeting right now, David Martin. He has called for his followers of your ship to really put the pressure on this coronavirus pandemic subcommittee in Congress as they brought together, on the stand, Fauci, Barrick and Daszak, but they'd lodged softball questions to them. It was a whitewash.
And so now there's a group of people writing that committee to bring those people back and ask the real, you know, hardball questions. But it brought to mind that even for the world, the WHO, that that could be a primary body that's responsible for oversight on pandemics to to, educate during this time. I'm still not sure what you're asking, but, it's good to see you again. I would say that, I've been disappointed by the committees lobbying softball questions. We try to educate them and sometimes they listen and sometimes they have their own agenda.
We've worked hard to try to get a hearing with good witnesses to talk about the who in congress and we we haven't gotten one yet. So, here's here's hoping. That's all I can say. Thank you, Merrill. Thank you, Paul and Pierre, for joining us tonight, and thank you for all the wonderful work you're doing and for your leadership, medical freedom.
And like I said, if anything happens, like disease x that they're predicting, I know that we can count on both of you and the team to put forward a new treatments and guidelines and help everyone, despite Kat and Merrill right back at you. I I appreciate the work you've been you guys have been doing, especially against this WHO. It's been remarkable sitting from where I've been sitting, watching, you guys, your voices grow. And and, Merrill, you're gallivanting around the world and across Europe and then all these legislators. I mean, it's, it it's been remarkable.
So I I appreciate your guys' work, and you're right. Paul and I will figure out disease x. Right, Paul? Yeah. Vitamin D, Paul.
Yeah. I must have just echo what Pierce says. I think what Merrill and her team has done is quite remarkable. She seems to be able to get to every corner of the earth, and, she's making sure that our voice is heard. So thanks, Merrill.
Thanks, Kat. Thank you to all of you. Definitely. Thank you both. Thanks, guys.
Thank you. Thanks. A. Miss Lori Sartor, do you wanna ask a question now, or do you wanna hold off for, after we start the second segment? Thank you.
This is just a statement that Yes, John. I received a a letter, a copy of the letter that 22 state attorneys generals had sent to president Biden. You probably are already aware of it, and it gives the reasons that they do not want the who to be, given this responsibility. And the very last statement that they give is that accordingly, we will resist any attempt to enable the who to directly or indirectly set public policy for our citizens. So I just wanted to share that with you.
You probably already know about it, but 22 attorneys generals. And I think that was, dated the 8th May 8th May. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for bringing that to our attention, and you're right. We are aware one of the members of sovereignty coalition, Joe Gebbia, with Sage Shield, was the leader in this initiative, and and, they got 22 attorney generals to sign on.
And I know they're working on others to join the call, and that was one of the big developments this past week, with, what the attorney generals did and then other states have passed legislature in their own, states based on 10th amendments. Thank you for bringing that to to our attention. Oleg, do you wanna play the video, that one minute video we have? And then we'll, continue our discussion. In May 2024, the 194 member states of the WHO will have their final vote on both of these international agreements.
This process takes place behind closed doors and at a tremendous speed. It is not reported nor discussed in our newspapers, in our national parliaments, in universities, nor in society. It is unacceptable. This is unacceptable because these 2 legal instruments will affect every one of us by reducing, even diminishing our loss, our rule our right of self determination, our right, in general, of human dignity. And it will eliminate the basic principle of democratic participation.
Thank you. So Merrill and I and many others are good friends with Philip Cusa, the lawyer from Switzerland who has been, an important voice in Europe and around the world regarding the procedural things and the legislative side of what's happening with the, pandemic treaty. So, Mara, what did you think after hearing that video again? The things that Philip kind of stressed out. Oh, I know.
I love Philip, Philippe actually. And, you know, we've been, I think, in 5 different parliaments together, trying to talk people into, understanding what's going on with these documents. So, Philippe has also gone around to the cantons, which are equivalent to our states. And he's gone to at least 10 or 12 of them in Switzerland trying to explain to lawmakers at the local level what this is so that they can try to turn it around at the level of his government. Switzerland is, you know, really tied up with the who.
The who is located in Switzerland. Switzerland has given diplomatic immunity, to it, as well as giving diplomatic immunity to Bill Gates, Gavi, and and many other the the Bank of International Settlements is in Switzerland. All those banks with hidden accounts are in Switzerland. So he has a hard, road to hope. I just wanted to say about the video because I I made sure that we clicked that and had that tonight.
I think it's really important right now that everybody understand that on on 10th, the international negotiating body was not able to come to a consensus on this pandemic treaty, and they are going to continue. They have extended their official and nonofficial negotiations right up until the start of the World Health Assembly on May 27th. At which point in time, they may very well vote on or reach consensus or do whatever they're doing, but it's all being done behind closed doors. And I think that's the most one of the more important messages to get out and to get across to people is that they were supposed to have, the final draft of the amendments to the international health regulations by the end of January, 4 months in advance of the World Health Assembly, and they did not do that. And that goes against their own rules.
They're go they're breaking every convention, every agreement that that, nations have made their own constitution for the World Health Assembly, they're breaking that. And they're they're stretching and they're meeting and they really plan to push this through without anyone having any conversation, without mainstream media discussing what's in these documents, without any, review from our, elected representatives. These things go against, the conventions of a liberal democracy and especially a constitutional republic such as our own. So we wanna we we really have to be contacting our elected officials right now and letting them know that this is intolerable. This cannot go forward.
And they've they so that's why we've been so strong and adamant about a not now campaign. Because even if our our elected officials don't understand the real nefarious nature of the who, at least they can agree that we cannot agree to these documents without knowing what is in them. They they're a blank check right now. Many of the things that they that that they would vote on and agree to won't even be developed or written for a couple of years yet. So we don't know what we're signing on to.
That's why we're pushing for the not now. And in that time, we'll have ample opportunity to educate those elected officials who do not understand the nefarious nature of the who. So I'm glad you played the video. Thanks so much, Kat. I'll let you go now.
And I'm Didi Logos. I'm the coordinator for the for the sovereignty coalition, generally in the background, but wanted to get that out. Thanks so much, Kat. Yes. Thank you.
That that's an important point and also the point that Meryl made earlier about the consensus vote. You know, they are kind of skirting around their own procedural, methods and trying to make sure that this is passed. And with all the good news that we've had recently, it is important to understand that it's not over until it's over. And, June 1st, at the end of the World Health Assembly, we will know if it's passed or not. And the fact that the new draft does talk about One Health and doesn't give specifics until 2026, but they want us to sign now, it is very concerning.
And I hope that many of you will, again, I know we're keep on asking you, but again, please write to your legislators, make phone calls in their offices, and tell them about these concerns because we should not have any members, any representatives, or our administration sign on to documents where we don't know specifics of what they want, but they want us to pay for that. So, Meryl, what do you think about you know, I know you touched on Slovakia, and I do find it very hopeful. Right? But we need more than Slovakia to show up. And, I know you discussed a little bit about African countries as well, and doctor David Bell has been working there.
But what do you think about, Russia and Italy and their, representatives? I know that their own countries have been kind of saying that saying that representatives were going against what, the members of their parliament wanted. Yes. So this was an interesting thing that people who were watching there are so there are videos of some of the discussions in these committees. Usually, the committees meet for a week, and the first session and the last session are are shown on video.
But but I think the WHO video is the whole thing. Anyway, people watched them and found out that the representative for Italy said that they were fully supporting the the measures. But in fact, the Italian government was not in favor. So that was interesting. And one wondered, hey.
Was this diplomat bribed to to go along with that? Why was he going against his instructions or what we think were his instructions? The same thing happened in Russia that the Russian diplomat turn so what happened with the Russian diplomat was that the chief attorney for the WHO said in October supposedly, he was told by the committee, we're not gonna be able to negotiate the international health regulations in time for that January deadline. What can we do? You know?
Can you give us a legal fig leaf to get over this? And so the chief attorney said, oh, well, he I'll make something up. And he did, but it didn't make sense. He said, well, because this is being negotiated by committee and not these recommendations are not coming from an individual country or the director general, therefore, we don't have to follow the deadline. Well, that didn't make sense because the, the the rules of the IHR are any amendment.
It doesn't say it has to come from a country. Any amendment has to be shown 4 months ahead. But then the Russian diplomat piped up and basically said, hey. I have a better excuse. You showed us the original 308 proposed amendments way back in November of 2022.
That was good enough. Everybody's seen them. Now we don't have to show them again. And so people from Russia started scratching their head like, why is he giving the WHO an excuse to break its own rules? After Russia had said in September that they were not happy with the pandemic preparedness agenda of the WHO.
And they had been Russia had been one of 11 countries that had formally written at the UN to say they were against what the UN was proposing in September. And one of the things was this WHO pandemic preparedness agenda. So anyway, now it it looks like the Russian diplomat was negotiating against his country. He's being investigated. And one wonders how many other diplomats may be choosing to vote differently than what their country wants them to do.
And that's one of the reasons why they don't ever want roll call votes. They don't want the diplomats to be accountable for their vote. So there's so many ways, you know, just like Tammany Hall or Arizona, The WHO has probably learned from the United States all these different ways to, fudge election results, and it's important for us to try and stop them. Let me get back to the last thing you said though, Kat, which is here's what we're trying to do. We're trying to force the senate to have to ratify these two documents.
If the Biden administration signs them, if they wind up going through despite everything, we want senate ratification because with 49 senators already saying no, they can't achieve senate ratification. They will fail in the senate. Now there are 2 bills already calling for senate ratification, 1 in the senate, 1 in the house. And they have only republican cosponsors. When you look at the language, it looks like the Republicans who wrote the language didn't really ever intend to try to get Democrat cosponsors because the language talks about Trump.
And it's a, you know, it's a little bit inflammatory. It's not bipartisan language. So we're trying to, get this issue, the fact that the that there needs to be a law that needs to be passed by both houses of Congress, including the majority dem senate, to require senate ratification. In order to do that, we want to add this as an amendment to some other existing bill in which will allow us to tone down the language and make it truly bipartisan. So what we want you to do is not call your senators and rep and tell them these specific bill numbers that already exist, but rather tell them we really have to have senate ratification without a bill number.
Okay? And if you don't understand what I just said, raise your hand because that's the most important thing probably to come out of this meeting tonight. I agree 100%. We need to make sure this goes to the senate. And people have to realize that with Paris Accord, Paris Accord was a treaty, but the by the the Obama administration at the time said it was just an extension of an agreement from before, so it does not have to go to senate to be ratified.
And it's essential for our representatives to recognize, not calling it the pandemic treaty or a cord or agreement, whatever it has its name now, but also international health regulations need to be considered a treaty, and both of those instruments have to go through the senate to be ratified. So please, that's really the biggest call we have on tonight. Miss Linda Becker, go ahead and ask a question. Yes. I was, just listening to doctor Nass, and, she's talking about the ratification portion of of, information to get to the senators.
What I'm wondering is is is is there someone in the group that could put a letter together that the rest of us could copy and send to our senators? Because I don't think I know enough about everything that you're saying. Yeah. All you need to do is send We have one sentence. One sentence.
And that's better than, you know, send copying and pasting a letter. Just tell them any treaty on pandemic preparedness has to go for senate ratification. That's it. And let me point out that the 22 attorney generals that signed the letter to Joe Biden have said they are gonna protect the citizens of 22 states from overreach by the WHO. So their citizens are protected.
They won't have to obey the WHO. But by rat you know, asking for senate ratification, we can protect the other 28 states. We can protect the whole country from these states. And just just to let you know, Linda, we do have a letter to that you can send to your elected officials up on the sovereignty coalition website at, and I'm gonna put a link into the chat for you. Okay?
Wonderful. Yes. That'd be great. Thank you so much. Back to you, Kat.
I think Patrice is on the line. Yes. I was just gonna ask Patrice to actually join us in this conversation and just to give everyone a little bit intro on, Patrice Peterson. She is, she has a 20 year experience in the international pro family movement, including almost a decade as a founder and president of the International Family Caucus, founder of the United Nation Coalition For Women, Children, and the Family, and as the executive director of the World Congress of Families. She did work for United Nations at some point, so she has a very unique perspective on everything that's happening.
I treat against the United Nations. Thank god. It's our important clarification. Definitely. So please give us a little bit of your input and discussion we had so far and, kind of the new developments and what we we have to look forward for this past two and a half weeks that are left.
All hands on deck, as I say, but, any specific, directors you have would be great. Yeah. Thanks. Yeah. So I spent I like to joke that I squandered my youth in the in the basement of the UN.
But, again, I was working against the UN as a prophase. So, so much of what the UN does boils down to population control at the end of the day, whether they're talking about urbanization or women's rights or whatever. It always boils down to abortion, and, I was a pro life advocate, pro life and pro family. And so I was definitely working against the system. I do want to speak to a little bit what Mara was talking about with the delegates, going rogue essentially.
It's extremely common in the UN system for delegates to go rogue. And it's because they come from countries that have poor standard of living, and they get to live in New York or Geneva, and they like it. And so they go along to get along. If they can make friends with members of the secretariat, then maybe they can get jobs in the secretariat and not have to go home. And so it's extremely common.
Like, the Russian delegate, for example, might not want to go back to Russia, fairly understandable under the circumstances. And so for him to, betray his nation in secret where he's unlikely to get caught because these negotiations are very often handled, secretly. It's extremely common. And so a big part of what I did when I was working at the UN was develop a network of parliamentarians internationally and effectively just rat out their delegations. I would just tell them what their countries were saying.
And often we would have entire delegations replaced. So, it's it's extremely, extremely common. Just a little bit of a to zoom out. So, most everyone else here is a doctor. I'm not a doctor.
It's fun to be here with the FLCC people because I definitely checked out their protocols when dealing with my my husband experienced long COVID, a pretty life altering case of long COVID. But I'm not a doctor. I'm not a lawyer. What I am is a strategist. I worked at the UN.
I have also worked on political campaigns in 20 something countries. What I wanna do is win. I wanna defeat this treaty. And I have to start out by disagreeing with the first speaker who said, well, it sounds like this treaty is pretty much dead. Kat, you already refuted that a little bit, but I wanna say very strongly to everyone on this call, this treaty is not dead.
It's not over it's not even going to be over on June 1st. They are not going to give up. They are going to keep pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing. And I hate to tell you all that our fight right now is to live to fight another day. And, I'm that's not to be discouraging because I do think that it's possible, and I wanna talk about some things that we can do.
But, it's definitely definitely not over. They have, I think it was Chris who said the analogy is we have effectively derailed their train. They're not getting exactly what they wanted. They didn't and it's not just us, like, all of the different international disagreement. They don't just get to sail into 10xing their budget with everybody's, rubber stamp on it.
But because we've derailed their train, it's like now they're going underground, and we don't know where they're going to pop up. The negotiations are continuing, but now we know that there are 4 separate documents. We've got the treaty. We've got the amendments to the IHR. And now there are 2 separate documents about the 1 health and about the PABSS benefit benefit sharing system.
Let's share the benefits of a pandemic. That's exactly what they're negotiating about is who gets the profits from the next pandemic is is the most controversial sticking point. So I just wanna zoom out if you'll indulge me for a few minutes and talk about how we can win this thing. There are basically three strategies. The first is you get a government to say no.
They live by consensus. They can also die by consensus. And all we need is one country to literally stand up and say, no. We do not agree. We will not agree.
You do not have consensus. And, I mean, I have seen them literally bang a gavel and pretend that they have consensus and had a delegate had to physically stand up and yell that at the chair. But that's what we need is we need one government with the courage of their convictions who is willing to stand up. All it takes is one. And and then we win, at least for now.
And so, looking for that government, it's it's not gonna be the US. I'll I'll tell you all that. We can do whatever we're gonna do in the US Congress. We can do whatever we're gonna do with the attorney generals. But in the Biden administration, like, they are solidly behind this, and it's not gonna be us, not with this administration.
But all it takes is 1. And so we're we're looking for that government that might be willing to do that. If we can't find that, if we don't can't do our plan a, then our plan b is to find people with influence, and that's members of parliament. Members of parliament can at least communicate to their delegations that they are watching and that they care Because these people are creature of creatures of the night. They're used to operating in total obscurity and total anonymity with no accountability, no responsibility for what they do.
And so if they are aware that people in their home country are paying attention, even though the parliamentarians, similar to our, our Republican senators in the US, even if they are in the minority, just the fact that they are paying attention is uncomfortable for them. And that makes it more difficult for them to do things like break the article 55 rule, which is that they should have released this language 4 months ago. And so that is our plan b is the more parliamentarians, the more lawmakers at any level we can get that are paying attention, that are messaging their own delegates in Geneva, even if it's not the instructions coming from the head of government, it's still eyeballs. And the more eyeballs we can get on the WHO, the better. The plan c at this point is is not at this point.
I don't think we're here yet. I haven't given up on a or b yet. But the plan c is basically make a ruckus, is have so many people in the general public that are so upset about this that we're the ones that are putting the eyeballs on the WHO. There are lots of ways to do this. We have to assume that people that there are gonna be people from all sides on this call, and so it would be unwise to get into specifics.
The element of surprise is sometimes important for raucous making. But I think you all can use your imaginations, and please do use your imaginations. Do not wait for permission from anybody if you can figure out a way that you feel like you would like to make a. I like to say I wouldn't do anything that George Washington wouldn't do. So can just think about that.
I do also wanna say that there are different arguments. People can disagree to this treaty for multiple different reasons. We've talked about the fairness. Just the basic rule of law. If anyone they can be as as liberals they wanna be, they can be as as pro vaxx as pro w h o, whatever they wanna be.
But if they just have a fundamental belief in the rule of law, just the very basic common denominator that should unite anyone in a democracy. I'm not saying that I always obey the rule of law. I'm seeing some laughter in the different peoples. I know I know who we're up against. But for people to go on the record as opposing the rule of law is really something.
So the more that we can pressure people lawmakers from all sides to go on record saying, no. The WHO should have to follow their own rules, the better. So the fairness argument there's a a pro family argument. There is there are euphemisms for abortion in this document. There are, there's a lot of, like, LGBT affirming kind of stuff in this document.
And those are arguments that work really well with Africa. Those are issues that they care about. Those are issues that matter to the Middle East. And so, again, a political strategist, we're I'm sure sure we're gonna have people of all sides on here, but my goal is to defeat the treaty. And so if whatever reason people choose to defeat the treaty, I'll take it if we can work together on that shared goal.
That's another reason. Obviously, that's one that I care about deeply. I'm pro life, pro family. That was, like that's years of my life and, anyway. But, I know not everyone agrees with that, but it is a strategy that can work.
The next is the religious freedom aspect. This is my current career right now is working in an international religious freedom and that there never been greater restrictions on religious freedom than what were imposed during COVID. There are some countries who who care about that strongly. And and then just like the general freedom arguments that we talk about a lot, the sovereignty, the doctor patient, relationship. So I just wanna say that when you're talking with people about this, especially when you're talking about your to your congressman or people, realize that there are different angles that you can take.
And whichever party you're in, there are still arguments that the other party could find acceptable. And then finally, I wanna throw in a what you can do. We have almost 200 people on this call, and I know that you are all motivated. I see it in the chat. I see so much energy and enthusiasm in the chat and people that wanna do things.
So I have, a suggestion slash request, which is, I spent my whole day on Saturday just doing a deep dive into Slovakia. And it was like, my I have a toddler and she has a book that is called fortunately, unfortunately. So it's like, fortunately, the prime minister of Slovakia said that they won't ratify the treaty. Unfortunately, they just had a presidential elections and the new president gets to to appoint the new prime minister. Fortunately, they come from the same political party and he'll probably appoint the same prime minister.
Unfortunately, they are best friends with Russia, and they want to move Slovakia towards the Russian block against Ukraine. And then I thought, well, our article 56 argument is based on an disagreement with Russia, but then Merrill corrected me and said, fortunately, the Russia delegate went rogue. He wasn't representing his national interest, but it kind of went back and forth all day. Oh, then it was unfortunately the health minister is not from that same party, and she's probably more on the other team. So, anyway, this is it's a lot of research, and there are a 196 countries involved, and there are only so many of us to be able to do this research.
So if there is a country that you think, hey. I have some connections in this country. I have some interest in this country. I speak this language. Whatever whatever it is.
Like, they solve Gabby Petito's murder by crowdsourcing to the Internet. Right? Like, the police ask for tips from the public. You all can do this. The WHO is not so impenetrable.
Like, we just have to find the one person and the one country that can make a difference. So I've been talking too much, but I do wanna say, like, we really can do this. I've seen it done. It was done before with the research and development treaty. That treaty died.
It never came to pass because there were so it became so politically charged that nobody wanted to touch it. We can do that with this pandemic treaty. I think we're close to doing that, but we're in the danger zone. The last 2 weeks are one of the biggest shenanigans are gonna take place. And so I just wanna encourage you all.
Like, the fight is not over. It's a winnable fight, but we've gotta do our very best. Thank you, Patrice. And I actually could sit back and listen to you all night because I just love your passion and the strategies and all these plans you come up with. I enjoy reading our chat and just kinda getting your point of view because you're you're spot on.
We cannot get comfortable. Like you said, this can be brought up back later on. We just need to keep on pushing. I do wanna ask you a little bit about UK, but before I ask you a question about UK, I'm gonna have Scott Mitchell ask his question. Scott, go ahead.
Hi, Kat. Can you hear me okay? Yes. And it's so great seeing you. Yeah.
Good to see you too. As you know, I know a few of the members that have been on the panel. I understand Paul and Pierre have left now. I just wanted to make a few points and then sort of pose a question to the panel. The WHO, it's quite clear that a lot of influence comes from their funding, whether that's from governments.
But there's non government organizations, you know, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It's it's very clear that that influences what the WHO do and promote such as vaccines, which is one of the main thing. And vaccines are a very lucrative business. I don't wanna get into the pros and cons of vaccines, but I have gone on record saying that I feel that COVID 19 vaccines should now be suspended and have a proper investigation into their safety, particularly on efficacy, particularly the further boosters being given out. The the problem I feel with WHO, there's a complete lack of transparency and accountability.
Their unelected seems to be self appointed or people appointed to the organization, from within. It's very been very difficult to communicate and debate with them. I've tried to contact them throughout the pandemic to raise issues and ask about things such as the efficacy of ivermectin. And I heard it personally from a journalist in India that the previous chief scientist of the WHO contacted them to say stop spreading misinformation or whatever on ivermectin. When there was a lot of evidence coming out of one particular state in India that it's very effective in reducing the morbidity and mortality from COVID.
The WHO have certainly got things wrong in the pandemic. I would actually would like to point out that they actually came out later to say they didn't recommend remdesivir. Although still seems to be guidelines and still use widely around the world treating patients in hospital at high cost and of dubious benefits. So my question is, yeah, we I really want to oppose this power grab or a rate attack on sovereignty with the the treaty that's proposed. But I I don't think this would be possible, but I'd like this question to the panel.
Do you think it'll be ever possible to reform the WHO to, to have more accessibility, accountability, and transparency? That's all for me. So I'm just gonna start first. If doctor David Bell was on the panel, he would say, most likely yes. He's a huge believer in the power of public health.
I'm more cynical, and I say no. I also think that we can collaborate around the country, and we have shown during pandemic that physicians can communicate, really well. And the countries can, kind of stir their own ship and, work with each other without having the World Health Organization tell them what to do and how to do it. But that's me. You know, I'll leave I'll ask Patrice and Meryl their input on this.
Patrice, what is do you think we can reform WHO? So this is an area where I might disagree somewhat with some of you, and I've I've been a little hesitant to say it. I know there's a big push to get out of to exit the WHO. And my feeling on that is if we do that, it just becomes a big anti America club. I think that as long as it exists, we should be there.
Is it reformable? Should it exist? I don't think it's reformable. I I would prefer that it not exist. I do think that some sort of international coordination is nice, but the problem is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And there's just, I think that the the lack of accountability is just baked into this system now. So I don't actually think that it's reformable. I think it would have to be a complete blank slate. And then what what or if something could come up out of that, I don't know. I I think it's sort of just theoretical anyway because I I can't imagine that happening.
I can see, like, if we just shame Tedros to the point where I mean, he he should be convicted as a war criminal. Like, who has been responsible for more deaths than Tedros? Right? Like, not very many villains in history. He let COVID continue.
He lied about it for a long time. He covered for the CCP. He should be held responsible. So we could seriously diminish its power, I think, is a viable, goal, but exiting or dismantling, I I don't see it happening. Sorry.
Merrill, go ahead. People have suggested that, Russia might exit and might take some aligned countries with it, which would be interesting. What I'm told is that there are a lot of developing nations that rely on the WHO to, help them with their health budget and with health programs. And so they would be in tough shape if the WHO just exploded. The problem is the public private partnerships.
So the funding has changed the funding model changed so that WHO now gets 85 percent of its funding from donations and 75% of the money it spends is actually specified by its donors. So the member states' dues, which is 15% of the budget, only accounts for about 25% of the WHO's programs and the rest is, as I said, specified by donors. While that remains the case, we're not going to have a good WHO because it's controlled by donors. If that were to change, if the member state dues became the source of funding for the WHO And if it were made to obey rules, I think we could potentially have a a reasonable WHO. I'm not sure.
But, there are too many problems with the way this organization was set up. It's not accountable. It's own it's part of the UN system. And within the UN system, there is no court that you can take it to. And all the officials have diplomatic immunity, so you can't do anything with them either.
And so you're basically stuck. You know? As you've created this unaccountable organization. And so all we can do is expect that, you know, evil forces are gonna take it over. And as I said the other day, the WHO is a cheap date.
Its budget is less than $4,000,000,000 a year. So for people like Bill Gates, that is not a whole lot of money. He can give them 500,000,000 or a 1,000,000,000 in a year, be their major funder, and and basically run the show. Thank you, Merrill. Thank you, Patrice as well, and thank you, Scott, for your question.
Before we continue, we have Bill Elmore with us as well, and Bill has been hosting the x spaces, with myself and, another, member of his group. Those spaces are held on Wednesday Friday. So, Bill, do you wanna chime in and tell us who we have coming this Wednesday and the times that that the spaces are scheduled? Absolutely. I appreciate you giving the opportunity.
We're scheduled for Wednesdays, from 12 noon to 2 PM, so we can get our European counterparts on And and tell us the, time zone. 12? Eastern time. Eastern Standard Time. Yep.
And then on Fridays, we're 8 PM to 11, PM Eastern Standard Time. This Wednesday, we have Lara Logan, representative Bob Good, Naomi Wolf, and and others who are joining with our main keynote speakers along with, doctor Lindley. So if you wanna, you you'll see the spaces on, doctor Katz' page, but you can also follow me. I put all of our space invites and promotions in my highlights tab, and I'm at billellmore, it's e l l m o r e, on Twitter, on x. And you you know, I really appreciate anybody who can help push out, you know, repost, and share because we're we're our goal is to educate.
There's so many people that I talk to on on Twitter and just, you know, on the streets and ask about, are you aware that this is happening? And they have no clue. They have never heard of it. And, you know, so a large part of our our push is to get people aware, and there are so many people on Twitter. So we're we're, you know, we had about 5,000 people, join on Friday.
Half of those listened after the space ended. So, we're putting a big push to get people, to share the news, and and we're getting a lot of momentum. So I really appreciate, doctor Katz, you know, partnership on this. So thank you so much. Thank you, Bill.
So, again, please join us this Wednesday, 12 EST to 2 PM EST, and then Friday, 8 to 11 PM. You guys can join the space and then, you know, request to ask questions of any of the speakers. And let's continue, you know, doing what we have been doing for the past months. But like, Patrice said, we are towards the end. It's a sprint.
We cannot give up. There's gonna be a lot of, news that you're gonna hear. You know, the treaty negotiations have fell through. Things are not going the way WHO wants it. You know, you can read it, listen to it, but keep on fighting because until the last moment, this is not done.
We need to make sure that the treaty is not approved, and we need to make sure that the amendments to international health relations are not adopted either. And if you have any friends around the world, share the information, connect with us. Didi will plug in all the different actions that we have at sovereigntycoalition.org. Please also visit visit door to freedom dot org, doctor Nassey's website. She has many resources and letters that you can print out and send to your representatives.
Call everyone, ask them to make sure that the treaty and amendments to international health regulations are considered treaty, and they they do go in front of the senate for ratification if it comes to that. But, hopefully, as Patrice said, we need that one country. I'm still hoping it's going to be my native country of Croatia. I haven't given up on that. Once you're working on it, we need one country to stand up and say no.
So let's make sure that we find that one country to be the voice for the rest of us. So, Didi, why don't you close us out? And thank you all for listening to us and for being with us tonight. Thank you so much, Cat. What a great discussion we've had with doctor Kory and Doctor.
Merrick. Doctor. Merrill Naus, always, we're so grateful for your incredible contributions to this coalition. Doctor Kat Lindley, you're such a leader. Patrice, thank you for your considerations tonight and everybody out there.
And, Bill, thank you so much for stepping up to host our spaces for us, bringing in an audience that maybe has never heard about, this before but needs to. And, so good to have you. Sovereigntycoalition.org is where you can find all of our resources, videos, news. And if you sign up, at substack, sovereignty. Substack.com, You'll get the notifications and reminders about the various opportunities to engage and learn more.
Thanks so much. Please do take action with the do not now, align act, which will allow you to send a letter to your elected representatives. And again, we have on the state's resources page, a letter that you can copy and modify for your own purposes to send off to your elected officials. And as Kat said, Door to Freedom is following the legislation happening in the states. Tomorrow, Frank Gaffney, one of our cofounders, will be speaking at the Oklahoma State Capitol, as they rally for legislation in Oklahoma.
So much going on. Thank you all so much for being here and good night.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
transcript to 18min show The Miracle Cure: Vitamin C "Living Proof" 60 Minutes (pt-1) dr marik
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l772sEfYnRg
Now this is a story of a man, a dairy farmer, who came back from the dead. Doctors were all set to turn off his life support, but his family refused to give up. They demanded the hospital try high doses of vitamin c. Well, as Melanie Reed will show you, it turned into a fight. The specialist didn't believe such a treatment would work.
But, well, suffice to say, the farmer is no longer on death's door. And his family claim, he's living proof. This is Oturahonga farmer, Alan Smith, in Auckland's intensive care unit shortly before the doctors told his family his life support should be turned off and he'd be allowed to die. And I just sort of backed up and looked at him lying. He's so helpless and, you know, he was my whole life.
We've been together since about 16. On the Smiths' Oturahonga farm, Alan's wife, Sonia, and son, Shane, remember when they were told it was all over. I was, you know, speechless. And then it was like, your dad's the sort of person that you could always rely on him to be there to help you. It was like shit.
Childhood sweethearts, Sonia and Alan, were married when they were both 17. They have 3 sons. Their 9th grandchild was on the way when Alan got a severe case of swine flu. He was always there to help us with anything. It was just Yeah.
I mean Pretty heavy. What were we gonna do? And it wasn't a very old day. No. Only at 56.
But on the other side of the house, over the back paddock, having been taken on an aerial check out of the farm, the bloke they're calling the miracle man, looking anything but dead. Alan. Hello. You're not doing too bad for a car that was meant to be 6 foot under. Well, apparently, I was supposed to be turned off.
About over a year ago now, it was. Yes. We're gonna turn the machine off that was keeping you alive? Yeah. We're gonna turn the machine off and Alan Smith's survival has been described as one of the most remarkable and controversial turnarounds in New Zealand medical history.
Feel lucky to be alive? I am very lucky. They tell me I'm not a 1 in a 1,000,000, I'm 1 in a 1,000,000,000 to live. Alan's story began on June 28, 2009. He arrived at Auckland International Airport after a fishing trip with mates in Fiji.
He caught a connecting flight to Tauranga where his launch is moored and was joined by his wife, Sonia. I woke up in the night, and he was really hot. So I, gave him some pen and oil, and that cooled him off, but cooled him off a bit much because later on, he was so I woke up again and he was just like he was lying there just stone cold and just laying there still is. And I thought, oh, god. The first thing came to my mind was, god is dead.
In Tauranga hospital, Alan was swabbed for swine flu. After 2 days, his deterioration was so dramatic, the 3 sons and 8 grandchildren arrived. Warned this could be a final goodbye. Just seeing him just, in in an induced coma and everything like that just was horrible. I mean, yet that was that was the beginning.
A specialist crew flew in from Auckland with a portable ECMO machine, a complex life support system which takes over the function of the lungs. All the grandkids had surrounded their papa before he was airlifted north. No. Still alive. Po poppa they said.
Oh, then what happened? They stood waving at him. They lined the corridor. Aww, when he was taken out? He was taken out the stretcher, yeah.
Then I waved go by the helicopter. Yeah. From the hospital. Yeah. From the hospital as I took him away.
And you must have been thinking, the chances aren't good. Yeah. Well, yeah. It was it was then I was starting to think, well, you know, where we're gonna go with this? As Alan lay in a coma in Auckland Hospital, heavily medicated, ECMO and other machines keeping him alive, Sonia began a detailed diary.
Saturday, 4th July. Told this morning that it's a 100% swine flu with no other bacteria. He is worst case in New Zealand and Aussie to be put on a ECMO machine. X-ray chest, whole lungs clouded out. These are those clouded out X rays.
Alan developed what's known as white out pneumonia. This is when the lungs can't be seen by X-ray, so full of infected fluids, they are unable to take in any air whatsoever. For weeks on end, Alan's condition changed little, hovering close to death. And when it got to 3 weeks, it was really getting scary then. Just as the family thought things couldn't get any worse, Alan was diagnosed with hairy cell leukemia.
Auckland Hospital notes to the family say The type of leukemia mister Smith has is potentially treatable if that's all he had. However, with his lung failure, mister Smith cannot survive. Monday, 20th July, United States specialist came. Alan's still the same. Asked for meeting at 3 PM, told us they were going to turn off life support.
While Auckland Hospital refused to take part in this story, 60 minutes has obtained Alan Smith's medical files and records of that Monday meeting. This morning, we, the CVICU consultants, met and discussed with the ECMO specialist from America, mister Smith's situation. The group is in unanimous agreement that mister Smith should be removed from ECMO and be allowed to die. Continuing is only prolonging his inevitable death. My brother just stepped in, and he said, no.
You haven't tried everything. You've got to try vitamin c, intravenously high doses. And, they just said no. The family pleaded with doctors that Allenby administered high dose vitamin c, a treatment right outside of mainstream medicine. So what was the doctor's reaction?
Oh, they said no because there's no proof of it, doing anything or doing anyone any good, or my mind was just spinning because they wanted him to turn him off, and I'm thinking, well, I hope we can get through this. And with that, Paul and Shane walked in. That's your sons. That he has, 2 of our boys. They walked in and, then, you know, they really stood their grounds.
Well, I said to them I said to them, mate, I said if you lie on that bed for as long as he had without vitamin c, you will die too, just like he's going to. They're pulling and throwing me off of it. They sound like, given up. Just like when you go to dead cow down, it's so well They're here. They've given up.
Well, I said just force us while I'm seeing them, see what actually happens. It'd be fair to say the Smith boys, Paul, Josh, and Shane weren't backwards in coming forward. I says, what have you got to lose, mate? You give me one good reason what you guys have got to lose by trying it. I says, because it's not fair that we, all of us, should go on living our lives with the thought in the back of our minds, you know, if only we'd pushed and tried harder, would it have saved them?
They were all about to find out if they'd pushed hard enough. The next day, Tuesday, Auckland Hospital arranged another family meeting. All of intensive care unit medical staff have met again. We are all in agreement that vitamin c will be of no benefit. We all agree mister Smith will not survive.
However, one member feels slightly uneasy that we should wait a little longer before taking mister Smith off ECMO. It's therefore reasonable to wait until Friday. If mister Smith has shown no improvement by then, he will be taken off ECMO. In the meantime, given the family's strong beliefs about vitamin c, we are willing to give this over the next 2 days. So Tuesday night, he got his first dose of 25 grams, through the IV.
And Wednesday morning, we got another 25 grams. The Wednesday afternoon, they did a CT scan on his chest, and that's when they found the the air pockets in his lungs. Whereas the x rays had showed just complete white. So Alan's x rays, before high dose intravenous vitamin c, so full of infected fluid, the lungs can't be seen. This X-ray taken after 2 days of high dose vitamin c treatment.
The lungs dramatically improved and readily visible. By d day, the Friday when Alan Smith was destined to die, when the ECMO life support was to be withdrawn, turned out to be the day Alan Smith was destined to, well, maybe survive. Mister Smith is stable but still critical. He has improved over the last couple of days. Turning mister Smith prone has probably made the biggest difference.
His chest x-ray is better. They didn't agree or believe that the vitamin c turned him around because What did they think turned him around? Coincidentally, the same time as he started getting his vitamin c, they pruned him, which was turning him over onto his onto his stomach. So that's that's their argument on that's why he got better. So Assume it will be won't we?
My question to that is, why didn't you try that before even suggesting to turn the machine off? Yeah. So less than a week after the high dose vitamin c was started, Alan hadn't proved to the point that he could be taken off ECMO life support. Sunday 26th July. Got taken off ECMO this morning today.
Hooray. Seems funny seeing him breathing again. He is taking a few of his breaths on his own. Then just as the family felt they could breathe a bit easy themselves, Alan's health started to dive. They would find the vitamin c had been stopped.
This time a different consultant was there, and he was just so adamant against it. He he sat back in his chair, and rolled his eyes, and crossed his arms, and looked at the ceiling and said, nah, not putting him back on it. Nah. Nah. Did he make you feel like a bit of an idiot?
He did, and it's the first time everyone hit someone. I got quite serious with with that doctor. How serious? The meeting was stopped, put it that way. 3 days later, vitamin c was restarted, but only very low doses of 1 gram twice a day.
So we got them all all in one mob, not 2 mob. Now while these King Country brothers certainly don't claim to be medical experts, they say the mucking about with the vitamin c was reflected by the changes in their father's health, and they say you'd have to be a bit sick not to see what was going on. So he was on a 100 grams per day improving rapidly, very rapidly, and then he went downhill rapidly when they stopped it. Cold turkey. When he got put back on vitamin c after that heated meeting, it was at a very low dose.
And once again, he started recovering, but it was a slow recovery. They expected to have him transferred to Waikato in less than a week. It took a lot longer. By early August, still critical and still in an induced coma, but by now breathing on a ventilator, Alan was airlifted closer to home to intensive care at Waikato Hospital, who, like Auckland Hospital, wouldn't be interviewed. It was here the Smith family found they had another scrap on their hands.
A doctor comes on and stops it and, Stops the vitamin c. Stops the vitamin c. And And he says what? And I said, you know, why? And he said, well, this stuff has come down with him, and we don't know what it is.
So, here we go again. Another fight. This time, they brought in the heavyweights. Wellington public law specialist, Mei Chen, warned Waikato Hospital. The decision to discontinue the high dose intravenous vitamin c treatment without consulting with Ellen's family is in breach of right 7 of the health and disability commissioner's code.
Of There was even a threat wasn't there that you would go to the high court? Yes. We would. Well, this is someone's life we're dealing with, not just anything, you know. Once he's dead, he's dead.
You can't get him back. And, we weren't gonna let that happen. So they agreed to give him a couple of grams of vitamin c a day? Yeah. And you wanted him to be on like 50 grams a day?
That's right. Yeah. So they kind of said yes, we'll do it, but didn't really do it anyway? No. That's right.
Slowly recovered, and it wasn't until, we got some oral liposporic vitamin c into him and that's when he once again recovered really fast. After a total of 9 weeks in a coma, Ellen eventually was woken, which is when Sonia began administering vitamin c to Ellen herself, using a special high dose oral form known as lipospheric. The next step was meant to be months of rehabilitation. Yeah. I was taking 6 grams of that a day of the bod liposuric.
And, of course, when I had to go rehab again to learn to walk, I was told I'd be there for 3 months. Well, in 3 months, I did not like the sound of that. But I walked out of that hospital in one day under 14 days, and even the doctors were absolutely just believed that I could come right so quick. Alan was back on the farm recuperating when his neighbor John came down the road calling out to him. He says to me, hey, Sonny.
You owe me $15. I said, what do I owe you $15 for, John? He said, I went and got me soup dry cleaned for your funeral, and you bugger, you've come back. Leave it behind. Alan Smith's comeback is being talked about around the world, described as little short of miraculous.
Alan himself says he's living proof the establishment should be taking high dose vitamin c seriously, and sooner rather than later. And just a short flight away, his launch in Tauranga. You know, Ellen, that there will be many health professionals who say that it is not scientifically possible that your recovery is because of having high doses of intravenous vitamin c? Well, they can say what they're like, really. Because basically, I am alive.
I was supposed to be dead. They wanted to turn me off. And, here I am on the line. Well done. Yeah.
Just a note, Alan Smith no longer shows any signs of having leukemia. I've beaten the system, It's not a good day to be dead today. Not a good day to be dead today. There's obviously a fish out there somewhere with my name on it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
transcript to 24min podcast Dr. Paul Marik - The COVID mRNA BioWeapons Are Even Worse Than Thought
Hello, everyone, and welcome to American Thought Leaders Now. Today, our very special guest is doctor Paul Merrick, chief scientific officer of the FLCCC. Doctor Merrick, so good to have you on. Yeah. And it's always a pleasure.
Thank you. I wanna talk to you about this new article in Nature. 20 prominent authors. Talking about something that a lot of people are finding stunning. I with my limited knowledge, I also found stunning and it's this ribosomal frame shifting that's happening in when the synthetic mRNA is used in in these COVID genetic vaccines.
Scoop, can you just give me an outline of of what's really going on here? Yeah. So I think this is a stunning paper that is very, very important. And so the findings were important, but what's equally important is that it was published in Nature, which is a, you know, highly respected medical journal with a long list of reputable investigators. So what the ribosome does is it's a little structure which reads the messenger RNA, and then it makes the protein.
So the messenger RNA carries the code to make the protein. And it's it's, you know, they're very specific sequence of of nucleotides that that the ribosome reads to determine the order of amino acids, and then amino acids make up the protein. So normally, messenger RNA has uridine. That's that's the way the body was made. But in order to for this technology to to to work, they had to substitute the uridine for a pseudo uridine.
And what the study shows is that when you when you put a pseudo uridine in where a uridine should be, the ribosome jumps or misreads the messenger RNA. And as a consequence of this, it results in a bogus protein being made. So instead of making spike protein, it makes a nonsense protein that that that that is possibly toxic. Well and so that's astonishing. You know, something that just comes to my mind.
I think 1 of the recommendations in the paper is that, you know, we just not use the pseudo uridine and just use uridine. Like you just use normal mRNA. The problem is if you used a normal messenger RNA, it would be broken down by the the host very quickly, and it wouldn't work, and you wouldn't make the, the spike protein. So to overcome the problem, they came up with this idea of using pseudouridine, in fact, the Nobel Prize was awarded to 2 physicians for this discovery. So in a way, they've kind of shot themselves in the foot because the technology which we on which the platform is based has now been shown to be functionally defective because it doesn't do what it's meant to do, and it applies to the entire messenger RNA platform because this whole technology is based on the pseudouridine.
So it means that whatever vaccine or whatever protein that they wanna make is gonna be defective based on this this problem. So there I mean, if I read this right, and please correct me, like, 25 or 30% of the time, which is frankly a lot, you get this error, this junk protein, I think, as you described it, that's created instead of the spike protein. And so, I mean, what are the implications of that? I think the paper also says that there that that some of those proteins have an immunological response that create an immunological response. Yeah.
So like much to do with this vaccine, we don't really know. But, obviously, it's making a protein which shouldn't be there. It's a foreign protein to the host. The spike protein is a foreign protein. The host sees it as foreign, and it's gonna mount an immune response.
So the likelihood is that the host is gonna see this protein as defective, and is going to mount an immune response. Protein on on the patient. And you mentioned something about amyloid proteins when we were talking offline. So we know that the vaccine, the spike protein itself has a sequence, of amyloid protein in the spike protein, and we know that there'd be increased deposition of amyloid in patients who have received the vaccines. And amyloid is the protein which collects in patients in the brain of patients with with dementia and Alzheimer's disease.
So the fact that you have these foreign proteins in the cell, you know, the nanoparticles cross the blood brain barrier quite easily. So these these proteins may form in the brain and, you know, may have serious consequences. The way the paper is written, they say, well, this is, of course, a great technology and and and and so on and so forth. However, there's this kind of problem that we found. And the problem but as you describe it, seems to be foundational.
Exactly. Right? I mean, this is the the premise on which it it's based has failed. And it it's it's causing AAAA end result which was unexpected and should not happen. So this technology has essentially failed.
Do you think the reviewers of this paper understood the implications? Oh, absolutely. I'm sure there's there's no 1 reading this paper who couldn't understand how what a fundamental disaster this actually is, because it it it challenges the whole premise of the mRNA platform. For a long time, it was impossible to launch such a challenge in a very prominent journal, at least from from what I've understood. So I mean, has something changed here do you think?
So that's a very good question because I mean we know there are multiple genetic therapy. And, there's overwhelming scientific data that there are numerous problems with this technology, but I think it's been largely buried. And there's been a reluctance to discuss it. The fact that this was published in a such a prominent journal, I think, is really significant because maybe there is a ground swelling now that that there's there's movement that people are maybe acknowledging finally that these vaccines may be not not all that they've been made out to be. On this show, I think, I remember you saying that, the spike protein is 1 of the most toxic proteins.
You're, you know, you're aware of the human body. You pointed that out as being an actual problem. Like, why did we use that? But so why don't we look at the different areas? And you mentioned the lipid nanoparticle platform, the the different kind of core problems with the technology.
Maybe let's start with the spike because something just struck me here. Right? If you if 30% of the time, let's say, something else is being produced and then the rest of the time spike is being produced, Could that now actually be a good thing? Yeah. Yeah.
I mean, the spike you know, firstly, there's a, you know, there's a quality control problem with these vaccines because the mRNA in the vials is not very consistent. Mhmm. You know, we know maybe 50%. So much of the time, the messenger RNA may be coding for proteins that we don't know what they are. So we know that the spike protein is toxic.
It's probably 1 of the most toxic proteins known to the human body. And then on top of that, we have this messenger RNA, which is coding for other proteins, which we don't know what they are. If spike is bad, the likelihood is that these other proteins are bad, and they accumulate in the cell. They result in an immune response. They may cause damage to the cell.
So this this is not what we were told that, you know, about about being safe and effective, that the vaccine stays in the arm, is broken down within a few days, and results in in spike protein and then, antibody production. So so that that scenario obviously is not true. Because they could have used something else other than the spike to to be the thing that is that is creating the immune response against the virus in the first place. Yeah. In fact, I think Pfizer actually had developed a a segment of the receptor binding domain to use as an antigen.
But for whatever reason, decided to use the entire spike protein. So there were other ways they could have gone around this. I mean but fundamentally, the concept of trying to vaccinate a population in the middle of a pandemic, we know is not a viable option. It was never gonna work, and it it hasn't worked. So the basic premise, you know, was faulty, and they were used and they've used a vaccine that is neither safe nor effective.
Okay. So we we we talked about this frame shift causing these unknown proteins and unknown proteins and unknown immune responses, then probably someone should be studying that like crazy right now. We've talked about the spike protein possibly being the the wrong, thing to try to use in the first place. Now you're talking about, you know, this idea of vaccinating during pandemic. Can you remind us, and and we've talked about this before, but can you remind us why that's a problem?
Yeah. Because it's never worked, and it's never going to work, and all it's going to do is it's going to cause mutations, is that natural immunity is the best immunity. We know that. And the best way out is is to let people become infected, treat them early, protect those that are vulnerable, and let people get natural immunity. We never allowed that to happen.
We were living under the impression that that this was a much more dangerous virus that that came here than than it turned out to be. Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, the predictions, the early predictions was, you know, mortality of 2.3% from the the British, projections, and it turns out that it's like 0.0 3%. And there were populations who were more vulnerable, you know, the elderly, but there were really very effective things we could have done to protect the elderly so that they to reduce their mortality.
The most obvious was give them vitamin d. Right. Because they're a population who are vitamin d deficient. We know vitamin d reduces the risk of getting COVID and from dying from COVID. So it would have made much more sense to give the elderly vitamin d and to take other countermeasures.
So ultimately, what's the difference between vaccinating during a pandemic and and, outside of a pandemic? Yeah. So that's a good question. So normally, the idea when you vaccinate is you vaccinate people before that they get the disease. So you vaccinate them against measles before they get measles, presuming that the vaccine works.
You vaccinate them against flu before the flu pandemic so that when the flu comes, they have immunity. Once you already have the infection, the infection is spreading, you you you it's too late. You've missed the boat. And then what what you do is when you vaccinate people, you cause you you you cause the virus to mutate because of immunity against it. It's natural selection, so the virus is gonna change and mutate.
So it's resistant to the antibodies. Vaccinating throughout a pandemic, you're kind of selecting for viruses that can actually escape the, the vaccine for sure. And then the the presumption is that the vaccine is effective, which we know that it isn't, that's not true with this vaccine. When you say it's not effective, what do you mean? So we know it doesn't prevent transmission of the disease.
We know it doesn't decrease hospitalisations. We know it doesn't decrease deaths. And in fact, we know the more that you vaccinate, you actually increase the risk of infection. I mean, there's really good data showing the more boosters you get, paradoxically, it increases the risk of infection. I mean, it's it's just astonishing.
It goes against everything we certainly were led to believe. And so you met we talked about this lipid nanoparticle platform, that you mentioned earlier that it is able to basically move this synthetic mRNA all over the body. What are the problems inherent to that? Yeah. So we were told it stayed in the arm, but obviously, this doesn't happen.
The lipid nanoparticle is designed to go throughout the whole body, and it crosses the blood brain barrier. So it goes into the brain. It goes into the ovaries and the testes. It goes into sites that have a high lipid content. So rather than staying in the arm and generating an immune response in the arm, which is what it was supposed to do, what happens is the lipid nanoparticle gets distributed throughout the entire body, and then it makes spike protein wherever it lands, and then that spike protein causes inflammation and all kinds of problems in causing a multisystem disease.
Why is it so important that when you do typical vaccination that it does stay in the arm? Yeah. Well, that's the whole the whole premise of the vaccination is you give an antigen, which is then given in the arm, you then mount an immune response in the arm. The the white cells in the arm, you know, localize in the in the arm and the lymph nodes, and you make antibodies rather than preventing the antigen distributing throughout the whole body, which could potentially be toxic. Right.
I've heard examples of injuries where people wear that, when other vaccines were injected in the wrong place or into the bloodstream by accident. And that caused various problems. The other thing we've been learning about recently is this DNA contamination and also endotoxin contamination from the process that was used. So can you can you remind me of that? Yeah.
So the first, you know, when they first made the the the Pfizer shot, yeah, and they used it in the clinical trial, they used something called process 1, which which involved PCR technology. But that, they they couldn't make the vaccine in bulk proportions. What they then did is to commercialize this or or, you know, use it on a massive scale, they changed to process 2 in which they used DNA plasmids from the e coli bacteria. And so what they were meant to do is once the e coli had made the messenger RNA, they were meant to get rid of the DNA plasmids. But it appears that that process was somewhat ineffective.
So within the vials, there's both DNA plasmids from the E coli as well as endotoxin. And endotoxin is the cell wall of the E coli. So that's, you know and endotoxin is is highly toxic as the name would suggest. So it seems, you know, from the studies that have been done that these vials are contaminated with both DNA plasmids as well as with endotoxin. And now this has been replicated by I can't remember it.
The last I checked, it was by 6 different labs independently looking at what was in the vials. And we have, you know, at least the government of Canada admitting that, yes, there's this is this is a known thing, but that they don't treat it very seriously. But there's also this, IgG 4, immune tolerance that happens once you get a lot of boosters. You get actually, can you tell me about that a little bit? Yeah.
So IgG 4 is a particular type of antibody. So normally you make IGG1 or IGG2. So IGG4 is problematic for 2 reasons. 1 is it can increase the risk of autoimmune diseases, and secondly, it's been associated with cancer because it interferes with immune surveillance. So the fact that, with multiple shots, the body is making IgG 4 is very problematic.
This is just an observation that people made that people that are have been boosted a lot suddenly have this antibody which doesn't show up at least at the beginning. That's correct. Yes. Even just looking at this frame shifting, I think you've said this it shows that this technology doesn't work properly and has potential side effects that we don't know because we haven't studied it enough. What should we do now with this new information?
Yeah. I think I think the picture is building. You know, we're getting more and more data that the this genetic therapy is neither effective nor safe. And the the the evidence is now mounting and growing. And I think it's time to stop.
I think it's time to stop the shots and to reevaluate, accurately, scientifically, you know, what's going on. Are they really safe and effective? What what's the risk benefit balance of these vaccines? You know, we know about all the the sudden deaths, I mean, which which already is out of control. I mean, 1 reads in the the media all the time, young people dying suddenly.
This is a new phenomenon. So there is something sinister going on, and I think it's time that we, you know, put a the the the the pandemic is over. There's no reason to continue vaccinating. And I think we need to put a stop to these vaccines and and honestly, scientifically, objectively, transparently, evaluate what's happened and where we are. You know, 1 thing that we haven't talked about because it was so you know, there there are many verboten things, but this idea of shedding was 1 of the most.
I think well, no. I and I think I know the reason because the societal implications are huge. If it turns out that, you know, vaccinated people can pass somehow, the symptoms of their issues, right, to unvaccinated people or this or, you know, foreign protein in itself that, I mean, all there's all sorts of implications, I suppose. So where are we at around the knowledge on this? Yeah.
So I think shedding is a real issue. I think Pfizer in their original documentation were aware that shedding was a problem, and so they they, you know, advised certain precautions. We now know that shedding is a real issue. You know, we have, you know, anecdotal stories of patients who've been in close contact with somebody who's been reason recently recently vaccinated, who've developed symptoms. And it's not just 1 patient.
This is a reproducible finding, over and over again. And then when you treat these people for spike related disease, they get better. So we know that this is happening. There there's a study recently that's been done investigating shedding, which has not been published yet. So I'm not really, appraised of all the findings, but we know it is a real issue that people who have recently been vaccinated can transmit spike protein to people in close vicinity to them.
It's the description of a self replicating vaccine. So you you vaccinate somebody else who then transmits the spike protein to somebody else without them knowing, without their consent, without their knowledge. But that is indeed what is happening, is that people who've been vaccinated may be, and we think there's good evidence, transmitting the spike protein to people that have not been vaccinated or unvaccinated people or even vaccinated people. And so there is a biological plausibility. So we think the way this is happening is, as we know, the spike distributes throughout the whole body, including the lung.
And in the lung, what happens is is you form what are called exosomes. So exosomes are like lipid nanoparticles, which you then exhale. So people who've been recently vaccinated, we don't know how long that may be. It may be as long as 12 weeks, 16 weeks. They then exhale these particles containing spike protein, which are then inhaled by people in close vicinity.
So this doesn't need to be, you know, close, intimate physical contact. This can just be close, you know, in the proximity. They can then inhale, these particles, which then they become spiked. They have spike protein within them. And it's possible that, you know, if, you know, somebody's sleeping in a bed and is shedding spike in into the mattress or the sheets, that somebody who comes in and cleans the sheets, you know, disperses these particles, which they then inhale.
So the implications are pretty serious. No. Absolutely astonishing. Well, doctor Paul Maric, it's such a pleasure to have had you on, and we'll have you on again. Thank you.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
transcript to 45min podcast dr paul marik How to reduce your cancer risk (and fire your doctor)
The information contained in this video is for educational purposes only. It is not intended to be a substitute for diagnosis, treatment, or advice from a qualified licensed medical professional. Never stop or change your medications without consulting with your provider first. Hello, and welcome to the Collapse Life podcast. I'm your host, Zara Sethna.
Today's guest is not just the cofounder and chief scientific officer of the FLCCC Alliance. He's also a colleague and friend and 1 of the smartest people I know. Doctor Paul Maric has made indelible marks on the practice of medicine during his 30 year career. He's written over 500 peer reviewed journal articles, 80 book chapters, and many books. He's the 2nd most published critical care physician in the world.
He has quadruple board certifications and advanced degrees in pharmacology and anesthesiology. See, I told you he was smart. I'm thrilled to have him join us today. Doctor Marek, thank you so much for being here. Sure.
Sorry. It's a pleasure. Thanks. So as I mentioned in the intro, you have a specialty in critical care, and 1 of the things you're most known for is developing revolutionary treatments. You're you're never, afraid to stray away from the medical norm.
So before COVID, you developed a treatment for hospitalized patients with sepsis, and then during COVID, you came up with, prevention and treatment therapies for COVID itself. And now you've been looking at other chronic diseases like diabetes and cancer. So as someone who spent their career in critical care, can you just tell us a little bit about why you've kind of shifted focus? Yeah. So that's a good question, and it does seem somewhat surprising.
So, you know, my my specialty was critical care, but I was always very questioning. People called me the status quo disruptor because I think, you know, traditionally, in medicine, you you need to question everything. You can't believe everything. You know, you should be able to have intellectual dialogues and, you know, not accept the status quo, and that was up until COVID. And then when COVID came around, you know, things seem to change.
And, you know, we were told what we had to do, and you couldn't deviate, and you had to follow the protocols. And so I think COVID shone a light onto this problem. I think it was there all along. You know, we just didn't see it. I think most of us in academia and in medicine, believed in the science.
We we believe what we were being told. And I don't think we realized how much we were being influenced by big pharma and the pharmaceutical industrial complex. And with COVID, it's shown a bright light on this. And then, obviously, for various reasons, you know, we developed the hospital protocol for COVID. Our results were exceedingly good, much better than the national or global standard, and that was not acceptable to the how is that be?
So they did everything they could to end my career. So that's how I no longer, practice critical care. But, obviously, I was involved in founding the FLCCC, and I've always been involved in, you know, reviewing the literature and assimilating the literature and writing papers on various topics, You know, initially on critical care, but, you know, so I developed a skill in, you know, assessing the literature and the validity of the literature, and that's, you know, really applies to to medicine in general. And so, obviously, as I said, I realized how hijacked medicine has become. So then I started looking, you know, originally, at diabetes, type 2 diabetes, primarily because I was a type 2 diabetic.
And the the standard narrative is that it's, incurable disease. It's a progressive disease, it's managed by taking medications, it's gonna be progressive, and you get complications. And that again is a false narrative. It's a completely reversible disease. It's a disease primarily due to lifestyle, and that there are many things you can do to reverse diabetes.
And so then it became obvious to me that, you know, this applies to almost all chronic medical conditions because that's where big pharma and the industrial complex makes their money. And we're talking about a lot of money is that they wanna keep you sick. They're not in the health business because the sicker they are and the the the longer that you're sick, the more medications you're gonna buy. So by actually finding the solution to top 2 diabetes, you no longer need to buy their expensive medications. So, you know, solving the health of the population is not in big pharma's fund you know, financial interest.
Obviously, in terms of societal interest and general health of the population, it is the only way forward. And that's where our health agencies should be focusing their attention. Right. But they are they focus on sickness rather than on health. Right.
There's a bunch of perverse incentives. I wanna really focus on talking about cancer, which is your newest area of work. But before we go there, you've mentioned that you were a type 2 diabetic and that you found alternative ways to treat the disease other than just a pharmaceutical approach. And I just wanted to spend, a quick minute to talk about your own experience. Like, this is not something that you're just recommending to others.
It's something that you've actually lived yourself. So just just talk a little bit about how you treated yourself for diabetes. Yeah. So the first is diet, and I think it will be an astonishing realization that most Americans and most western people and myself are processed food addicts. I was a processed food addict, And most processed food is very high in, refined carbohydrates, and processed foods, as well as a whole bunch of chemicals.
And so the first thing I did is I changed my diet. I adopted a a technique or a lifestyle change called unrestricted feeding or intermittent fasting. And this is probably the single most important intervention anyone can make, and is the single most important method to decrease insulin resistance. And insulin resistance underlies type 2 diabetes, it underlies cancer, it underlies Alzheimer's disease, it underlies aging. So if you can control insulin resistance and get under control, it certainly improves your life's your your overall general health, and it certainly was a major factor in me controlling my insulin resistance and diabetes.
So that was the first thing, and then I changed my diet. So I mean, I ate processed foods, and processed foods are high in refined carbohydrates, causes a high glucose spike. So now I eat real food. And if it looks like food, it's food. If it comes in a box or a wrapper and has a label, it's not food.
So essentially, I eat food. So, I've changed my diet to do intermittent fasting, which is not that difficult actually because, you know, once you break your processed food addiction, you don't get hungry and you don't eat all the time. Know, eating all the time is a completely abnormal human response. Most people do this. So the combination of eating real food as well as intermittent fasting, I think was the major change.
And with doing that, you know, without even trying, I lost £30. I previously tried to diet, diets just simply don't work. So this is a lifestyle change, you know, this is not a diet, This is a lifestyle change. And then, you know, on top of that, I I started taking berberine. Berberine is a ancient, Indian or Eastern Europe, West European herb that has profound biological properties, including, its effect on glucose metabolism and insulin resistance, and is probably more potent than Metformin, which is considered the first line therapy for a type 2 diabetic.
Yeah. Exactly. Those those were the main interventions that IIIII did, and it certainly, made a big difference. And then sort of turning a little bit to cancer, you mentioned that insulin resistance is also 1 of the underpinning conditions that can heighten the risk of cancer and that's kind of where you're putting a lot of focus of your energy right now. What is it about cancer that makes it such an urgent issue right now?
Yeah. So cancer's a really important topic, and it's gonna become even more important. So currently, cardiovascular disease is the first the commonest cause of death followed closely by cancer. But within the next 10 years, that is going to flip, and cancer will become the single commonest cause of death because 1 1 in 2 men will die of cancer and 1 in 3 women. Why is that?
Yeah. So it's it's multiple factors, presumably lifestyle changes, increasing risk of, insulin resistance, environmental pollutants, vitamin d deficiency, And then, of course, we have to add to that the, COVID jabs are gonna have a major impact. So the risk of cancer is going to increase exponentially, in the next 10 to 20 years. So are you suggesting then that lifestyle changes like what you, initiated to treat your diabetes are the suggestion for treating cancer as well? Absolutely.
And this is supported by really good data. So there was a randomized placebo controlled study published in a peer reviewed journal that basically looked at 3 simple interventions, vitamin d, omega 3 fatty acids, and a simple exercise program. And they showed if you adopted all 3 of those, you reduced your risk of cancer by 60%. 60%. So it is a largely a preventable disease, but they don't want you to know that because cancer is really big business.
And so vitamin d is really interesting because almost every patient who has cancer is vitamin d deficient. There's a very strong correlation between deficiency of vitamin d and the risk of cancer. As you move north and south from the equator, you get less ultraviolet b, your vitamin d levels are lower, your risk of cancer goes up. So this is a well known phenomenon. And there is data that if you supplement with vitamin d, you reduce your risk of cancer.
So, you know, vitamin d is should be an absolute essential nutraceutical that everyone takes. It's very safe. It's very inexpensive. And actually, apart from cancer, it reduces the risk of diabetes, reduces the risk of Alzheimer's disease, reduces the risk of depression. And obviously And COVID too.
Right? Oh, absolutely. Your risk of getting COVID and dying from COVID is is it phenomenally reduced if you have adequate vitamin d levels. So it's obviously it's important for all kinds of, you know, it's a it's a very potent stimulation of the immune system, and, you know, with aging your immune system tends to we wane. The other thing is, you know, apart from latitude is obese people, people of color, people, you know, as they age are less able to make vitamin d.
So vitamin d should be an essential nutraceutical that everyone takes. So we've talked a little bit about how the risk of cancer is increasing, but there are things that people can do to prevent or reduce that risk. But what about, people who are already undergoing cancer treatment? You've actually written a huge monograph based on 100 and 100 of studies, looking at complementary cancer interventions. Right?
Yeah. So surprisingly, I mean, I just stumbled upon this because, I was interested in the topic and started doing research, and I was astounded that they're probably about 1800 peer reviewed papers having a looked at looking at repurposed drugs, dietary interventions, adjunctive treatment for the treatment of cancer. So these are published in peer reviewed journals, it's just that the the oncologist and the status quo don't want you to know about this because, you know, obviously, cancer's big business. You know, chemotherapeutic drugs are really expensive. The average cost is over a $100, 000 per year.
Added to that, the costs of, you know, surgical treatment, radiotherapy, and the oncologist, fee. So it's exceedingly expensive, yet dietary interventions are absolutely free. Now, going on a ketogenic diet is free, it doesn't cost anything. And so, you know the first principle, so you know the the the basic premise of cancer is it's considered a chromosomal disease due to, mutations. And with very few exceptions, and there are 1 or 2 exceptions.
Cancer is really a metabolic disease. It's a cancer cells act metabolically differently to normal cells. So that you can, institute a whole host of metabolic interventions which target the Cancer cell. And the first is a ketogenic diet. The main reason is all cancer cells, and this I need to stress this is all cancer cells are highly dependent on glucose.
This is known as the Warburg effect, that they cannot use glucose in the mitochondria to generate energy. So they undergo aerobic glycolysis. So cancer cells are exceedingly dependent on glucose, yet they can't use ketones or ketone bodies that all other cells can use. So there is now really overwhelming data. It it it's not debatable.
They're probably the first intervention is to change your diet, to starve the cancer, and begin a ketogenic diet. So that would be the first, intervention. Now we we couple we couple that with repurposed drugs, but you know, we're aware of women with breast cancer who just went on a ketogenic diet and went into remission. So that's not something we we recommend. We recommend a ketogenic diet together with repurposed drugs because I think it's a real potent combination.
And this does Explain that a bit. Explain the repurposed drugs, a bit. Yeah. So before I get there, this doesn't exclude conventional chemotherapy because it's actually been shown. It's been shown in peer reviewed papers that ketogenic diet actually enhances the the the cancer killing effect of chemotherapy.
So, yeah, patients can use this as an adjunct to standard care. Okay. We're not saying that they need to completely abandon chemotherapy or radiotherapy. They can if they want to. The choice is theirs.
But there's no question of doubt that ketogenic diets potentiate the effect of chemotherapy. So then when we get to a repurposed drug so, basically, you know, when when a drug is registered with the FDA, it's registered for a specific indication, whether whatever the drug is. But many drugs actually have actions beyond that which it's been labeled by the FDA. So the drug companies can only advertise for the labeled indication, you know, which is in the package insert. But many drugs actually have mechanism of action beyond what what for which it's been labeled and registered, and so that's called being off label or repurposed.
So these are not experimental drugs. These are FDA approved drugs used for another purpose. And so 1 of the best examples maybe is Metformin. So Metformin is a really well known type drug for type 2 diabetes. It just so happens that Metformin is very effective in controlling cancer.
So if you use Metformin for in the treatment of cancer, it's being used off label or what we would call repurposed. But it's it's a drug whose efficacy we understand, who its safety profile is under is understood. And there's extensive data, both, you know, experimental data in test tubes and animal models, as well as clinical data showing that metformin is very effective for the treatment of cancer. So the in this respect, it's being used off label. Now it's perfectly acceptable.
The FDA up until COVID, encouraged the use of off label drugs, and indeed, 30 to 40% of drugs used in the hospital are used off label. So if you have a kid who has otitis media, which is infection of the ear, and you use high dose amoxicillin, which is apanacillin, that's an off label use. Amoxicillin is not is not registered for that use, but it's used almost every day. So off label or repurposed drug use is is part of this the standard of care, but it became obviously an issue with COVID because they didn't want you to use off label drugs to treat COVID. They wanted you to, you know, get the vaccine and use, you know, the expensive pharmaceutical drugs that they had developed.
So there is a little bit of a, you know, misunderstanding about what off label is or repurpose. So these are FDA approved drugs and many of them, for example, metformin, ivermectin, you know, we have a a very long track record of their safety. So just getting back to the whole idea of the sort of big business of cancer, I can understand that pharmaceutical companies certainly have a monetary incentive when they introduce a new product, and they want more people to buy that new product, and they can set a price in the market. But I wanna get down to the the level of the average doctor or an oncologist. How are they oncologist consider an off label drug as part of their approach to treating a cancer patient?
They're not getting kickbacks or financial benefits, are they, for every drug that they give? So that's a really good question. So there's enormous pressure on physicians to follow the standard of care and the narrative, you know, because they are supporting big pharma, they're supporting the industry. So, there there's a there would be an enormous backlash against physicians to use repurposed drugs. We saw that with COVID.
So, you know, physicians who were using off label drugs that are safe and effective, they were being, reprimanded by the state medical boards. They were being investigated by the state medical boards, and many lost their license. So there are enormous risks for going against the narrative or the standard of care. And so most most physicians, particularly oncologists, will just follow the standard protocol or the standard guidelines because they will be harassed by their colleagues. They'll be harassed by these medical boards.
They'll be harassed by the, you know, medical institutions that support them. So there's enormous incentive for them to follow the guidelines. In addition, oncologists actually get paid. If you give chemotherapy, there's actually a fee for giving chemotherapy. So there's a financial incentive for giving chemotherapy.
So even if the chemotherapeutic drug doesn't work or is ineffective, the physician is actually getting paid to give the drug. Not only is that that that, you know, the costs involved in the drug, the oncologist benefits by actually giving the drug. Wow. Yeah. That is, quite concerning.
And and let's talk about whether or not the conventional approach to cancer is actually effective. Have we found that the drugs that are being used for the most common types of cancers are actually working? Are are rates of cancers going down? So that's a really good question. So the the the survival from cancer for most for most cancer types has barely changed over the last 30 years.
So it's basically important. You can divide cancers into 3 groups. Those that are chemo responsive and can be cured by cancer. So there are certain cancers that really respond to chemotherapy and can be cured. You know, for example, testicular cancer, certain lymphomas, certain leukemias actually respond really well to standard chemotherapy.
Not to say that adjunctive therapy wouldn't potentiate those agents. And so for example, probably 1 of the best examples is chronic myeloid leukemia which is due to a specific genetic mutation. And there is a specific drug which acts in CML and actually cures the disease. But we're talking about, you know, maybe 5% of cancers. For many cancers, for example, you know, breast, melanoma.
Maybe chemotherapy, has a marginal effect in prolonging life expectancy. But the cost of that is an enormous toxicity and enormous side effects. And then there is the 3rd group of dry, of cancers for which chemotherapy doesn't extend lifespan, and all it does is adds to the disease burden, the complications, the toxicity. You know, pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer would be an example. So I you know, not all cancers are the same, and so I think 1 has to look at the cancer type and the the treatment.
So, you know, I think patients shouldn't just accept what they told. They need to do some research. You know, there's a lot of data out there, some good data, and they they should be equal partners in in this therapeutic relationship. It should be patient doctor relationship, and they should be equal partners, and the patients should be involved in the decision making. I think many patients are intimidated by the physician.
They just accept what they say and follow unquestioningly, and clearly that is not a good, collaborative relationship. Clearly, the patient and the physician need to be partners in this therapeutic journey. And, you know, as we said, there are alternatives. So, you know, patients wanna get chemotherapy. It certainly doesn't preclude.
In fact, they should go on a ketogenic diet, and they should concomitantly take some repurposed drugs because we know that they work better together. Now in many countries where there's less financial incentives, for example, in Germany, in Israel, in fact, if you are hospitalized with cancer, you will get what's called integrative care. They will combine the best of standard care together with these, integrative techniques that I've been talking about. And so, you know, their goal is to provide the best outcome for the patient. In the US, the goal is to make as much money as you can regardless of the patient's outcome.
So we all know people in our lives who have had cancer or many people watching may have had cancer themselves, and I think some of the most frightening words that you can hear from your doctor is you have cancer. And immediately, I think with fear, our emotions start to take over, and our rational thinking goes to the side, and we just want answers. We want quick solutions to, whatever's facing us. So, from your perspective, what what would you suggest people do? What kind of quelling some of that fear and actually looking for what the answers could be.
And if they if they do have a good care team, what should they be talking to, to their oncologist or their, nurses and care team about? Yeah. So that's a good question. So that's specifically why I wrote my book. So it's called Cancer Care, the use of, repurposed drugs and metabolic therapy for the treatment of cancer.
So this book is available from for from download. You can download this from the FLCCC website. You can also buy it from amazon.com. And I think it's a good starting point, because it, you know, it provides a very objective overview of the topic. You know, the book is highly referenced, and it provides a starting point for people to, you know, do further research and to, start thinking of as a possibilities.
There are other books that are available. You know, Travis Kristofferson has written a an excellent book on on cancer, you know, questioning the chromosomal theory, and then emphasizing that it truly is a metabolic disease. So, you know, his book is very easy to read and, you know, it it, you know, supports the concepts that are outlay in my book. Thomas Zefried, who already has done outstanding work on the metabolic, basis of cancer, has written a book Cancer is a Metabolic Disease. For people who want more details, you know, that's a good book.
It's very dense, it's very science based. It's not that easy to read, but if you want further information, you know, he is the expert on the metabolic derangements of cancer. So I think those are good starting points, you know, people can read my book and it is highly referenced, and I do reference other books that are available as well as important, peer reviewed journals. And then maybe to supplement that with Christofferson's book, but there is data out there and I think patients need to be, you know, informed. We need to be empowered so that they know they they they have options.
And then some of the nutraceuticals and the, supplements that you suggested in your cancer care book, you said that those work complimentary to standard chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Are there any cautions or concerns that people should have? Like, is it okay to take vitamin d if you have a particular type of cancer or not? Or is it it is some of those things naturally what people should be doing anyway? Yeah.
So most almost all of them are exceedingly safe and have a long track record. So vitamin d, you know, is our number 1, And we suggest really high levels, and we describe, you know, how to achieve those levels. And vitamin d is really safe. Now we recommend Metformin, which has a, you know, 50 year track record of safety. We recommend, you know, curcumin, melatonin.
The other things we recommend are mebendazole and ivermectin, which are exceedingly safe and effective. Doxycycline, 1 of the drugs we do recommend is Simetidine, which is a anti ulcer drug. So the only caution is and it's really 1 of the few drugs that there is a caution and is written in the updated downloadable form is that there are a number of drug interactions with some entity. So, you know, I think 1, people have to be smart about what they're doing, and if they are taking other drugs, they should check for drug drug interactions just to be sure. But almost all of the drugs that we recommend are exceedingly safe, have a very long track record of safety, and have minimal side effects.
But you know what? People need to, you know, empower themselves. There are online programs that allow you to for example, if you're taking a blood pressure medication or whatever other medication, just to check the interactions between, you know, the repurposed drugs and what you're taking. Right. But, you know, for example, you know, vitamin d is really safe.
Metformin is safe. Most of them are exceedingly safe. Great. Have you heard, examples of patients who have tried these kinds of complementary therapies and had success? Yes.
So we do get feedback all the time from patients who who have failed conventional therapy, have been, you know, gone a different pathway and are so called in remission. And so it is really very encouraging that we're getting these results. So this is the reality. And indeed, at the most recent FLCCC conference, doctor Ruddy present presented a patient who had metastatic, prostatic cancer, who had failed all conventional therapy. Basically, he was told he was going to die.
She started or he was started on either mectin plus a number of, repurposed drugs, and for all accounts, he's now in remission, and actually was at the conference. And so we know of similar cases. Mary Beth Pfeiffer wrote up a patient from Molly James, who similarly was a young man who had really advanced colorectal cancer, who was treated with Ivermectin and some other medications, and, again, is in remission. So these are well known, these these remarkable turnarounds. Mhmm.
Amazing. We've talked before on our podcast about how it's really the consumers who drive demand and make changes in industries. We've talked about that in relation to medicine, in relation to food, and that kind of thing. So I wanted to get your take on, how how patients or those of us who aren't yet patients who are just healthy individuals can actually kind of play a role in taking back medicine and bringing back that doctor patient relationship that you talked about what can people who are watching this podcast do to kind of try and bring that back from from the corruption and the, consolidation that we're seeing? Yeah.
I think what you say is really important. Patients need to be empowered because they're the ones that are driving the health care system. So the more patients are empowered, they're gonna force the health care system to change because they will demand the therapy that they want. So, I mean, the first thing a patient can do is have a, you know, cordial conversation with their oncologist or their physician. You know, it should be a collaborative relationship.
It should be a a true patient doctor relationship. If the physician doesn't wanna talk to the patient or dismisses what the patient is saying, then the patient should just fire the physician. It's as simple as that. And I think the more physicians that get fired by their patients, the more that they will reconsider, you know, their their their strategy. And it does give pay patients are the ones in the driving seat.
They're the ones who can demand the therapy that they get. Yeah. And so if you fire your her physician, where do you look to find someone else? Yeah. So there are, but even not, there are many integrative physicians, integrative oncologist who, you know, who are prepared to follow a more holistic approach that aren't completely, indoctrinated by the the health care system.
And patients need to participate in their health care. I think the days where physicians dictated to patients the therapy and patients just followed blindly, I think is over. Patients need to be part of the relationship. They they should be equal partners and should need to participate in decision making. Yeah.
And I think as well, going back to what you said earlier, taking part in making those lifestyle changes that make them healthier, so it makes it easier when you do fall ill for your care team, your physician to be able to help you get better. I think, you know, we can't expect to abuse our bodies and, fill it with poor quality diets and then, suddenly rebound and and become healthy again? Yeah. So I I think that the the shift is patient empowerment, patients taking control of their health, patients having a role in the treatment of their diseases, and they can make an enormous impact. I think that patients can no longer just follow blindly.
They need to be active participants in this process. Mhmm. That's great advice. So tell us, what's next on your work on cancer? Well, you know, we we we we gonna continue along this pathway.
You know, we into you know, we we collaborate with doctors across the world and many people are really quite intrigued what we're doing. More recently, we we're going to embark on a prospective longitudinal observational study. You know, we we because of the work we're doing, I I started collaborating with doctor Kathleen Reddy. So she is a breast surgeon who is now involved in the treatment of off label drugs, particularly Ivermectin for the treatment of patients with cancer. So because of this relationship, we decided, you know what, we're gonna do an observational study, just to observe what's happening.
And if we have enough patients, you know, we can make some some, you know, astute, observations about what works and what doesn't work. So, you know, it's it's still in the development phase, but the plan is to do a multicenter study involving multiple oncologists or multiple integrative physicians who use ivermectin and other repurposed drugs. And what they will do what we will do is we will just collect data. So it's not an interventional study. Patients, the physicians will treat the patients the way they see fit.
What we will do is just collect the data and then analyze the data. Alright. Doctor Ruddy says this is much like the Framingham study, which is a well known study done in Framingham, where they just collected data on health care outcomes in the people of Framingham. And based on that study, they were may able to make really important medical observations. So and medicine is basically based on observations.
You know, I heard doctor Ditel Glich, who we interviewed, you know, a few days ago made a really important cons, comment about randomized controlled trials. And, you know, randomized controlled trials are considered the golden standard. But they are the golden standard because they controlled. The outcome is controlled. So whatever the outcome, the desired outcome needs to be, it can be controlled.
Whereas an observational study, you're already reporting what happens in real time and in real life. Right. You're just asking a question and seeing what the answer might be rather than starting from a hypothesis of what you think the answer should be. Yeah. Manipulating the outcome.
Basically, you know, patients are being treated by different physicians, you know, in different approaches, but what we will just do is compile the data and then see if we can make some, you know, interesting observations. So what's the timeline on that observational study, and and how can people find out more information? Yeah. So, you know, obviously, we're going through the process of writing a protocol. We'll need the informed consent.
We'll need the ILP, but there's no reason in the meantime that patients actually can't consult 1 of these physicians and be treated. We just can't collect their data and enroll them until we have IRB approval. So if patients go to the website, the flccc.netwebsite, there is a list of the participating physicians, and they can, you know, have a look at those physicians that are participating. And if they so desire, they can contact these physicians, and they can start treatment right now. There's no reason that they can't start treatment right now.
We just can't enroll them in the study. But, you know, these these are physicians that are actively treating patients at this time with, repurposed drugs, and so that they can start treatment right now. And it's not it's not exclusive. It it means they can still continue whatever standard therapy they're getting. So they can use this as a adjunctive therapy or a standalone therapy.
Amazing. Is there anything else that you would like people to to know as kind of your final thoughts before we close? Anything I haven't asked that you wanted to say? Yeah. I think patients need to realize that they in the driving seat, that this should be a collaborative partnership with their physician, that they should be participate in the therapeutic decision making, number 1.
Secondly, they're important really lifestyle changes that they can make They can have a profound effect on both preventing Cancer, preventing diabetes, preventing Alzheimer's. And if you should have cancer can make a really important difference in in your outcome. Now we're talking about diet, lifestyle changes, exercise, relaxation therapy. So, you know, patients can should be active participants in their treatment. That's great.
Thank you so much, doctor. What's the best way for people to find out more about you? Is it through the FLCCC website? How do they find your cancer care book? Yeah.
So probably the best is through the FLCCC website. That way, they they can get access to the book. If they have questions, there is there is a link, a webmail that they can send a questions, and we have a whole host of, nurses and other practitioners who can help answer the questions. Great. Are you looking at other chronic diseases, as your next phase beyond cancer and diabetes?
So I have just recently written a a monograph on depression because it's really an important disease that I think is really badly managed by Western medicine. So I think that's the next big 1. And then if you think of it, you know, we've, we've tackled most of the important topics. You know, the other is, you know, we're working together with doctor Gazzda, you know, who who is a fabulous neurologist. So we're working on some guidelines on how to prevent Alzheimer's disease and what you can do for early Alzheimer's disease because there's no although the pharmaceutical industry are trying to push pharmaceutical products, there's no effect of pharmaceutical drug for the treatment of Alzheimer's, but there are many interventions that may be helpful.
So doctor Gazzda is working with us on a, you know, a program, some guidelines for the for the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer's disease and dementia. So if you think about it, we've really crossed the spectrum of chronic diseases. Yeah. Wow. Yeah.
I mean, it sounds like a whole new paradigm of medicine. I hope you'll come back and talk to us a little bit more about depression and Alzheimer's once those, projects are a little bit more fleshed out. Sure. It would be an absolute pleasure. Thank you so much, doctor Marek.
Sure. Thank you. Well, I hope you'll agree with me when I say doctor Marek's work is nothing shy of a message of hope and inspiration much needed these days. Drop us a line in the comments, let us know your thoughts and any questions you may have, and please be sure to like, subscribe, and share this video with your friends and loved ones so they too can start taking steps to prevent cancer and more generally just get healthy. Collapse Life is your 1 stop shop for information to open your eyes and to allow you to take control of your life in a changing world.
Please be sure to follow us on substack@collapselife.substack.com. We publish new stories there every week, and we're also on Twitter at collapse_life. So join us there. Thank you so much for being with us this week. We hope to see you again next week on this podcast.
Until then, remember to keep your chin up. It's only collapse. See you soon.