EpochTV - The Epoch Times
Live Chat

Dr. Pierre Kory: Deadly Conflicts of Interest and the Global Coverup of a Failed Medical Experiment

Views 54.3K
“Looking at the data from a totality of sources, I mean, the signals were absolutely alarming … You saw a failed medical experiment being covered up on a global scale,” says Dr. Pierre Kory.
We discuss the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, what Dr. Kory describes as a decades-long war on repurposed drugs, and the information warfare tactics that have been deployed these last 3 years. And we also take a look at an interesting and perhaps not well-known part of Dr. Kory’s medical experience—he was an expert medical witness for the George Floyd civil case.
Dr. Pierre Kory is a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist and co-founder of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC).
“Once you read a study, and you see that they have numerous conflicts of interest with the actual molecule or compound or medicine that's being studied, you cannot trust that paper,” Dr. Kory says.
He’s the author of the upcoming book “The War on Ivermectin: The Medicine that Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the COVID Pandemic.”
For those interested, here is the Union of Concerned Scientists' article referenced in the episode: "The Disinformation Playbook." 


Jan Jekielek: Dr. Pierre Kory, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.
Dr. Pierre Kory: Thanks, Jan. It's a pleasure as well to be back.
Mr. Jekielek: I want to start with something that I didn't realize until yesterday. You were one of the expert medical witnesses at the George Floyd trial. Please tell me about this.
Dr. Kory: In the middle of my Covid journey, I had just done a month in New York City running an ICU for five weeks, and I was exhausted. I was an emergency volunteer there, and then, I went back home to Wisconsin. One Saturday, I got a call from the agency that usually asks for me to be an expert witness on various medical malpractice cases. It's a little odd because they called me on the phone, and it was a Saturday. I didn't even notice the number, because I don't even answer those calls anymore.
But I answered the phone and a woman started to tell me that they were looking for an expert for a case, and requesting three things. They were looking for someone who could maintain confidentiality to the highest degree. I thought, "This is interesting." Then, she asked if I could do the full report within 10 days. The third thing was asking if I had any conflicts of interest with the Minnesota Police Department.
As soon as I heard that question, I said, "This is what's going on." I realized that it was George Floyd. There was already a lot of unrest around George Floyd. I was intrigued, and I wanted to know what happened in that case. I had seen things on the news, plus I like challenges. I said, "Sure." Now, they had to interview me. They had a big, high-priced law firm, and I sat for an interview the next day on a Sunday. They liked my background and my answers, and I got hired.
The next 10 days were spent reading about a lot of things, and the 100-year history of the Minnesota Police Department. I had to learn about different methods of restraining suspects. In particular, I had to learn about what's called prone restraint, when you put a suspect down on the ground, and how that's a never event in policing.
Properly trained police officers would never do that. Then came reviewing the facts of the case, which was largely video evidence with some audio. I had to watch it over and over and over again. There were medical records, and there was an autopsy.
Let me just say one thing, Jan, because I've talked about my involvement with George Floyd before. I almost feel like I have to make a disclaimer, because it was such a contentious and volatile case, and I suddenly get attacked and accused of all sorts of things. It's very strange.
Here's what I want to say about the case. I get that it's very controversial. I get that people have strong opinions. But I was really interested in bringing all of my professional medical knowledge to bear in trying to produce as accurate an interpretation of what happened.
I've never known a saint. I know a couple people who come close, but I've never met Mr. Floyd. I was not a judge in the case, or a lawyer, or a prosecutor, or a jury member. I was a medical expert, and I did my job. I'll briefly tell you what I concluded, based on a review of all of the evidence available to me. There are a couple of things, because there are some misunderstandings of this case.
Number one, I could find no rational reason to argue that he died of a drug overdose. People will point out the drug levels of the fentanyl and a couple other substances that he had in his blood were actually quite high. What people don't recognize is, those levels are not predictive in a chronic drug user. That's number one.
Number two, drug overdoses occur within seconds to minutes of administration. If you smoke it, or inject it, the absorption is rather quick, and it's always preceded by unconsciousness. You don't just suddenly stop breathing. First, you lapse into unconsciousness, and then the breathing slows and stops. He had used drugs before his apprehension, but the prolonged arrest before he was put into prone restraint was an inordinate amount of time.
First, they put him into a police car. He was claustrophobic. He tried to get out, then they moved him. They put him on the sidewalk. He was upright and talking.
Even if he was impaired, you cannot argue that the drugs were the cause of his arrest, based on everything that happened. Then, there's the temporal association. There is also another common misunderstanding in that case. My professional opinion is that it was not just Officer Chauvin’s knee on the neck.
Clearly, I don't think that was enough, because of a couple of reasons. He could phonate and make sounds, so his trachea was not completely occluded. It was the cumulative pressure of three officers, and if you look at some of the videos, it was actually four.
He was placed prone, which is a never event, because of the suspects that have died in prone restraint. But it was quadruply worse, because he had pressure on his neck. He had an officer who had two knees on his back, another one on sort of his waist area, and then, a fourth officer restraining his legs. He had zero ability to relieve the restriction on his thorax for breathing, which is probably one of the most distressing symptoms to feel.
Even in my report, I gave an example of that. If you can recall as a child roughhousing with a bunch of children, if you've ever found yourself under a pile, as soon as you sense you can't get enough air in, you start to scream, "Get off of me. Get off of me." It's a very distressing symptom.
Mr. Jekielek: I've been there.
Dr. Kory: We all have been, right?
Mr. Jekielek: Yes.
Dr. Kory: I remember as a child getting really scared, because there were three kids on top of me and I couldn’t breathe. Similarly, did you ever get an overexuberant bear hug? As soon as that hug comes, and you suddenly can't breathe, it's instant. It was clear to me what happened to Mr. Floyd.
He was in extreme distress. He was asking for his mommy. He was repeatedly saying that he couldn't breathe, and it was because he knew he was not taking in enough air to survive. The prolonged minutes of that cumulative combined pressure eventually led to excess carbon dioxide in the blood. That's really what he died of.
When the carbon dioxide gets high enough, it's called CO2 narcosis. That's when he became unconscious, and eventually his heart stopped. I will tell you, it was a pretty traumatizing case to have to watch over and over again. The thing that I will never forget is that there was a bystander who apparently had gotten some training.
He kept yelling at the officers, "You're not supposed to do that. Get off of him," because he knew that the prone restraint they were doing was highly dangerous. People were yelling, "Check his pulse." People were yelling, "He's dead." They never moved, and they never checked the pulse.
As a physician who does CPR, which is one of my areas of expertise, it was really, really hard to watch. I watched a man essentially suffocate through the combined weight of officers, who were either callous or just poorly trained. The last thing I want to say is I was the expert witness in the civil case, which led to a monetary compensation judgment for the family.
I had nothing to do with the criminal case. It was judged to be a homicide in the criminal case, and that was by a jury of peers. I just gave a medical opinion in the civil case as to what was the proximate cause of death.
I didn't do it for the family to win money. I did it because I was asked, and I thought it was important that I bring an objective and expert insight into the case. It was a very emotional time for me and I'll never forget it. I can't even really talk about it without people getting really, really upset.
The other controversy was the national unrest that was occurring with people in the streets, and with the two sides of the political aisle. Everyone saw it as black and white from two different sides. I didn't know if I was inserting myself into that. To this day, it's still not an easy topic to talk about, because there are so many emotions involved in that case.
Mr. Jekielek: Thank you for sharing it with me. I believe that you offered your absolute best expert opinion from everything I've come to know about you. It's interesting that this happened early in Covid. You have this book coming out, The War on Ivermectin. In the book, you talk about both the old you and the new you. This was still part of the old you.
Dr. Kory: Oh, yes. At that time?
Mr. Jekielek: Yes.
Dr. Kory: I was still the old me at that time. With most of what I have learned and how my life has been transformed, very little had occurred by that point—a lot more was to come.
Mr. Jekielek: Of course, and to get the details, people will have to read this book. But please tell me about that transformation.
Dr. Kory: At the time when Covid started, I was a regular New York Times reader, and I believed it to be the paper of record and a symbol of top journalism. If you really wanted to know what's going on, you read The New York Times.
I felt similarly about medical journals, in particular the high-impact medical journals, like the New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA. I thought the best scientists were published there. I believed that the health agencies had the primary focus of protecting the public health of our population, and they were the most expert at doing that.
I believed very strongly in those things. I was also a believer in the concept of good government. I was a Lefty liberal. One thing that hasn't changed is that I was distrustful of big pharma. I was taught that as a Lefty and a liberal, corporations were not cool to some degree.
But I really thought the government could fix things and that government would probably be the best way to provide the solution. I thought it was supposed to be there to level the playing field. I had that general political orientation. Obviously, politics is more complex than that, but that's where I started.
Now, I've been subjected to immense amounts of propaganda and censorship for three years in almost every august media outlet of journalism. I got transformed by becoming an expert on a few very important things around the science of Covid. I became deeply knowledgeable.
If you become an expert and you generally know the scientific truth of something is how everything gets exposed. I saw lies and misrepresentations and censorship. I saw things that were really important for the public to know that were actively being censored, widely and repeatedly.
Being exposed to the control of mass media has been really disorienting. It’s frightening to think that I've been relying on them as a source for accurate information for most of my life. I've been a New York Times reader since I was a child, and I found out that they were capable of being complicit in mass propaganda and censorship.
It's not just The New York Times, it goes across the mediascape. That's what I've come to today. I know how to spot narratives, or at least I think I do. I'm sure we're all still at risk of falling for narratives, but I have a sense of what propaganda is, and how it's deployed.
I've learned to be much, much more skeptical, if not just plain ignoring, of what the media says. I have to do my own deep dives and do my own research. I'm not going to believe anything just because it's printed in some newspaper. That's just the media. With the journals, you'll have to read my book.
What I learned about high-impact medical journals was not new, but it was new to me. It has not been new in science. A former editor of one of those high-impact journals, Marcia Angell, resigned in 2001. She wrote a book about her experiences as the editor of the top medical journal in the world. She said, "You cannot believe half of what is published in these journals, because it is manipulated and censored."
I always knew pharma was bad. I didn't understand that they are literally a criminal syndicate, who have been committing crimes for decades. They pay fines, then move on and continue their standard operating business. We have talked about the media and the agencies.
When it came to government, I wasn’t aware of how corporations have literally taken over almost all the agencies of government. The response to Covid was controlled and conducted by the pharmaceutical industry, with probably even bigger powers behind them. But to understand the pharmaceutical industry, I looked at three years of every policy issued by those agencies.
All you had to ask yourself was, "What would a pharmaceutical company want?" Voila, there was your policy. Every single policy was in line with serving the interests of a pharmaceutical company. Guess what that brought us? It brought us multiple humanitarian catastrophes, millions of lives lost from the suppression of early treatment, millions of people dead around the world from the vaccines, and now epidemics of vaccine injury and long Covid with very little treatment. That's why we're here at this conference.
To say I've been transformed is an understatement. With a lot of folks that I know, the adage is about going from blue pill to red pill. The journey has been very disturbing with what I've had to see and had to learn. It has been quite frightening and even dystopian, but I wouldn't trade it for the world. That's number one.
Number two, some of the beauty has been in connecting with people who didn't fall for those lies, and who could spot the propaganda. They taught me things and made me understand things that maybe I didn't want to understand, but that I've come to understand now. I now have a huge network of colleagues that I trust. I trust their counsel, their insight, their objectivity, and their desire to really make things right and put out information.
Ultimately, it was a war of information. All of the destruction was about information and how it was controlled. I was already transformed before the Twitter Files. The Twitter Files are just absolutely astonishing. Government intelligence agencies and health agencies were literally controlling Twitter, and what was showing up on Twitter. That was also happening in the media. You heard about the billion dollars from our government. It wasn’t really from our government. It was from the corporations that are running our government.
The corporations are sending money to media agencies to promote a vaccine campaign, and to censor anything that would elevate vaccine hesitancy. It's almost like you're watching a military operation, and they're using all of the institutions of society. If I sound crazy, that's just how I've interpreted these three years, and there's no other way to explain it. If you look at the history of propaganda and censorship, we usually relate it to certain countries like WWII Germany and the former Soviet Union.
But suddenly, for the first time in history, we had technology and we had a consolidation of power on a global level. You had these industries that had the technology and the global reach both to censor and spread propaganda. I saw a global propaganda and censorship campaign, which made the world go mad.
I saw them do things with this blanket of propaganda and censorship, like mandating these vaccines for young children, who had basically zero risk of anything serious happening to them from Covid. They mandated these vaccines and people lost their jobs. They were victimized and vilified for being unvaccinated, along with those who were adjacent to them.
If you were anywhere near an unvaccinated person, you still got attacked. The most absurd thing was the people who got vaccinated and then got injured. One of the most telling cases was the mountain biker who got vaccine injured. He recorded a video of what he was going through. He was so sincere and he was tearful because his career was decimated.
Then, he started to cry, because of all of the attacks on him for being an anti-vaxxer. This young professional athlete was just trying to share what happened to him, and he received a mass of attacks calling him an anti-vaxxer. I never saw anything so absurd.
People were whipped up into doing these things, and again, this was a blanket of fear. The other ingredient that you saw was the fearmongering. By the way, I was also scared. I saw stuff that made Covid really, really scary. But actually, when you let the dust settle and saw everything, it wasn't as scary as it was first advertised to be.
But the fear and dangers of Covid were constantly propagated. We started to discover that you really only had to worry about it in certain strata. You really only had to worry about it in people who were untreated. If you treated it early, it was nothing.
Jan, you've interviewed so many people who have treated thousands and thousands. So many times doctors in this movement have said, "We've treated 2000, 3000, 10,000," and no one is going to the hospital.” What happened? The reply was, “That's misinformation.” We were accused of being misinformationists.
It was a war where the voices of truth and sanity were getting drowned out by lies that were told for different objectives. The CEO of Moderna has $4 billion of wealth. The pharmaceutical companies made tens to hundreds of billions, with this massive transfer of wealth. It has been a really difficult three years.
Most of the population thinks it was a rough time and we're just going to move on now. That's not what my experience was. The last thing was reading the books and articles by former high-level academics and editors of journals, and seeing what the journals did.
The high-impact medical journals played a massive role in the human toll of Covid by censoring positive studies of repurposed drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. They published clearly fraudulent trials that were designed to fail; to show that ivermectin didn't work, and to show that hydroxychloroquine didn't work. They also manipulated trials showing the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.
I saw this corrupted science being held as the truth and being arrogantly determined by all doctors. Here's where the doctors messed up. They were like me in the beginning. They were too trusting of the institutions of science, the agencies, and the journals, where they placed an immense amount of trust. They didn't understand why there were so many people in the population saying, "Yes, we see your journals.”
“You say the vaccines are safe and effective, but that has not been our experience here on the ground." You had this discord between the top scientists and what the doctors were saying. The institutions would say it so arrogantly and smugly and definitively, and then, what they would say would change a few days later.
Remember 95 percent effective, then to 70, 50, 30 percent? Then, they said, "Okay. It doesn't work for transmission, but it still protects against hospitalization and death." The reality is that nothing was ever true, and they were just shifting their stories. That has left me where I can't really read high-impact medical journals now.
When I read a study, the first thing I read now is about the conflicts of interest. That's all you have to read. Once you read a study and you see that they have numerous conflicts of interest with the actual molecule or compound or medicine that's being studied, you cannot trust that paper.
It may be true. It may not be true. But I refuse to act on a paper whose conclusions were reached by investigators who have direct conflicts of interest with their findings. There's no more objectivity. I've seen too many lies being published. I've seen things that were determined to work and things that were determined not to work, and both were lies. Every time the investigators were reeking and drowning in conflicts of interest.
The most troubling one is the ACTIV‑6 protocol. The National Institutes of Health finally did get around to doing a large randomized controlled trial on ivermectin. Who did they choose as the principal investigator? A woman from Duke who they gave a $140 million grant to, who has stock in a competitor to ivermectin. She has conflicts of interest with Gilead Sciences, who manufactures remdesivir. She's got a long rap sheet of pharmaceutical industry influences, as does almost every other investigator on that trial.
What are they studying? They're studying a drug that would decimate the Covid market for every single one of those pharmaceutical companies. Can anyone actually believe they're going to lead to anything but a predetermined result? By the way, disinformation is actually defined in an article that I always cite by the Union for Concerned Scientists that says, "The tactics used by industry when science emerges that is inconvenient to their interests."
Disinformation was actually invented in the 1950s by the tobacco industry. They hired a PR firm, and they started using these five tactics. The first and most effective tactic is called the Fake, and the Fake has three different ways it is run.
It's conducting and designing trials with predetermined results, censoring positive reports of your competitor, and then promoting negative editorials and selectively publishing only negative studies. I detailed how they did all of this. I have huge collections of rejection letters from these journals to investigators that had done good randomized controlled trials, showing phenomenal benefits of ivermectin. The rejection letters were all the same, "I'm sorry, this topic is not of sufficient interest to our readers at this time."
You either want to laugh at that or cry, because in the middle of a global pandemic with people dying across the world they said that a positive trial of ivermectin was not of sufficient interest to their readership. This is how it's done. When I decided to write this book, I was angry. I said, "I am documenting what these criminals are doing, and how they're corrupting the science around a life-saving drug." I started to document everything.
I read the Disinformation Playbook in March of 2021. I gave testimony in December of 2020 when everything was going sideways. I didn't understand what was going on. I didn't understand why people weren't just looking at my paper and the immense amount of evidence showing it worked. Yet, there was nothing but attacks on ivermectin. I couldn't figure out why our advice wasn't being openly embraced.
One day, I got an email from Professor William B. Grant, who's one of the world experts on vitamin D. It was a two-line email, and I didn't know who he was. He said, "Dear Dr. Kory, what they're doing to ivermectin, they have been doing to vitamin D for decades," and he included the link. It was only when I read that article that the world made sense.
It's a short and very powerful article, and they outlined each tactic. I said, "Wait. I've seen this. I've seen that. They did this yesterday. They did that to me two days ago. This is what they're doing to the FLCCC [Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance]."
It was almost like getting the teacher's edition to the world. Suddenly, it was like a light went on. I said, "That's what is happening. The FLCCC and I have launched ourselves into the middle of a decades-long war on repurposed drugs. This is not about ivermectin, and it's not about hydroxychloroquine.” However, my book is a case study around ivermectin, because it's a really good case study. The disinformation has been going on for a long time.
Another example is the NFL [National Football League] with chronic traumatic encephalopathy. With the researcher who first tried to publish his results that the football players were developing these microhemorrhages and suffering all these illnesses, do you know what happened to him? Oh boy, did the NFL go after him. They made a movie about it.
That's just one tactic called the Blitz. You go after the researchers who produce inconvenient results, like me, who lost three jobs and I've also been attacked widely in the media. But it's what they do.
Mr. Jekielek: But you found a new job.
Dr. Kory: I found a new one. That's the thing, and I'm happy now. That's what I said. The transition was rough, especially when I didn't know what was going on. Once I knew what was going on, I fought as valiantly as I could in that war. Ultimately, I'm unemployed by the system, but I love my nonprofit.
I love my private, fee-based practice where no one can touch me. I actually practice under the jurisdiction of the Crow Indian Tribe now. The states don't have any jurisdiction over me. My patients are all tribal members.
Once I'm a Certified Tribal Practitioner, and as long as I'm treating a tribal patient, the states have no jurisdiction. I found that parallel system where I'm safe for now, and I'm helping a lot of people. I'm very happy with what I do.
Mr. Jekielek: Let's just say that's a fascinating solution.
Dr. Kory: It is, yes.
Mr. Jekielek: You made friends.
Dr. Kory: Definitely.
Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned this, “aha,” moment when you read this article, and we will include a link to it in our piece here.
Dr. Kory: Wait. Can I interrupt you for a second?
Mr. Jekielek: Yes.
Dr. Kory: I am very curious as to whether you're going to be allowed to include that link in your piece, and I'll tell you why. I just finished the book in a two-week marathon with my co-writer. In my book, I had numerous references to that article, including an image of the cover, the title of the article, and where you could find it. I literally cited the names of each tactic and used their definitions.
One of the last little checklists in writing our book was asking permission of the Union for Concerned Scientists to cite their article. The first response from this organization was, "I don't think that will be a problem. Let me just check."
A day later, we got a very stern email, "You do not have permission to use any material from that article." Can I ask you a question, Jan? What do you think happened? Originally they had said, "Sure, you can use our article." My co-writer said, "This actually sounds like the Union for Unconcerned Scientists." I thought, "Why are they doing this?" It was because of the controversy around me.
It's so odd because they wrote an article about disinformation, but I'm literally the target of that disinformation. I've suffered a lot from it. I wanted to use their article to show what they did to me. Yet, they're believing this stuff about, "Oh, he's controversial. We saw that he tried to publish a paper without listing something." It was because there was a little episode where we published a paper and I got attacked, because I didn't include the fact that I use ivermectin in my private practice, and that I'm part of the FLCCC, which is a nonprofit.
I've never heard of that being a conflict of interest in a paper. They literally made up the fact that I'm trying to hide my conflicts of interest. Those aren't conflicts. Working for a nonprofit organization is not a conflict of interest, nor is using a certain medicine in your practice. I don't make money off of ivermectin.
But the people at the Union for Concerned Scientists apparently thought I was some sort of controversial, bad guy, and they just did not want me to cite their work in the book. We had to vaguely reference it in the book. I was actually pretty upset about this. I said, "I can't believe it."
Mr. Jekielek: This was a key moment for you, profoundly inspiring, and profoundly changing. Ironically, you are not allowed to reference it directly. Fascinating.
Dr. Kory: It is fascinating. The other thing is, I've gotten to know Bill Grant, the professor who sent me the link. He and I now are good pen pals, and he sends me articles all the time. What he said was also equally interesting, "They've been doing this to vitamin D for decades."
When you do what's called meta-analyses of vitamin D for any condition, whether it be cancer, infectious illness, or anything autoimmunity, the literature is polluted with trials designed to fail; giving too low of a dose, giving at too late of a time, and the wrong formulation of vitamin D. You have tons of negative trials that have been published over decades.
With those trials, they knew what they were doing. They don't want you to believe that vitamin D is protective of your health. In the entire system, no doctors tell people to take vitamin D. Sometimes they'll check if the level is low. Also, they artificially set the levels too low. They say 30 micrograms or nanograms per deciliter is normal, which is not true. People would do much better with higher levels.
Vitamin D has been a long-standing object of a war from the pharmaceutical industry. That's why I said the war on ivermectin is not about ivermectin. They've been doing it on numerous repurposed drugs. Let's be clear. A repurposed drug is one that's generally off-patent. It does not hold out profits. They want to bury the older drug to make you always want to take the newer, patented, profitable one, and they will go to any lengths to do that.
Mr. Jekielek: We reached out to the Union of Concerned Scientists for comment, but did not immediately receive a response.
The deployment of the Covid genetic vaccines happened at a scale greater than any other previous medication, probably even close. Doesn’t the raw scale of it reveal so much that was hidden in other similar contexts in the past. What do you think about that?
Dr. Kory: That’s a brilliant point you just made. The scale helped expose it, but also the fact that it failed. You could see that it failed early on, and how much they had to do to hide that. If it had been a success, it would not have exposed anything. In fact, it would've entrenched it even more. They would have said, "See how well our system is working? It produced a vaccine in record time, and it obliterated case rates." If it had been a success, I don't think it would have exposed anything.
What exposed it is how a tiny minority of deeply researched laypeople and doctors in every country around the world were aghast at what they were seeing. When you started to look at the data from a totality of sources the signals were absolutely alarming. Yet, you never heard that in the media, and you never heard it in the journals.
That was what exposed it. You saw a failed medical experiment being covered up on a global scale. It was the cover-up. There is the old adage, "It's not the crime that gets you in trouble, it's the cover-up.” It was the fact that they had to cover up a global catastrophe, and there's no way to do that.
The truth is starting to come out now. You're starting to see more and more investigations. I wouldn't call them tribunals, but some of the state legislators are starting to look harder. Even Fauci with his never-ending victory tour has had a rough go of it in the past week .
By the way, I just published an op-ed on FoxNews.com, where I detail how things aren't going so well for Fauci. He's starting to see questions from formerly friendly news outlets that are a little challenging for him, and he's getting very defensive.
Things are changing, but this was a cover-up of a failed medical experiment. I like your point. We've never seen anything like that, with the scope and scale of what they tried to do—vaccinate the entire world, like overnight. The entire world?
Mr. Jekielek: There are different theories about how and why all this happened. You're pretty strong on the corporate takeover of government being the central driver. One of the theories is that this is just raw incompetence on a mass scale. But you don't think that.
Dr. Kory: We're getting into some complicated stuff. I would say the pharmaceutical industry and its tactics were the final driver. That was actually the instrument they used. Who is behind pharma? Actually, this wasn't pharma.
Pharma was working for the military to make these vaccines. The contracts were all from the Department of Defense. That was a Department of Defense contract. The Department of Defense did not do their due diligence in ensuring safety. The manufacturing of these products violated every CGMP [Current Good Manufacturing Practice] standard, which is an FDA regulation. This is from experts like Sasha Latypova, who's an expert at good manufacturing practice.
There's never been a product, even a baby seat, a car seat, a car, a can of peaches, nothing has had this level of adverse events reported, including deaths and the variation between lots. It was a manufacturing catastrophe. If the pharmaceutical industry was working correctly, those things would've been stopped and taken off the market immediately.
But it was just an unrelenting push through the media, even the government and the Department of Defense. I don't understand what this was. It definitely came out of a lab, and that's already settled science, but was it leaked or was it an accident?
Let's say it was an accident and our government had been preparing for this massive countermeasure, and it really was the military that was employing a military countermeasure. That actually makes some sense, because when you see all of the medical ethics that were violated, that's telling you it's not healthcare. We still have a sense of ethics, and they forgot it overnight. It sounded like a military exercise, where you have to sacrifice 100 people to take that hill.
The VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] exploded, and with the amount of deaths that were reported within the first weeks, nobody looked at it. It was nothing but attacking VAERS as a source of data, "Nothing to see here." It was like the military seeing the battlefield strewn with soldiers and just moving ahead, "You have to get your objective." Do you understand what I'm saying? The corporations benefited and profited greatly, but the conduct was like nothing we've ever seen before.
When you think about the case of Vioxx compared to the vaccine, with Vioxx they certainly suppressed the adverse event data. Between 50 and 60,000 people in the United States died during the time that they knew that Vioxx was causing deaths.
Eventually, that case was brought to court. They paid the biggest fine ever at that time. There were some checks and balances in the pharmaceutical industry. Whereas, here it seems the guardrails were removed, and there was no data coming out that was going to stop this train.
It's even somewhat bigger than the pharmaceutical industry. The government was complicit. The military was complicit. Whoever was manning this operation was basically giving out orders to ignore all warnings and move ahead with this unrelenting vaccine media campaign, which whipped up people into craziness.
You've heard all the stories where the unvaccinated were not invited to Thanksgiving. Many of my friends and colleagues were crying. They were the mothers of daughters who didn't want their grandmothers to come to the house.
How much discord and enmity in society did it sow? It was carnage. It was carnage. That's just not a dangerous pharmaceutical product, it's bigger than that. I want to say that for a long time. I put everything at the feet of, "This is just pharma doing their thing to make money."
But I do get a sense that it's much bigger than that. But pharma is the best industry on earth at doing disinformation. They have been doing it the longest. I wouldn't count tobacco as the pharmaceutical industry, but they're close. They are absolutely expert at this.
With modern consolidated media technology and control, it's immense what they can do. When you think of technology, actually, there was an enemy to their control, which is social media. Social media is the wild West. Look at what they did to control social media.That is evidenced in the Twitter Files concerning Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. Because if you don't try to control and censor in social media, the truth will spread like wildfire.
Those social media companies ended up being the enemy to their objectives. However, the Twitter Files shows you the extent to which they tried. They used a central clearing house at Stanford, where every agency with that hub linked, every governmental agency, intelligence agency, with every social media company. Stanford was algorithmic monitoring all these communications and trying to snuff out information that would be inconvenient to their goals. It looked like a military operation to me.
Mr. Jekielek: To your point about it being something bigger, a number of guests on this show have convincingly shown that the apparatus of censorship and manufacturing perceived consensus pivoted from doing this around election issues, into doing it around Covid issues. This thing was already developed.
Dr. Kory: Correct.
Mr. Jekielek: It's different elements of society; government, corporate, and nonprofit.
Dr. Kory: That's the history of the Trusted News Initiative, which first convened around controlling information around elections. I find it absurd on its face. You literally have the top journalism organizations in the world get together and decide they have to control the flow of information. I thought freedom of the press and speech were central to an election. It's almost like a doctor saying, "Yes, I don't think the patient is my primary consideration anymore."
Freedom of the press is suddenly not sacrosanct? You saw that, and then, they pivoted to Covid. But there's a difference, though. Manipulating information around elections does cause great harm. However, it does not lead directly to death. Whereas, here you're talking about censorship and propaganda around something that was causing an immense amount of death, either through the suppression of treatments, or the propagation of a toxic intervention. The harm was at catastrophically different scales. But you're right, both of these are wrong.
Mr. Jekielek: At the very least, it's a lesson that if you create a monster for maybe even the best intentions, it's still a monster.
Dr. Kory: Yes. I agree completely with what you just said.
Mr. Jekielek: Here's the challenge, and you talked a little bit about this in your speech earlier. The challenge is that, in theory, there's a whole lot of money out there to study vaccine injury as it exists right now. It's not really being used. You end up having smaller organizations who don't have huge access to funding trying to figure things out. These large-scale RCT trials, which are very expensive, really aren't happening. Because how would they happen? What is the path forward in trying to understand what's going on? Because in many cases, we still don't know.
Dr. Kory: Jan, I don't want to answer by saying, "I hate that question," but I find it the most difficult one to answer. I wish I knew. I think of more in terms of big concepts like, "Is this about tearing down and rebuilding the system?"
I don't know if that's a viable path. Is it about building a parallel system anew that people will flock to when they see that the present system has failed them, and has been corrupted and controlled by industry?
People need truth and good information and good guidance. They're going to go where that's provided. But first, they have to understand where bad information is coming from. I don't know. I don't have the answers for the world.
I just know what has worked on this journey, and our organization has done really good work. The impact of our work has saved a considerable amount of lives.
Mr. Jekielek: Earlier, you said old gumshoe medicine was a factor.
Dr. Kory: Yes.
Mr. Jekielek: Let's finish with that.
Dr. Kory: Even though I was a believer in evidence-based medicine and randomized controlled trials and picking apart studies, I also knew about things that didn't come out of studies. It came out of clinical experience, observation, and trying different approaches where you could find things that worked.
People like to believe that anecdotal evidence doesn't work, like if a doctor gives someone a medicine or a treatment and sees them improve in a way that's palpably different from how they've seen other patients behave, that's not to be trusted. It's not real, unless it has been tested in a large, multicenter, double-blind randomized controlled trial. That's absurd.
We have hundreds of years of medicine where doctors discovered different treatments. Were they always right on everything? No. But are we right now with these randomized controlled trials? Absolutely not. That system has been corrupted.
Old gumshoe medicine is just leaning on the powers of observation, clinical reasoning, understanding mechanisms, understanding the action of interventions, and then using risk-benefit analysis and trying things until you figure out how to get patients better, while always trying not to harm the patient.
But also, untreated disease is harmful. Doing nothing is not really ethical when someone is deteriorating. That's why that whole "Go home and wait till your lips turn blue," is so absurd. There is no disease that you can't try to treat using a sensible, prudent approach.
That's where we are with long Covid and vaccine injury. With the research funding from the government, that $1.2 billion that I cited, they haven't enrolled one patient in a trial yet. We have to rely on the older methods that we have as doctors. The other thing that we can do is collaborate.
My partner and I are always sharing clinical experience when we find something that works, or a new strategy. I talk to doctors who've been dealing with chronic illness for decades, and I learn new tactics from them. I have to tell you, it's really fun. We don't have to deal with these trials that we need to be skeptical of.
That's the other thing, Jan. With the $1.2 billion that they funded for these trials that they're supposedly doing for long Covid, do you know what the first one is that they decided to do? It's the trial that's on Paxlovid.
The results you get are from the way the system is designed. Of course, they would choose Paxlovid as the first thing, but it makes no scientific sense. I have no idea why they would think Paxlovid would work for long Covid. I guess there's a couple of rationales, which I don't think are correct. It’s a pricey, patented, pharmaceutical drug with more drug interactions than I've ever seen. These patients are chronically ill. How long can you give Paxlovid for?
Long Covid is a chronic illness, and they want to test Paxlovid, which is a short course. Don't get me started. Because of the way the system has failed and been captured, we have to rely on older, time-tested methods like good reasoning and collaboration. We are figuring this out. I've been in practice for 15 months, and with each month that goes by, I get better and better at what I do.
Mr. Jekielek: Dr. Pierre Kory, it's such a pleasure to have you on again.
Dr. Kory: Thank you. Great, Jan.
Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining Dr. Pierre Kory and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Jan Jekielek.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.