‘The Vaccine-Injured Are Being Ignored’: Dr. Pierre Kory on Treating Vaccine Injury Syndrome and the Suppression of Early COVID Treatment
“The science is ignoring this concept of a vaccine injury syndrome and I will tell you, it is real and it is common.”
Dr. Pierre Kory is one of a handful of doctors focused on treating people injured by the COVID-19 vaccines. A pulmonary and critical care physician by training, Dr. Kory and his partner have treated dozens of vaccine-injured patients since he opened his new practice in mid-February of this year.
“Many of the people who come to me, they’ve been sick for a year and trying to get care,” he says. “As soon as they mentioned that the vaccine is the cause of their illness, the physicians get very upset, and they think that they’re crazy.”
We discuss his new I-RECOVER treatment protocols, the attacks he’s faced, and the corrupt relationship he sees between government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry.
Subscribe to the American Thought Leaders newsletter so you never miss an episode.
* Click the “Save” button below the video to access it later on “My List“.
Dr. Pierre Kory, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.
Dr. Pierre Kory:
Thanks Jan, good to be back.
I’ve become very interested in a new protocol on the FLCCC website (covid19criticalcare.com,) which is titled I-RECOVER. You have code names for all of these protocols which are supposed to help people who have suffered an adverse reaction to a vaccine. Please tell me about this.
Yes. Our protocol, I-RECOVER, has been around for a while. We first put one up last June, and it was initially intended for patients with long-haul syndrome, because we were starting to see a lot of that. We were trying to figure out how to treat that. On that protocol, we had mentioned that it applies to the vaccine-injured.
More recently, with the data coming in on vaccine injuries, the amount of patients who are now declaring themselves with vaccine injuries is really a very large number. We decided to break up the protocol and have one really directed at the vaccine-injured. Although there’s a lot of similarities and overlap between the two syndromes, there are also some differences.
Dr Paul Marik and I see a lot of patients with vaccine injury and long-haul syndrome. I-RECOVER is really the first scholarly attempt to codify and organize all that we know of the pathology of the spike protein and the lipid nanoparticles. Pathology means, when something is a pathogen, it is something that causes illness.
We are trying to understand as best we can how the spike protein is causing illness. We think there’s about six or seven mechanisms. Then, we’re trying to find therapeutics to counteract or control the illness. We are collaborating with doctors around the country and around the world who are rapidly developing experience. I will say that this protocol is a draft and it’s a start. We need to know a lot more about what we’re treating and what’s going on.
I’m often humbled by these patients. It’s extremely complex, and they’re very sick. But I will tell you, they get better to some extent, and sometimes to a large extent. With many I see a robust response. I see the diminution or mitigation of lots of symptoms. Others are much more difficult, so we’re employing trial and error.
So we have first line, second line, and third line therapies. Sometimes with first line therapies, I see great responses. With some patients, I really have to try a number of different strategies in order to help them. What is unique is that we’re really focusing on relieving suffering and treating patients, because vaccine injuries are being ignored. There are long-haul syndrome clinics in a lot of academic medical centers, but there are no post-vaccine injury clinics, and there is currently no body of science on post-vaccine injury.
We are focusing on spike apathy, which is the study of the pathogenesis of the spike protein. There is no one teaching that to doctors in the system. They have no awareness of what the vaccine might do, and how it might lead to these symptoms. They just see patients with these myriad symptoms that they don’t understand.
Oftentimes the tests are negative for the important traditional diagnostic categories. The physicians are frustrated, because they don’t know how to help these patients. And I will tell you, the patients are frustrated too. They’re being referred to many specialists, and very little in terms of therapeutics are being offered. They are getting endless tests and referrals.
I spend a lot of time with patients. In the first 10 minutes they tell me about their journey of trying to get care. They tell me what this doctor said, and what that doctor said. Then, I hear really shocking things like, “I told this doctor that it was a vaccine injury, and he ended the visit saying he couldn’t help me.” And I’ve heard this more than once.
The patients are learning that they have to be very cautious about what they say about the vaccines. As soon as they mention that the vaccine is the cause of their illness, the physicians get very upset and they think that they’re crazy. Most of my patients leave with a diagnosis of anxiety or functional neurological disorder, which is essentially saying that it’s in their head.
So, it’s a very troubling disease. We need help from the system, we need organized research, we need more publications, and we need more open recognition of the syndrome. We just don’t have enough data. Science is ignoring vaccine injury syndrome. I will tell you that it is real and it is common.
Until the system starts to recognize it and marshal resources into studying it in an organized fashion, we’re just going to keep doing what we’re doing. We are learning from clinical experience and reviews of the literature, and looking at papers, oftentimes in second and third-tier journals. They are often in vitro studies, but we’re using all the information that we can get our hands on.
There is a recent reanalysis of this study in the BMJ, which says that serious adverse effects are something like one in 800, right across the board. The data they used is not complete, and it’s not the original source data as I understand.
But you’re talking about injuries that aren’t necessarily as severe as that one in 800, they are something much more common. Are there rigorously studied, credible estimates of how common these are, or is it something that still needs to be discovered at this point?
The exact epidemiology has not been as well investigated as it should, but keep in mind if you’re referring to the Doshi papers, from the editor of the British Medical Journal, that’s on pre-print and that only looked at trials data.
Without going into the rabbit hole of what happened in those trials, there’s a lot of evidence of lack of follow-up, and a lack of documentation of adverse effects. So, I would tell you what they discovered, which was alarming, is an underestimate.
If you look at VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,) there’s a catastrophic amount of injuries being reported, but the problem with VAERS is that it’s under-reported. There is something called an under-reporting factor. We are at a million adverse events just in VAERS. If you multiply that by what some people say is an under-reporting factor of 40 or 50, you’re talking about adverse events of around 40 million.
Now how many that I see have that chronic syndrome where the symptoms persist, often rendering patients disabled? That’s a lower number, but in a recent third party survey, 8 per cent of respondents reported a vaccine injury. Then, a smaller percentage actually characterized the injuries as a death in their family. The question was asked, “Have you or anyone in your immediate family been injured?” And I think that was the 8 per cent number.
A significant percentage could not work. That’s a mark of disability and that’s generally the patients I see, they’re not able to function like they used to. So, you are right. The true number is unknown, but I will tell you it’s unacceptably high and it’s very common.
There are patients who have been injured for 15 months now. Many of the people who come to me, they’ve been sick for a year and trying to get care, trying to get help, and they haven’t been able to find someone to help them.
For some people, it must be in their head, correct? Obviously, those people exist. From the people that come to you, how many of those would there be?
To be honest Jan, I have not found anyone that I thought was inventing symptoms. What is the reason? It is because the stories are so similar. As a physician, the way you become an expert is from what is called pattern recognition. I define the syndrome as a constellation of symptoms that develop temporally associated with the vaccine or with COVID long-haul syndrome. The patterns in which they develop are reproducible. I see two or three patterns, and so remarkably, the histories I get are almost recognizable and predictable.
The one thing that complicates it is that they often suffer from anxiety, and that’s an interesting development. We are seeing worsening anxiety in these patients, which is multifactorial. Sometimes I see patients with what I call premorbid anxiety, which is amplified from the vaccine.
I have also seen a number of patients who are are premorbid personalities. Once they were cool, laid back, and now they’re telling me they feel a lot of anxiety. They literally feel nervous all the time, and we believe that’s also part of the same syndrome. It’s inflammation in the brain that is causing all of these different neurological complaints.
The third form of the anxiety is so many patients are just plain anxious about what the future holds. They are suffering, they are sick and disabled, but they haven’t been helped and they don’t know what the rest of their lives will look like. I would just call that general concern about what their life will look like.
The patients are not coming to see me because they are anxious. That’s not why they’re seeing me. They have anxiety, but they have real reproducible physical symptoms that I’m seeing in similar patterns among patients. Unless they’re sharing notes on the side before they come to see me, their histories, which are spontaneous, are completely understandable by me. We are beginning to develop and understand why those symptoms are the way they are.
It sounds to me like the collection of symptoms for long-COVID, are similar to the ones for the vaccine. How can you tell the difference?
First, let’s look at the history of what started it. You are right in that it gets even more complicated, because no one’s actually pure anymore. I have long-haulers who then got vaccinated, and things got worse. I have post-vaccine-injured people who then got COVID, and things got worse, but their first constellation of symptoms happened after one of those events.
It doesn’t really matter to me which event triggered it, because the syndromes are so similar. Here are the things that are similar. The most common symptom is this; inordinate fatigue. They feel more tired than they ever have. They don’t have the energy to go out, and they’re limited by what’s called post-exertional malaise. By the way, both syndromes have a lot of overlap with chronic fatigue syndrome.
Chronic fatigue syndrome patients have been associated with infections for decades, and have always complained of severe fatigue and an inability to tolerate exertion. So when my patients exert themselves even minimally, say they go to the store for milk and come home, either they’re in bed for hours or a lot of their neurologic symptoms will flare up. You can see that exercise triggers a lot of their problems, whether it be headache or these neuropathic symptoms. So fatigue and post-exertional malaise and brain fog are the things that I see in both camps.
What I see in post-vaccine, much more than long-haul, is what I call neuropathic symptoms— electric shock-like feelings, tremors, shakes, jerks, and way more headaches in that population. Sometimes it’s a little bit more brain fog, but also these very weird neurological symptoms. Some feel like their skin is on fire or someone’s pouring boiling water on their feet, or they have cold extremities, and an inability to control temperature.
I see a lot of what’s called POTS, which is postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. They will be sitting here and they’ll have a resting heart rate of 110. And by the way, you can’t fake that. I can be seeing a patient on telehealth and they put a pulse ox in their finger. They’re just talking to me and I see a resting heart rate of 125. A young, healthy person at rest should not have a heart rate of 125, not even close to that.
I see a lot of what we call autonomic dysfunction. Autonomic is the nervous system that controls the automatic functions like our heart beating, and our breathing. We see alterations in blood pressure and heart rates. So, you can see all of these abnormalities and some of them are definable and reproducible. With the post-vaccine, I see much more of the neuropathic stuff, but those three cardinal symptoms are central to both.
How big is this population of patients by now?
That I have seen, or in my practice?
You are explaining general patterns. I’m just curious how big the sample is.
I opened my practice in mid-February. Prior to that, I had treated 3 to 5 long-haulers that had come to me. But in this practice with my partner, it would be maybe 100 to 150 at this point. One of the things I tell my patients, and I’m very humble when I say, “Listen, what I want to know about this disease, and what I know are two completely different things.”
I said, “Everything I’m doing is evolving.” The way I was treating patients three months ago and the way I’m treating them now is very different. I’m learning, and I’ll use the word—new tricks, new compounds, and new therapeutics that seem to work well. I’m using anticoagulation a bit more in select patients. I’m finding a lot of benefit from that.
I’m trying to learn as much as I can about this phenomenon called micro-clotting. I work with a group in the UK where they have an expert hematologist who does something called live blood analysis. I’m learning a lot about what’s happening in the blood of these post-vaccine patients. What she does is take live blood, puts it on a slide, and examines it within a minute in dark-field microscopy.
We’re able to see all sorts of platelet aggregations, and very stimulated immune and clotting cells. We’re starting to experience and learn. With some of those patients with very active stimulated platelets or fibrin collections, we are finding a tremendous response to anticoagulation. Here in this country, I don’t have anyone who can do that specialized test, so I’m much more reluctant to use it here. We’re just trying to figure out how to help patients.
I saw a hit job on me the other day. They have the usual quotes from doctors saying, “They are using unproven therapies.” Of course, I’m using unproven therapies. Show me what’s proven. There is no organized effort to try to identify in a controlled fashion what is working. So, we’re left trying to doctor in the way old-school doctors did; by observation, experience, knowledge of pathophysiology and knowledge of pharmacology.
We’re just doctoring and we’re getting attacked, because we’re using unproven therapies and supposedly preying on patients. And it couldn’t be farther from the truth. We’re trying to help these folks, because no one else is helping them.
I was speaking with Dr. Harvey Risch the other day and he mentioned to me just how often drugs are used off-label, essentially in unproven ways, but with kind of a reasonable route of functioning. Maybe you know the numbers, it’s very common.
Oh yes. So 20 per cent of all prescriptions are off-label. They’re used for diseases for which they didn’t originally obtain FDA approval. It’s 20 per cent in outpatient, and about 30 per cent in the hospital. It’s very common to use a medicine that’s already available for a new purpose. You don’t always have a lot of studies on it, but if you have a good rationale and you quickly find that it benefits your patients, and it’s totally reasonable to do it.
Doctoring is still legal, although it seems like it’s not. It seems like everybody wants doctors to no longer use any judgment or try anything with a patient unless there’s some randomized control trial that proves that it works. There are not enough funds in the world to study every medicine for every disease, nor can you study combinations of medicines for every disease. It’s too complex.
Evidence-based medicine is never going to meet the demand for the knowledge that we need. So you’re always going to have to use clinical intuition, clinical judgment, your wealth of experience, your knowledge of pathophysiology, and then you try to do the best you can. You do it with the informed consent of the patient, explaining to them what the risks and benefits are. The one thing I’ll say that’s on our side is, with the exception of anticoagulation which I use sparingly, almost every other medicine I use is extremely safe.
It has an unparalleled safety profile, and it’s generally inexpensive. At least on the safety side, we’re in very good hands. Again, you don’t want to hurt a patient, especially when it’s a new disease and you’re trying things. I would never want to try something that held the possibility of hurting them more than the chance of helping them.
You hinted at this already, but you’re being attacked for this.
Yes. Most of the attacks on me have been accusing me of misinformation. Nobody recognizes that I became one of the world experts in the clinical use of ivermectin. I have first hand knowledge of almost all of the 88 controlled trials, and of all of the health ministry programs around the world that successfully deployed ivermectin in early treatment.
I know the drug works and I’ve been disseminating that knowledge. Unfortunately the narrative is that it doesn’t work and that it’s a horse dewormer. They base that on a couple of trials published in high impact journals, and then they try to dismiss the drug. All of the complaints are from physicians and pharmacists. Not one patient has ever submitted a complaint against the care that I’ve delivered, and that pertains to my entire career.
I have never yet had one patient complain to a medical board about the care I’ve delivered. I’ve never been sued for malpractice. I have always tried to exercise the best judgment and the best communication skills with my patients, and as a result, they trust me.
I don’t think these complaints are substantive. My lawyer looks at the complaints and he says, “You know, the medical board really can’t do anything.” I give huge data support in my replies. They said, “Defend yourself.” I replied, “Okay.” I showed them multiple trials, summaries of the trials, and examples from health ministries. And I say, “I’ve used this drug for over a year-and-a-half, and my patients improved readily when I begin treatment.”
I don’t know how else to defend myself. You understand it, but it doesn’t mean that there’s not going to be complaints. But I have to tell you they’re completely baseless and they’re really from people who are not well-studied. They’ll read a headline, they’ll see one trial, and they’ll say, “See, Dr. Kory’s wrong.” It’s not that simple.
Some people might simply believe that you’re wrong and then submit the complaint.
That’s a great observation. There’s a belief and trust in the narrative and in the agencies. People are unsettled when someone like me, even with a database, evidence-based argument starts putting forth the idea that maybe our leaders and agencies didn’t get this right. That is unsettling, because if I’m correct, where does that leave them? Who can they trust?
It threatens their whole perspective and where they sit. They have been looking for guidance from supposed experts and leaders. I threaten that perspective and it’s unsettling to them, and some of them lash back. They want me to be wrong, because that would support them in making sense of this world.
I want to discuss ivermectin.
You definitely know about ivermectin. I’m not sure if this is a direct quote, but earlier, on stage, you said, “Any amount of it is actually still safe.” That struck me as a very strong statement.
When I said that, the point I was making is that in the war on hydroxychloroquine, one of the tactics was they designed trials which were then heavily published, where they used sublethal doses. They used toxic amounts of hydroxychloroquine. The patients treated with hydroxychloroquine in a hospital got sicker and they died more commonly. That was used to fuel two narratives; that it was a dangerous drug, and that it didn’t work.
If you were to design a trial using ivermectin, even if they used twice the normal dose, three times, four times, five times, six times the normal dose, there would be no toxicity. Now to say that there’s no dose that could make anyone sick, well, let’s talk about that. There was a comprehensive review by one of the world’s famous toxicologists, Jacques Descotes, a French scientist.
In his review, certainly if you had taken 100 to a 1000 times the normal dose, some would have gotten ill, but they’re self limited. No one has died. They’ve gone to the hospital, usually with confusion or what we call encephalopathy, but with supportive care they have improved.
In fact, in his review, he says, “There’s not one confirmed or proven death associated with ivermectin, even in massive overdose.” Not to say I would design a trial with a hundredfold the normal dose, but I’m saying that even if you doubled, tripled, or quadrupled it, it would actually work better.
What did they do in their trials, Jan? They underdosed. I’m speaking about the research fraud that I’ve had to witness in trying to disprove this drug. They couldn’t use that tactic with ivermectin. Whereas, they had used that tactic with hydroxychloroquine, and with ivermectin they did the opposite.
They shortened the duration as much as possible. They started it as late as possible and they gave the lowest doses that they could get away with, because they wanted to try to show the inefficacy of ivermectin.
It’s almost like medicine turned around or something.
Jan, you sound like me a year ago. When I came upon ivermectin, I thought this program and our interview was going to help the world. We did help a lot of people, but I didn’t understand what was happening after that.
I did not understand the attacks, the dismissals, and these narratives that it’s a horse dewormer. The studies were all small and low quality. They were not peer reviewed, and they were not randomized. I can recite all of the narratives that I saw developed around ivermectin.
What changed my life was the day that I received an email from one of the world’s premier experts in vitamin D. I didn’t know who he was, and he wrote the following, “Dr. Kory, what they are doing to ivermectin reminds me of what they’ve been doing to vitamin D for decades.” And he sent a link to an article called The Disinformation Playbook, written by The Union for Concerned Scientists.
It’s a short article. It lists the tactics that corporate interests employ when science emerges that is inconvenient to their interests. The science around the efficacy of ivermectin couldn’t be anymore inconvenient to the pharmaceutical and vaccination industry. There’s never been a molecule or a compound that is more threatening to that industry.
When you think of it in those terms, what happened to ivermectin made sense. There are numerous examples of these disinformation campaigns. By the way, do you want to know who invented disinformation campaigns? The tobacco industry. They perfected the tactics for 50 years and ever since, numerous industries have borrowed them when science emerges and threatens them.
For instance, with the NFL and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, when those researchers started to highlight the fact that these retired football players were developing severe mental illnesses, rashes of suicides, and were becoming disabled because of tiny hemorrhages in the brain, what did the NFL do?
They embarked on a disinformation campaign and they used all these same tactics. They had bogus studies saying that it didn’t exist. They attacked the researchers who were trying to bring this forth to the public. They did a number of things trying to suppress this evidence that was inconvenient to their goals. That’s the NFL.
Now imagine the global marketplace for vaccines and therapeutics, and that is what my life became. I had a front row seat to endless pervasive disinformation around ivermectin. And I will tell you, they largely succeeded. In most of the advanced health economies around the world, it’s not recommended. Most of those agencies, which are under the influence and control of the pharmaceutical industry, specifically do not recommend ivermectin. But get this—25 per cent of the planet lives in a country where ivermectin is broadly available and is widely used, if not recommended by those governments.
So it’s not the whole world, but I would tell you the advanced health economies of the world have done a really good job by controlling the media and the health agencies to dissuade doctors from using ivermectin. And they’ve done even more. The hospitals removed it from their formularies.
Jan, this drug was so “toxic” that they had to remove it from their formularies. It’s one of the safest drugs known to man, and yet they removed it, just like they removed hydroxychloroquine.
And so, what I got to witness is not only the tactics that they deployed, but the power they hold. I observed how it rippled down to retail pharmacies. They would not refill my prescriptions anymore.
No, it’s not FDA approved by the way. As you mentioned, the FDA doesn’t have to approve it. But now I have pharmacists parroting the fact that it’s not FDA approved. I said, “I know it’s a repurposed drug and I’m using it for COVID.” And they say, “I won’t fill it. It’s too dangerous.” That’s the war that I’ve had to fight.
I’m going to have to comment, because I’ve asked this before in interviews. How many billions of people have taken ivermectin for river blindness? That’s the use that I’m familiar with. Didn’t someone win a Nobel Prize for it?
I can’t believe we’re still talking about this. I’m still flummoxed.
I’m glad you understand some of the perversions here. It is one of the safest medicines known to man and still the government, the agencies, the pharmacy boards, and the medical boards punish anyone using it.
The funny thing is none of the studies show that it doesn’t work. Even the big trials that they once used to say it doesn’t work, if you actually look at the data, they all show benefits. They are just not statistically significant, but when you summarize the trials, they all show benefit. There’s no evidence to show that it doesn’t work. Yet, they won’t allow you to use it.
Okay, let’s say it’s undetermined as of yet. There’s some data showing it’s working, and some that’s not statistically significant. Let’s say it’s not settled yet. Is it okay that I use it until it’s settled, because it’s so safe? You would think with a risk-benefit analysis, you would be supported in that—but that’s the tell, Jan, that’s the tell.
The fact that they are absolutely suppressing and basically making it illegal to use a risk-benefit approach in treating, tells you that they’re frightened about ivermectin. Their goal is to make sure it’s not used and that’s not about the patient. The only way they can prevent patients from using it in this country, is by going after the doctors. And so we’ve become targets.
I recently learned that it actually was considered by the WHO to be one of the top 10, most essential medicines.
Jan, when ivermectin was discovered by Professor Satoshi Omura in Japan. He discovered avermectin, which was produced by a streptomyces bacteria. They noticed this compound that the bacteria produced killed all the parasites in its circumference or in its area. Then they tested it in the lab and they found that it was killing parasites.
Then they purified it to avermectin and Merck produced it. That discovery won the Nobel Prize, because it transformed the health status of a huge portion of the planet that had been suffering from disfiguring parasitic infections. It basically eradicated river blindness, lymphatic filariasis, elephantiasis, all of these terrible parasitic infections, restoring the sight of people in many communities across Africa. That one discovery literally transformed the status of parasitic infection around the world.
Now, that was against parasites. Twelve years ago, well before COVID, in vitro studies started showing antiviral properties against dengue, West Nile, herpes, measles, and even HIV. There was 10 years of antiviral research on ivermectin. So, we already knew it had a basis and a plausibility to be an antiviral. Satoshi Omura, in his Nobel Prize address, called it the wonder drug, because it really is.
It has a lot of potential, and it has a lot of antitumor properties. I could go on for hours about ivermectin. I think its potential is as yet unrealized. Then, its potential for treating COVID was attacked, and there was a war on ivermectin. I’m writing a book about that war, by the way.
Do you see the tide shifting at all, both on ivermectin and admitting to the existence of vaccine injury?
I’m not employed in a hospital or a health system anymore. I’m not regularly around folks who are working in the system. I have a private practice with my partner. A lot of my colleagues are those who understand the scope and scale of the fraudulence and corruption that has gone on. So I don’t really know what the average physician or provider in that system is thinking.
However, I do have contact with a few people who trust me and have been telling me things that are going on. So a couple of things—ivermectin, at least in this country, is done. The people that are going to use it, the doctors who have used it, and the many patients who benefited, that number is probably at a plateau. And it’s a significant number. We know that from the prescription data. Even last August at its peak, there were 90,000 prescriptions written a week for ivermectin.
However, with the latest fraudulent trials being published in the headlines, you’re not going to get new numbers of doctors to adapt, so I think ivermectin is done. The one thing that is changing is the ability to suppress the scope and the scale of the vaccine injuries and deaths is starting to slip.
The ERs, the neurologists, the cardiologist, and the oncologists are seeing too many diseases in young people that they’ve never seen before—heart attack, strokes, sudden death and cancers. You cannot suppress all that.
You cannot continue to suppress that. From what I’m hearing from my colleagues who are still working in the system, they are saying that they’re seeing some shifts. They’re seeing some doctors now openly pushing back against leadership, and even openly talking about the vaccine as a cause of injury. There is a slow recognition that not everything is what they were told it was.
The safe and effective narrative is now being questioned. The amount of people showing up for their boosters is at a plateau, if not decreasing. And so the truth about the vaccines might come out sooner than the truth about ivermectin.
With most of these attacks on your license, your lawyer says they are not really something you need to worry about. Are you concerned? Can they do something against you?
I’m always concerned. I probably didn’t mention the other source of attacks. One is on my medical license, which resides at the state level with the state of Wisconsin.
Those will never rise to the level of them taking my license away. I’m an expert and everything I’ve disseminated about ivermectin is based on that expertise. So, unless they want to become as expert as me, it’s pretty hard for them to tell me I’m wrong. Even if I was, I can’t see how that would warrant removal of my license, but anyway, that’s one source of the attacks.
The more recent one is something called The American Board of Internal Medicine. I’m board certified for three different specialties; internal medicine, pulmonary, and critical care medicine. There is what’s called a certifying board. To be board certified used to just be a badge of distinction or honor. It means you passed a specialized test, you showed some sort of higher level of knowledge, and so you become board certified. You paid money, you took a test and you got board certified.
So, they have enacted a misinformation policy. Someone wrote to them complaining about myself, Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Paul Marik, basically listing statements that we’ve made in interviews, things that we’ve written, and things said on our webinar. Whoever submitted this complaint felt this was a clear example of medical misinformation. So, the board forwarded those letters to me and said, “Please defend yourself that this is not misinformation.” They said, “We’re meeting as a committee. We’re going to review this. We’re going to review your rebuttal letter and we’re going to decide whether any sanctions are in order for spreading medical misinformation.”
I just have to remind people, Dr. Peter McCullough is the most published expert in cardiorenal medicine. Paul Marik is the second most published doctor in the history of our specialty, which is critical care medicine. I was well known and highly published in another subfield of critical care medicine.
I find it absolutely shocking that some of the most highly published, data-driven, evidence-based medicine experts are being accused of misinformation. It’s shocking. What Paul and I did in our reply is we looked at the American Board of Internal Medicines (ABIM) misinformation policy, and they actually outline a process. The process is if they find one of the board certified members to be guilty of misinformation, they need to provide us with a letter detailing why what we’re saying is misinformation.
They did not do that. They simply sent us a letter of our statements and asked us to defend what we said. That’s not how it works. They need to show how we’re passing along misinformation. The definition of misinformation is knowingly passing on false information. You can argue with my interpretations of this, and you can argue with the sources of the data. However, I still have data, reasoning, and logic. There is no way I am knowingly passing along wrong information.
So they’re really on very thin ice, and they’re not following procedure. It’s very transparent and I find their attempt to go after us almost laughable. I don’t know what would prompt them to act on that complaint. I find it shocking.
I find it shocking what they’re doing. I’ll tell you they’re going to lose in the court of public opinion. Politicians have written to them, and letter writing campaigns have sprung up. There’s a lot of people in this country that do not want us to be attacked, because they trust our expertise, and they trust our interpretation, compilation and dissemination of the data which forms our opinions.
As we finish up, you said ivermectin is done, and that public opinion isn’t going to change. For example, you’re very obviously tied to said drug, it’s your thing. There are these attacks, and of course, you have your defenders and you have your patients. How do you see this ending?
This is what I hope, and I’m just going to be blunt here, Jan. The condition called regulatory capture has been described in multiple governmental agencies, department of the interior, environmental, and transportation. When you talk about healthcare in these last two and a half years, it is a shocking example of the total regulatory capture of our health agencies by the vaccination and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
It has been a colossal fraud and is exemplified by massive corruption in almost every aspect of COVID. That’s what I’ve come to learn. It’s not what I believed in the beginning at all. I looked to them for guidance. I became an expert on a number of errors, and I realized that they weren’t based on science, and that there was something else going on.
So what I think is going to happen is a scandal, call it the COVID scandal, or call it the COVID fraud. People are going to understand what happened. They’re going to start understanding that the health agencies did not act with the public health interest as their primary consideration, and it was largely in service of the pharmaceutical and vaccination manufacturers.
Once people recognize that, they’re going to start questioning everything. The truth might come out about a number of things that I’ve been talking about. So, that’s both a prediction and a hope, Jan. I could be totally wrong on that, and the history books might not say what I think they should say. And they will come up with some sort of story that everything was done according to science, and that they did the best they could. They will say, “Conditions on the ground shifted, so we changed strategies.” That’s not what happened at all.
They knew what they were doing when they destroyed hydroxychloroquine. They knew what they were doing when they destroyed ivermectin. They knew what they were doing when they were burying adverse event data around the efficacy and safety of the vaccines. I want that truth to come out.
When it does, I hope that the larger population has an understanding of what regulatory capture means, what its consequences are, and how to try to correct and defend ourselves against that. We cannot let industry profiteers guide public health policy. This is what happens when you do that. This is what happens. It is a crisis at this point and has been for two years. It didn’t have to be this way.
Dr. Pierre Kory, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show again.
Thanks Jan, good to see you.
Follow EpochTV on social media: