Leighton Smith Podcast - Best Of: Dr Pierre Kory - January 7th 2026

Leighton is on summer break, so we are highlighting some of his favourite guests from 2025.

Prior to Covid-19, Dr Pierre Kory was an internationally renowned pioneer in the field of critical care ultra-sonography; equally so in other areas of medicine.

In 2023 he published “The War on Ivermectin: The medicine that saved millions and could have ended the pandemic." 

The challenges that were to confront him over the next few years changed his life.

He was confronted with deceit, corruption, threats and dismissal. Now, the tide has turned.

File your comments and complaints at [e-mail]

Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide.

Listen here on iHeartRadio

Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:
To subscribe via iTunes click here

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks B. Follow
this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of the now, the Leyton
Smith Podcast powered by News Talks ed B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome as we continue through our summer break with replays
of some of the best podcasts that we all the
best interviews that we've done in the past year also,
and so we come to doctor Pierre Corey. This was
one of the best of the best prior to COVID nineteen.
Doctor Pier Corey was an internationally renowned pioneer in the

(00:49):
field of critical care ultrasnography, equally so in other areas
of medicine. In twenty twenty three, he published The War
on ivermecton the medicine that saved millions and could have
ended the pandemic. Now what ensued was that the challenges
that were to confront him over the next few years

(01:11):
changed his life. He was confronted with the seat, corruption,
threats and dismissal. But now the tide has turned. This
interview is a must listen. See you at the other side.

(01:40):
Ivermectin is a dirty word in the media. It doesn't work.
It's a deadly horse stea wormer, prescribed and promoted as
you'll be called a right wing quack and be banned
from social media or lose your license to practice medicine.
And yet entire countries wiped out the virus with it,
and more than ninety five studies now show it to

(02:00):
be unequivocally effective in preventing and treating COVID nineteen. Ask
youseolv this question. If it didn't work, why was there
a coordinated global campaign to cancel it? What is the
truth about this decades old Nobel Prize winning medication? Now,
the words I've just quoted are from the inside cover
of the book, The War on Ivermectum. It was published

(02:24):
in twenty twenty three, and it was sold all over
the world. To say that it's worth reading is an
understatement of major proportion. But I had trouble finding a copy,
at least one that I could buy immediately. I only
had a few days notice. Subtitled the Medicine that saved
millions and could have entered the pandemic, its author is,

(02:46):
as you'll discover, a fascinating individual doctor per Corey. It's
a pleasure to finally get to talk with you.

Speaker 3 (02:52):
Laton, my pleasure as well. Thanks for having me.

Speaker 2 (02:54):
We're doing this between golf games.

Speaker 4 (02:56):
I gather exactly, I'm on vacation, but I wanted to
make time for you.

Speaker 3 (03:01):
I think it's an important conversation always.

Speaker 2 (03:04):
Well, you certainly do your fair share of media. So
I want to start just with we'll jump around a
little bit. I actually we'll jump around a lot, it's
my podcast. But yeah, I want to start with a
little experience that you had because this this intrigued me
with a political legend. And this comes under the hitting

(03:27):
right at the right near the beginning of the book
where you are talking about old Pierre as opposed to
new Pierre. But old Pierre was a fascinating character before
he changed. So who was old Pierre?

Speaker 3 (03:41):
Oh boy? Yeah, So that was that was the opening
of my book.

Speaker 4 (03:45):
Well really described, you know, my kind of awakening in COVID,
and so compared to what I believed and what I
thought were the was the truth to what I came
to believe, it created an old and a new Pierre.
So the old Pierre, as I describe it, the old
Pierre read the New York Times and thought it was

(04:06):
the arbiter of truth. And if you really wanted to
know what was going on, you read the New York
Times and you would substitute whatever your main major daily
newspaper is in New Zealand. But that's the quote unquote
paper of record in the United States. I read that
since I was six. I believed in the high impact
medical journals. I thought only the best science and scientists

(04:29):
published there. I believed in our healthcare public health agencies.
I thought only the best science and scientists would form
those opinions and give that kind of guidance. I trusted.
I don't think I really questioned mainstream media. I kind
of felt like they're just reporting on stories and that's

(04:50):
what was going on. And I was just very basically
trusting in the institutions of society. And that was a
world that I lived in, and I thought everything was
I don't want to say normal, but I just that
was my frame of reference for the world I lived in.

Speaker 3 (05:06):
And laden you want to ask me what the new
pier is, well, let's put it.

Speaker 2 (05:13):
Let's put it this way. The title of the book
is The War on Either Migdon, and it just came
to me as I was reading, and I thought a
good subtitle would be the Education of Pierre Corey.

Speaker 4 (05:26):
Yes, because because it really does describe a journey for sure.

Speaker 2 (05:30):
So what about the new peer?

Speaker 3 (05:33):
I mean, the new.

Speaker 4 (05:33):
Pierre has come to learn that what the old Pierre
believed is simply not true. And I hate going you
like dark or negative thoughts so quickly. I mean, the
new Pierre has come to realize that the old Pierre's
impressions and perceptions of the world were simply not based
in fact.

Speaker 3 (05:53):
They were based in perception.

Speaker 4 (05:55):
And you know, I became very inspired and challenged by
COVID and from the get go, before even the hit
US shores, me and my colleagues were.

Speaker 3 (06:05):
Starting to study. Look at this.

Speaker 4 (06:07):
You know, I was a mininary and critical care physician,
you know, very high up in academia in the United States.
I was the chief of the critical care service as
well as the director of the ICU at a major
academic medical center here at the University of Wisconsin, huge
research funded institution, and so I was in charge of
our initial COVID response and I was doing that while

(06:30):
studying the disease was again it was a pulmonary and
critical care disease that was coming at us. And that began,
you know, three or four or five years now of
deep study, talking to doctors, reading pre prints, you know,
reading everything I could, and then also just keenly observing
various therapies, how the variants were changing, how people became ill,

(06:53):
because it wasn't you know, it's a similar disease, but
the variants did change, and things became more difficult and
less difficult.

Speaker 3 (07:00):
Does various change.

Speaker 4 (07:01):
And so I've been immersed in the science of COVID
and particularly the ivermactin, you know, so I became I
would consider myself one of the clinical experts in the
use of ivermactin in COVID, and so I knew the
truth about ivermactin.

Speaker 2 (07:15):
How did that end into your life?

Speaker 4 (07:18):
Yeah, So what happened was is when I first bonded
with my colleague Paul Marris. So he and I were
good friends. We shared a lot of research into IVY
vitamin C. So we'd been friendly and interacted and he's
a very prominent physician. So he was the most published
practicing critical care medicine doctor in the history of our specialties,

(07:42):
very very famous well known. He and I become friends
because we did neutral research on a topic, and so
people reached out to him because the governments were not
coming up with treatment protocols. They were just saying like
stay home until your lips turned blue. When you got
to the hospital. They didn't do anything but like oxygen
and ventilators in Thailand all or legacidamnifin. I mean, it

(08:02):
was absolutely outrageous that no one was trying to treat
this disease. And there are all these arts, there's no
studies to show you how to treat it, so basically
do nothing.

Speaker 3 (08:12):
It was just brazenly absurd reasoning.

Speaker 4 (08:15):
And so we started to study various therapies and we
came up with a hospital protocol and so some people,
prominent people asked Paul to form a group to put
out protocols. So we formed a nonprofit organization called the
FLCCC Alliance and we started to post protocols first in
the hospital. We did not have an early treatment protocol

(08:37):
for another six months.

Speaker 3 (08:39):
But what Paul did was very clever.

Speaker 4 (08:41):
We were following the data on various therapeutics you could
use as now patient, and we'd had this chart and
he would put like green, yellow, and red lights, you know,
in terms of how much the evidence was showing support
for various therapies. And I remacton was always on that
chart with a question mark because we'd heard some things
that I re meted may be effective, but we had

(09:01):
no data, we had no science, no trials. And it
was really October of twenty twenty, probably what is six
seven months into the pandemic, when all of a sudden,
a series of studies from various places around the world
started coming out showing this incredible efficacy of ivermactin.

Speaker 3 (09:19):
I granted they.

Speaker 4 (09:20):
Were small studies, but there's nothing wrong with a small study,
because what a small study can't do is it can't
detect small benefits. But when a small study detects large benefits,
you have a lot of.

Speaker 3 (09:33):
Difficulty explaining those way.

Speaker 4 (09:35):
And so we were seeing these immense benefits come out
from these studies, and Paul brought it to our attention
in the group, and we put it into a protocol.

Speaker 3 (09:43):
We had an early treatment protocol.

Speaker 4 (09:45):
We added many other medicines, you know, subsequent to that,
But that's really what happened.

Speaker 3 (09:49):
And when Paul, when those.

Speaker 4 (09:51):
First few trials, Paul picked up on that signal, I said,
I'm going to write a review paper on all of
the merging evidence of ivermactin and COVID. And it was
a really hard paper to write. For one reason laden
is that every time I was about to finish it
and upload it to a pre print server or submitted
to a journal, another study would come out. And it

(10:14):
seemed like every week there was a new study. And
I always make the joke that I had a reference
manager for my manuscripts, which didn't work very well. So
I was manually reordering my references and.

Speaker 3 (10:26):
Talked hours hours and hours and hours. But anyway, that's
kind of the story.

Speaker 4 (10:31):
And I put out that paper in November of twenty twenty,
and then Senator Ron Johnson, who was like me, he
was similarly, you know, very kind of disappointed as a
mild word. I mean, he was irate that the government
was doing nothing to provide guidance on treatment, and so
he held these hearings. I testified for the first time

(10:53):
actually in May of twenty twenty on the critical need
for cortico steroids in the hospital phase of the disease.
And by the way, I did that at a time
when every national and international healthcare organization around the world
was recommending against cortical steroids. So I got into my
first rodeo in COVID was cordico steroids, because I got

(11:13):
hammered for that.

Speaker 2 (11:15):
Right, just steroids or what exactly they are.

Speaker 4 (11:20):
There's a strong anti inflammatory ammino suppressant, so they suppress inflammation.
So the things like prednozone or hydrocortizone you might have
heard of, or quarters and those are cordico steroids, and
and everybody was saying don't use them, even though these
patients were hyper inflaming. Then their lungs were actually failing
from excessive inflammation. So it was not really a stretch

(11:42):
to know that it was important, and we had a
lot of scientific evidence from stars and mers, but.

Speaker 3 (11:47):
Yet everybody's recommending against it.

Speaker 4 (11:50):
And it was just bizarre because Paul and I are
expert clinicians and we've been at the bedside trying to
keep patients alive for you know, decades, Like we know
stuff that works, we know that it doesn't work, and
we were using COVID to good effect. And so that
was kind of the first thing. And but I'll just
say that first chapter, although I was attacked viciously, even

(12:10):
by my own university. Within three months, it became the
standard of care worldwide. So people forget that my early,
my early should I say, dissent in treatment of COVID
was later validated.

Speaker 2 (12:26):
But when it got sorry, was it was it validated
with recognition?

Speaker 3 (12:31):
Yeah? Well no, no, no, no, no, no one ever said, hey,
doctor Chris, sorry we attacked you.

Speaker 4 (12:36):
No that that goes water under the bridge, no one,
no one, No one ever apologizes. But I know that
I was validated because what I had said earlier became
the standard of care. But no, there's no public you know,
championing or you get what I'm saying late. So but
then you know, the same thing happened with ivermactin is

(12:57):
that we had this incredible signal. The first patient I
treated turned around overnight with ivermactin. And I was also
talked to the doctors from various places around the world
that they were just telling me these incredible benefits. I mean,
nobody was dying in places they were using avermactin. I
talked to patients in South America and India, plus all

(13:18):
of the studies showed the same thing. And then I
got to testify again in Senator Johnston's hearing in December
of twenty twenty, and that testimony went viral and then
ivermactin became a real issue. It was on the tongues
of everybody. Everyone was considering it.

Speaker 3 (13:35):
But when I first testified, I listen.

Speaker 4 (13:38):
I didn't think I would get a ticker tape parade,
But I thought people would appreciate that we'd identified this
really positive data signal, and they would incorporate it into
their protocols and people would start to use it.

Speaker 3 (13:51):
But this is where my life.

Speaker 4 (13:52):
Changed, is that the opposite happened, and I was very confused.

Speaker 3 (13:58):
I really didn't know what was going on.

Speaker 4 (14:01):
But instead it was immediately attacked, dismissed. I was personally attacked.
Paul Merrick was personally attack. Hit jobs showed up in
the media, and I saw these blatant distortions and untruths
being published by the major media organizations around the world,
and they all had the same formula, same template, used

(14:22):
similar quotes from pedigree doctors from these high fluting agencies
and or universities. And it was to say, it was disappointing.
It was really a kind of disorienting.

Speaker 2 (14:36):
Did the corruption. Did the word corruption and.

Speaker 4 (14:40):
Not at not initially. No, And I'll tell you why
I didn't leap to corruption initially. It is because there's
this thing in medicine. I don't know if you're aware
of it, but there's a field of medicine that actually
was first originated in the early nineteen nineties, and it's
called evidence based medicine. And it was this development where

(15:04):
we as a field decided to really make sure that
any treatments we used have sufficient evidence of safety and efficacy.
And part of that field is assessing or assigning a
quality of evidence to everything, and so it's a very
cautious type of thing. It's first member, do no harm, right,

(15:29):
But also they just wanted to make sure that the
way we treated diseases had scientific evidence to support them.
And I believed in evidence based medicine how is practice.
But I came to find out that evidence based medicine
got corrupted and distorted from its original precepts. And so
when it was when my first recommendations were not accepted,

(15:50):
like i'd been used to that, I'd had evidence based
medicine arguments with colleagues for a decade because every time
I said something worked. They were like, where's the randomized
controlled trial to show that there's this trial that shows this,
this trial that shows that the evidence is conflicting. It's controversial,
and I'm I had so many he's tired of arguments. Later,
But as a physician, I knew what worked. I mean,

(16:13):
I was doing stuff in my practice, in my ICU.
I could see patients turning around after I did stuff
to them. But yet I'd be lambasted with all of
these evidence based medicine arguments that what I was actually
doing to help people wasn't working.

Speaker 3 (16:26):
And so it was a dystopian world a little bit.

Speaker 4 (16:29):
And so at first I thought this was about an
argument over evidence. Is that the agencies around the world
and the scientists around the world were not going to
rescommend something until they had what's called high quality, rigorous evidence.
You know, my word that I'm turning patients around was
not enough.

Speaker 3 (16:45):
We needed the big trial.

Speaker 2 (16:47):
Right, even the result, Hold up just a second. I'm intrigued.
You're in a hospital, you're working in a hospital, and
you're doing all this and you're surrounded by other medical people,
doctors and spatialists and what have you. Yep, couldn't they
see what you were seeing as a result.

Speaker 3 (17:06):
Well, here's the thing.

Speaker 4 (17:09):
No, because they're not involved with my patients and me
telling them that I'm seeing patients turn around with the
use of a certain drug, they'd have to take my
word for it, and they were. I'm just say propagandized.
Was so much negativity towards potential treatments for COVID. Right,

(17:31):
So just real quick, as you mentioned, I wrote the
book The War and Ivermactin. One of my colleagues could
have written the book The War on hydroxy chloroquin because
if you read my book when I when I described
the War and ivermactin, it was the same exact war
as hydroxychloroquin a year prior, the same tactic, same results.

(17:55):
And so now I'm kind of jumping to what I've
learned is that any low cost, widely available, effective therapeutic
that threatens the financial interest or the markets that popped
up in COVID, not only just with the vaccines, but rendesevir,
pac slovid, molnupe, revier, all of these pipeline patented pharmaceuticals,

(18:20):
those all these cheap, safe, effective, repurpose therapies threatened them.
And so what they do to those therapies is they
employed disinformation campaigns. And when I first gave my testimony
and ivermactin and the response to it, I couldn't understand it.

Speaker 3 (18:38):
I didn't know what was going on.

Speaker 4 (18:40):
I thought, this is more about just like people arguing
about wanting, you know, the best evidence.

Speaker 3 (18:44):
And I thought it was more of a scientific argument.

Speaker 4 (18:47):
And it was only four months after that when I
was still confused, although I started to get other signals
that there was something more nefarious than a scientific disagreement.
One of the first signs was my review paper, which
had been accepted for publication after passing three rounds of
rigorous peer review by senior scientists, three of them select

(19:08):
it from the NIH and CDC in the US. The
journal had accepted it for publication, but they wouldn't publish it.
And week after week went by, and I was getting
really disturbed by this because it was the winter of
twenty twenty twenty one, which was the highest death rates
in this country since before or since, I mean, it

(19:31):
was a wicked winter of death from COVID, and they
wouldn't publish my papers.

Speaker 3 (19:36):
And I finally I.

Speaker 4 (19:37):
Wrote an accusatory email to the journal, I said, I
suspect scientific misconduct, and within a day the editor reached
out to my editor and we'd learned that they were
retracting the paper.

Speaker 2 (19:52):
They were not going to publish it. Your question was hansome,
My question was.

Speaker 4 (19:56):
Answered, and that's when I finally realized I was up
against something. I didn't know what it was, but it
wasn't good, and it wasn't scientific, it wasn't humanitarian. I
knew there was a force that was working against what
we were trying to do, which has helped people in
the world, and so I started to get the feeling
like there was something out there that was working against us.

(20:18):
And that was the first time when I realized this
wasn't just a scientific argument. And then what changed my
life and what she inspired That book was in March
of twenty twenty one, so four months after my testimony,
I got an email one morning from someone I didn't know.
It was a two line email and it was from

(20:40):
a guy named Professor William B. Grant, and he's one
of the most published researchers on vitamin D in the world,
and he wrote me an email out of the blue, said,
dear doctor Corey, what they're doing to ivermectin, they've been
doing to vitamin D for decades. And he included a
link to an article called the Disinformation Playbook, and I

(21:02):
was really intrigued by this email, so I click on
the article and I start reading and it's written byzation
called the Union for Concerns Scientists. It was written in
twenty seventeen, before the pandemic, and it outlines what industries
do when science emergers that's inconvenient to their interests. And
they're named after American football plays. It's like the fake,

(21:25):
the fix, the screen, the blitz, the diversion. And I'm
reading the descriptions of these tactics and I'm like, oh
my god. Suddenly it's like I had the teacher's addition
to what was going on, because I had I had
dozens of examples of each of those tactics being deployed
against ivermactin in the private prior four months. And I
realized that I was like had a front row seat,

(21:48):
and I was the target of a global disinformation campaign
against ivermactin. And that's kind of one of the probably
one of the biggest, not the only biggest awakenings that
the world that I thought I lived in was operating
by very different principles and forces.

Speaker 2 (22:06):
How did that affect you?

Speaker 4 (22:11):
It's an odd answer, but in a way, I wouldn't
say it made me happy, But yeah, I'm always trying
to figure out problems and understand ways to navigate and
go forward and to help. That article helped me really
positively because now I felt I understood the problem and
what I was up against and how I could maybe

(22:32):
start to approach it because I was really confused for
four months. I started having suspicions that there was something
going on, and there's probably people who didn't want ivermat
them to be recommended for everyone. But when I read
that article, it really brought everything to a sharp focus.
And it was interesting about the disinformation playbook. It was
invented in the nineteen fifties by a PR firm, so

(22:56):
it was literally it's a playbook put together by a
public relations firm that was hired by the tobacco industry
when science emerged that was inconvenient to their interests. Right,
the science around cancer and so the disinformation around tobacco
had been practiced for fifty years, but the pharmaceutical industry have.

Speaker 3 (23:18):
Honed that to like an assassin level.

Speaker 4 (23:21):
And the other thing is pharma has more control than
tobacco because farmer is one of the biggest advertisers in
the world, particularly in the United States's televisions, you know,
not New Zealand, as I understand, but here it is.

Speaker 2 (23:38):
But said in the list of expenders.

Speaker 4 (23:42):
Oh for sure, and in lobbying and congress, farmers number one.
It's two to three times the coal and gas budget,
as I've understood, the number one advertiser in American media,
and so they literally control all of the information sources.
And so when people listen to media and television newspapers

(24:03):
for like health guidance, you're not going to hear any
cent opinions. Then what's in the interest of the pharmaceutal
industry and why people don't understand that to this day,
I just I can't figure that out. Why people have
not figured that out?

Speaker 2 (24:20):
Well, on a much smaller scale, it's it's not non existent,
if I might put it that way, not non existent
in this country. Uh, it's it's much smaller. But I
know that that has happened, so I know of somebody
who was affected by it. Yeah, and advertising is what

(24:43):
keeps is what keeps the media going.

Speaker 4 (24:46):
Yeah, for sure here it's I think it's the scale
of their influence and powers is many magnitudes over what
it must be like in New Zealand.

Speaker 3 (24:54):
But but the.

Speaker 4 (24:56):
Thing is they don't necessarily just need to control the media.
And this is where now going from old pier to
new peer, it's not just the media, it's the journals.

Speaker 3 (25:06):
It's the medical journalis themselves.

Speaker 4 (25:08):
And I think the foundation for all of the fraud
in COVID, especially against early repurpose drugs like hydroxychlorquin and ivermactin,
it begins at the level of the high impact medical journals.
They're the ones that allowed the publication of manipulated, fraudulent
trials attacking those drugs. Once you have those journals, those

(25:31):
manuscripts published in those major journals, that's the foundation for
everything else that happens because you don't need the media
at that point. Now that supports the health agencies. So
the health agency, Look, we're looking at the best science,
the British Medical Journal, you know, the New England Journal
of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association. They
say hydroxychlorcon doesn't work iromactin doesn't work, and so I

(25:53):
was watching this global fraud with millions dying because they
weren't having access to early treatment drugs. And so when
you ask me first how that felt when I read
the disinformation playbook as I after I learned Decision, and
it started to say, see what the consequences of this
massive disinformation was and how much destruction they achieved, and

(26:18):
the humanitarian catastrophe that unfolded, which is needless deaths worldwide.
And then I'm gonna have to bring in another difficult topic.
That same disinformation campaign against early treatment DOUGS was employed
to prop up the most toxic and lethal intervention in
the history of medicine, which is these mRNA vaccines. I

(26:39):
don't want to detract from the ironmatin thing, but I
have to tell you I watched that same campaign prop
up the vaccines, and so it was like a double whammy.
And all I want to say laden is COVID would
have been over early on, or it would not have
been this major worldwide catastrophe that it was had science

(27:00):
not been so controlled, corrupted and manipulated to make billions
of dollars. I mean, look at the billions they made
off of vaccines rem deciny or I don't know if
they use um descritate in New Zealand.

Speaker 2 (27:14):
Most of the world.

Speaker 3 (27:16):
They did here they did even.

Speaker 4 (27:18):
Despite the WHO saying it didn't work, which was really
bizarre to me. Like it's infused into every COVID patient's
arm in the United States and it's a worthless drug.
It has no logical sense for working. The data of
the shows that it works is manipulated, and so like
I basically Layton, I base, you know, from from the

(27:40):
comfortable world that I thought we I thought we were
organized and respected and followed certain rules and medical ethics,
and it was somewhat of an orderly world that I
thought I lived in, obviously with evil and violence and
all those things, but I thought the institutions were marshaled
against that to it to you know, a few years
into COVID, I realized I lived in a dystopian world

(28:03):
where the institutions on their face look.

Speaker 3 (28:05):
Like they're doing the right thing.

Speaker 4 (28:07):
Behind the scenes, they were basically creating actions and policies
that were directly harmful to not only my countries citizenry,
but countries around the world. And I would say the
Western and most media saturated in advance.

Speaker 3 (28:23):
Like the advanced health economies of the.

Speaker 4 (28:24):
World, they did the worst, They were the most manipulated
and also the most profitable. And so it basically I
realized I lived in a different world than I thought
I lived in.

Speaker 2 (28:37):
Now would be a good time, I think, to introduce
the who was well ever white and and and came
into your.

Speaker 3 (28:47):
Hospital.

Speaker 2 (28:49):
Yeah, and you took care of him. Yeah, just tell
us the detail.

Speaker 4 (28:56):
Now, are you referring to the patient who I discovered
was fully vaccinated?

Speaker 2 (29:01):
This was a guy who was I can't remember that.
This is the guy who was was whyever white? He
was a tourist.

Speaker 4 (29:11):
Oh so that was around ivermactin. That's so that wasn't
my page. I'm not sure, because there's there's a couple
of instances of portions that I used to begin some
topics in my book.

Speaker 3 (29:20):
But it may have been because.

Speaker 2 (29:25):
Because I'm I'm pretty sure now that he actually mentioned
in our discussion.

Speaker 3 (29:30):
But this is around ivermactin.

Speaker 4 (29:32):
Yes, yeah, So so the instance that I use is
that in my research on ivermactin, not only did we
start seeing all these trials, but I realized that the
first paper that showed the incredible evidence of kfcy of
ivermactin was actually a case series from the Dominican Republic

(29:54):
which was posted on a preprint server in June of
twenty twenty. That that goes back to the statement I
just made you late, and is that COVID would have
never been an issue if we were like objective, reasonable, pragmatic,
and looking at all evidence equally. But what happened in
the Dominican Republic is in March of twenty twenty. Remember
March of twenty twenty. This is when Coe was just beginning.

(30:16):
There's this really, So what happened is the lead author
of that case series, which had immense difficulty getting published,
which is another thing I don't want to go backwards
into corruption. But not only were the journals publishing manipulated
trials with pre determined results, they were rejecting and retracting

(30:37):
any science which advanced or support of alternative cheap therapies.
And so the first time they posted their paper was
in June of twenty twenty. I think it took him
a year to publish it in like some tertiary journal.
But I ended up becoming in contact with the lead
author and I even when I was in Dominican Republic.

Speaker 3 (30:57):
Is that's a place that I would go to vacation.

Speaker 4 (31:00):
I got to meet up with him and we had
drinks one night, and he told me the origin story
of his discovery of ivermactin and and that was in
March of twenty twenty. He said that he owned a
series of clinics in the Miniical Republic, and he got
a call one night from a doctor who was on
call and had just admitted some overweight I think it

(31:21):
was an American tourist who was hypoxic on oxygen, not
looking good.

Speaker 3 (31:26):
Was that the story? Yeah, but this is like the
origin story.

Speaker 4 (31:30):
And so he, you know, the doctor calls and says, hey,
you know, this guy's looking really bad.

Speaker 3 (31:35):
He's like, what do you think we should do?

Speaker 4 (31:37):
And the doctor apparently had researched or known about ivermactin
as an anti viral, and so he asked his essential
boss for permission to treat the guy with ivermactin. And
so doctor Radondo, who is my colleague who I was
talking to at this time. Doctor Dondo, in his account,
he said, you know what, I convened our committee, you know,
because they had you know, his clinics had formed like

(31:59):
a therapeutic committee.

Speaker 3 (32:00):
He said.

Speaker 4 (32:01):
I consulted them and we discussed the case and we
understood the gravity of this patient. And I called the
doctor back, who was on call, and I said, you
have we're giving you permission to treat him with ivermectin,
and the doctor replied, thanks, I gave it to him
an hour ago, which I always loved, so the doctor vision.

(32:23):
But the point of that story was the guy rapidly
improved overnight and I think he got discharged the next
day off oxygen.

Speaker 3 (32:31):
So it was like this dramatic response.

Speaker 4 (32:34):
And so after that first patient, they quickly developed a protocol.
They treated everyone in their urgent cares and emergency rooms
with avermactin. They did this for months, and then in
June twenty twenty, they reported on thirty three hundred patients
treated with ivermactin on arrival to any of their facilities,
and out of the thirty three hundred patients, they had

(32:57):
sixteen hospitalizations and two deaths. Two deaths out of thirty
three hundred patients arriving at an urgency, urgent cares and
emergency rooms, which is a dramatic result. And anyway, that's
where that anecdote came from. But the point of that
story is, like that paper showed up on a preprint

(33:18):
server of June to twenty twenty. There's no advanced health
economy in the world that was monitoring preprints looking for
data that possibly showed early evidence of the efficacy.

Speaker 3 (33:28):
So even if they.

Speaker 4 (33:28):
Were interested, they could have done an immediate trial, whatever
evidence based medicine standards they wanted to do, they could
have done that, but there was no efforts of doing that.
There's no efforts at looking at available repurpose drugs. Everything
was about testing pricey patented pharmaceuticals, and so I knew
the whole gig was up. I mean, eventually I figured

(33:49):
it out, like repurpose drugs are the Achilles heel.

Speaker 3 (33:53):
And you know what I mean my repurpose right, it's
off patent drugs.

Speaker 4 (33:56):
Or drugs that have been improved for one indication that
you find out that's really effective in another. Whereas pharma
doesn't like that. With every disease, they want to come
up with new stuff that's on patent that is immensely profitable,
so they do not like off patent repurpose drugs being
used to treat anything because there's no money in it,
which is actually false. There is money it. You could

(34:18):
make a profit, you just can't make absurd, obscene profits
that that industry is used to. That industry is a
criminal syndicate. That's also the other thing I've learned in
these five years is I've studied the pharmacut industry. I've
looked at their history of criminal finds, civil finds. They
operate with impunity. They are constantly being sued and found

(34:40):
guilty for the most nefarious actions in the world, And
yet again people seem unaware of that.

Speaker 2 (34:49):
Is it that they didn't want to know?

Speaker 3 (34:52):
Is it?

Speaker 2 (34:52):
Is it that that I want to believe that I
want to that I want to steer themselves off course.

Speaker 4 (34:59):
No, No, it's much cruder and coarser and simpler than that,
And that's much more base than that.

Speaker 3 (35:05):
They know, They lootly know.

Speaker 4 (35:10):
They are an industry that works for their shareholders, not
for their patients. They see this as a business marketplace.
They see competitive threats and they destroy them. Ivery Mactin
was a competitor to all of their products, and it
got destroyed, and they used all the powers that they
could marshal hydroxychloroquin same and there's also a lot of others,

(35:34):
but those were the two most prominent, and those are
the two that they most deployed their resources and attacking.

Speaker 2 (35:41):
What's the I'm trying to think of the name of
the of the surgeon in Newcastle Hospital in Australia, who's
who's been backling this. There are medicos in this part
of the world, Australasia who have who have made stands.
And another one I interviewed right at the very beginning
of all this, and he was so onto it, so well,

(36:05):
not just convincing, but he was so backed up by
what he knew and how he knew it that I
undertook an attempt to introduce him to some well shure
we say political people here. Nobody wanted to know. No,
not interested, not interested now But when you but when

(36:28):
you when you understand, of course, the nature of the
people who were running the country at that time, starting
with the top of the beehive, which is where the
government is the queen bee. If you want, you understand
why they didn't want to know.

Speaker 4 (36:45):
They all obey and this might be trite, might be
a little bit too explosive, but.

Speaker 3 (36:51):
They all obey.

Speaker 4 (36:52):
What I discover is that you know, well, I always
knew that humans, we are creatures of incentives. We all
respond to incentives, whether they be positive or negative.

Speaker 3 (37:03):
And what I can to find out is that everyone
seems to work for their masters.

Speaker 4 (37:08):
Because the one central thing that I took away, which
is the most disappointing with what I learned about humanity
and COVID, is that the desire to remain employed is paramount.
People will not blow up their careers over ethical or
moral objections even though they know harm.

Speaker 3 (37:27):
Is being caused.

Speaker 4 (37:28):
You did they protect themselves. Well, here's the difference. I
don't want to call myself a hero because really i'll
I'll do that for you. No, No, because I don't
think it's correct. I was just early, so I was naive.
If I knew what would befall me, I'd like to

(37:49):
tell you I would have done the same thing. But
it's different for doctors who came after me, because they
saw what happened to me, and so they'd have to
really willingly commit career suicide. Which is when I did
what I was doing, I didn't think I would get
career honors or you know, awards, But I didn't think

(38:11):
what was going to happen to my life was going
to happen. So I went in with naivete, not heroism.
That's just my honest assessment. But even when after though,
I will, I'll give myself credit for this, even when
my life started going sideways because of that, and which
shocked me, because I'd always been celebrated in my field.

Speaker 3 (38:29):
By the way, I was very well. Hopefully this doesn't
come across.

Speaker 4 (38:32):
Egotistico, but I was a very prominent physician in my
own right. In my specialty, I was known as a
global pioneer for a sub especially called critical care alcure snography.
I'd written a textbook that was published in seven languages.
I traveled the country and world teaching my specialty.

Speaker 2 (38:47):
By the way, don't get.

Speaker 4 (38:49):
That, Yeah, No, I was like really well known and
well published, and you know, I'd been recruited by a
top research university. I was like their head clinician and
critical care I was a major clinical leader in that institution.

Speaker 3 (39:01):
So you know, the fall from.

Speaker 4 (39:02):
Grace was was pretty far and fast. But even as
that fall began to happen, I wasn't going to change tactics.
I was like, oh, you want to do this, I'm
coming right back at you. And I thought, however, I
could I had my nonprofit.

Speaker 3 (39:17):
I just kept putting out truths, putting out.

Speaker 4 (39:20):
What I've always done, which is teaching what I know,
researching what I don't know, and then disseminating that. And
the more I did that, the more stuff happened to me.
And look, Layton, you were just mentioning a prominent doctor.
I guess that prominent doctor was also trying to speak truth.
Did they get punished?

Speaker 2 (39:38):
To be honest, I can't answer that. He is still
in his position, okay.

Speaker 4 (39:45):
But if he was advocating for things that went that
was dissenting with what this and I'm using air quotes here.

Speaker 3 (39:51):
Consensus. That was the other thing.

Speaker 4 (39:53):
I realized that scientific consensus, whether it be in medicine
or in climate or anything, is a manufactured consensus. You
cannot reach consensus without deep influence of economic interests, because
if you if you come up with a consensus that
is scientifically inconvenient to the prevailing economic interest, they will

(40:15):
make sure that doesn't happen. And so now I'm talking
a little bit outside of medicine, but certainly in medicine.
I realized that the guidelines that I'd followed for treatment
of diseases, for everything in medicine is that they're largely
controlled and manufactured.

Speaker 3 (40:30):
And so.

Speaker 4 (40:33):
Maybe demoralization is a strong word, maybe it's not, But
I will say this, I'm I'm a physician, a strained
estranged from allopathic medicine. I will say I got excommunicated. Luckily,
I'm still in practice. I'm in private practice. I'm a
fee based I don't take insurance. The sadness of that

(40:54):
is not everyone can see me or afford to see me.
But the beauty in that is I get to practice
medicine as I see fit. I can do whatever I want,
I can employ different therapies, I can try whatever I
want to help patients. And I've learned so much about
and I am so free and more inspired as a
physician than I've ever been.

Speaker 3 (41:13):
And that's just me today.

Speaker 4 (41:14):
And so part of what I just told you is
that fall from Grace was really turbulent and difficult. I
lost income sources along the way. I have three children.
By the way, we pay for college in this country,
and it's really expensive. I have three daughters that you know,
like when my income got cut off. I mean it
was scary. I mean I have a house, I have
a mortgage, I have all those things. But luckily, in

(41:36):
my case, I landed on my feet. There's many other
doctors who didn't have the profile or didn't recover the
way I did, who've lost their licenses in livelihoods for
doing things as simple as treating people with ivermactin based
on the science and the rationale for it. And let
me just go back to the Disinformation Playbook and those
five football plays. There's a football play called the blitz.

(42:00):
That's when the.

Speaker 3 (42:01):
Attackers go after the quarterback.

Speaker 4 (42:04):
The blitz in the Disinformation Playbook is when they go
after researchers who are producing the science that's inconvenience. And
that's why when I read that article that day, I
realized that I'd been blitzed.

Speaker 3 (42:19):
Paul Marrick had been blitzed.

Speaker 4 (42:20):
And there's like decades of evidence of various scientists. When
you come out with a contrarian opinion, you get blitzed.
And I saw doctors all over the world, Canada, US,
every and by the way, I have devoted immense amounts
of time to defending them in their core cases in
their hearings with medical boards where they're trying to get
their licenses, trying to argue for them, showing that the

(42:43):
science supported everything they did.

Speaker 3 (42:46):
I will tell you it doesn't work. That's the other thing.

Speaker 4 (42:50):
They weaponized not only the media, the journals, the agencies,
but also the medical boards and so doctors with contrarian
and prisonances, no matter how scientifically based it is, they
will go after you.

Speaker 3 (43:02):
Keep in line or you're gone.

Speaker 4 (43:05):
And that's the sadness because the persecution of me and
my cop and what happened to our careers.

Speaker 3 (43:10):
I don't think it was meant to personally punish us.

Speaker 4 (43:13):
It was to make us an example because we were
the most public and they wanted to take us down.
And I think that's to send the message to any
other doctor who wants to step out of line. And
it worked, and it works. Yeah, you have compliant doctors
all over the world.

Speaker 2 (43:28):
Now. Now it would be a good time to just
change gears.

Speaker 3 (43:32):
Sure.

Speaker 2 (43:33):
The story of Andy Hill and the World Health Organization,
Oh boy. I found this to be because I haven't
read the entire book, and I've dipped in and out
of what interested me, and I found this chapter to
be the most fascinating.

Speaker 3 (43:49):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (43:51):
If you don't, if you don't like that, you don't
agree with me, then that's only because I haven't really
read some of the others that might.

Speaker 3 (43:58):
Well, here's the thing, here's the there.

Speaker 4 (44:00):
I'm just going to go back to the Disinformation Playbook, right,
So it's five plays each and every one of them
are devastating. And I and and as you probably can tell,
like my book is thematically structured around that article to
call the Disinformation Playbook because when I got that email
that day and I read that article, I realized that's

(44:20):
what's going on in the world, and I said, I
committed myself on that day to write a book as
a case example of how disinformation campaigns are executed in practice.
I wanted to do like a case study so that
everyone in the world could read it and that they
would then be immune to this immense amount of propaganda
and censorship which creates these things.

Speaker 3 (44:41):
And one of those tactics, right, we talked about the blitz.

Speaker 4 (44:45):
The fake is when they do these predetermined trials, they
manipulate trials to have a certain result. But Andy Hill
is the example I used for something called the diversion
where they co opt officials and Andy Andy Hill was
that example.

Speaker 3 (45:02):
So any Hill was the lead researcher for the.

Speaker 4 (45:05):
WHO and he he was in charge of a team
that was supposed to research all repurposed off patent drugs
that could potentially be used in COVID.

Speaker 3 (45:19):
And when I discovered.

Speaker 4 (45:20):
This a week after my ivermactin testimony the conference organized
because we both presented the same conference, I said, who's
this guy researching ivromactin Because he had more data than
I had, and he had better data than I had,
and so I reached out to him, and he and
I quickly became collegial.

Speaker 3 (45:37):
He was a really nice guy. We were both invested.

Speaker 4 (45:40):
We were both really impressed with the data around ivermactin.
And I remained in contact with him for months and
he was very supportive. The problem was the more supportive
he got. He gave a talk in South Africa on
Zoom one day and he was like basically telling the world,
get ready, get your supplies of ivermactin together, and you

(46:02):
know this is going to be the treatment.

Speaker 3 (46:04):
For early COVID. The day he gave that lecture.

Speaker 4 (46:07):
Two days years later, he told me that his sponsors
at the who told him he's not allowed to speak
publicly anymore. And after that day, his behaviors started to
get very strange.

Speaker 3 (46:23):
It was not the same guy I knew.

Speaker 4 (46:26):
He ended up He ended up posting a draft of
his paper which reviewed all of the trials, and there
was so much nonsense in it that didn't match the
discussions we'd had or our own interprets of the data
that me and Paul we told him, We said, we
think you're doing scientific his conduct.

Speaker 3 (46:47):
We don't know why.

Speaker 4 (46:48):
We peer reviewed his paper, We suggested the additions that
he should make to make it more correct. He ignored it.
He left it up on a preprint server. And then
he went even further and he just basically he stopped
sharing data, started doing all these things. And then Tess
Lowry from the UK, it was another colleague of mine,
caught him on his zoom and basically attacked him for

(47:09):
the same thing. What are you doing any Why are
you writing these things when it doesn't match the data
that we have, And he basically admitted that he was
under pressure from his sponsors, and basically so he got
co opted because he's he's a research who has long
worked for International Healthcare Agency. His whole livelihood is getting
grants to do research, and whoever was funding him did

(47:32):
not like what he was finding, and they wanted him
to shut up. And that's kind of the main point
of that that story with any And I stopped talking
to him because well, he also stopped talking to me
because I realized he got captured.

Speaker 2 (47:47):
That was one of the aspects of the book. I found.
You're reading away happily, and all of a sudden your
attention gets stolen from you by something like this, this
video that doctor Tess Laurie Yeah, produced, and so I
went off and found it. It wasn't easy because it

(48:07):
wasn't where it was used to be, but I dug
it out and it wasn't that long. I think it
was twenty minutes maybe, uh. Edit was fascinating watching this
sella squirm squirm, that's what he was. He was squirmming, squirming.
He looked so uncomfortable, he looked so uncovering. Although he

(48:29):
tried to defend himself in words, his body and his
you know, movements and facial expression did not lie. He
and Tess was fierce, I mean, test showed who she
was in that conversation.

Speaker 4 (48:45):
I mean, he was somewhat of a colleague. We'd gotten
to know him a little bit, but she was unremitting.
I mean she just really said, what are you doing?
I mean, there's fifteen thousand people dying a day in
the world and you're putting out this. You know, you're
changing the science around I remactin how you present it,

(49:07):
Like how can you sleep at night? Is what she
said to him.

Speaker 2 (49:11):
So that after she did that, and you haven't spoken
to him, what eventuated.

Speaker 3 (49:17):
Well, actually after she did that.

Speaker 4 (49:19):
She never showed me the video at the time, but
she broke off all relationships with Andy before I did.
I continue to have relationship with him because I was
trying to do good cop while she was bad cop,
because he was feeding me data that I thought was
really important, because you know what his job was to
search all of the clinical trial registries in the world,

(49:41):
identify all of the randomized control trials on.

Speaker 3 (49:45):
Any particular medicine.

Speaker 4 (49:47):
And by the time he got to ivermectin, they'd already
researched hydroctic cork and all these other things, and so
he had knowledge and he was in contact and communication
with investigators with ongoing trials, and he was like, letting
me know at some of this data show, which is
by the way, not really scientifically rigorous. You shouldn't be
sharing data of ongoing trials, but he was getting early

(50:10):
reports of either trial results or ongoing data. And so
I thought it was a productive relationship for me because
I was just putting stuff out there around ivermectin.

Speaker 3 (50:19):
But eventually I can't remember how our.

Speaker 4 (50:23):
Relationship ended, but he ended his contract with WHO. Then
he published a wickedly positive meta analysis which which departed
from his work with WHO, because when he presented his
data WHO, the WHO did not recommend ivermactin, and that
that's a whole other scandal what they did with the

(50:44):
ivermectin recommendation, because the data that he presented them overwhelmingly
supported the use of iromactin, but they ended up throwing
out tens of trials that he had a mass that
met their protocol for inclusion. They threw them out saying, oh,
this is what's wrong with this one and that one,
And even after throwing everything out, they found an eighty

(51:05):
two percent reduction immortality, and then the WHO labeled it
as low quality evidence. And as a result, because it's
such low quality. They said, most people in the world
would not want to be treated with something based on
low quality evidence outside of a clinical trial. And so
the WHO is official recommendation from March of twenty twenty one,

(51:26):
which do not use outside of a clinical trial. And
if you read the wording of that recommendation, it there's
nothing more that infuriates me to this day than reading
that document because they basically say, there's a paragraph in
that document wich I think is really important that this
world be aware of it goes as follows. The Clinical

(51:47):
Development Guidelines Group has found that although the data is
in support of ivermectin use, it is of such low
certainty that most well informed citizens of the world would
not want to be treated with it outside of a trial.

(52:07):
And Layton, can I just give you my interpretation of
that sentence. That means in the real world sense, I'm
picturing myself as a patient ill with COVID in a
hospital room on six leaders of nasal flow canula oxygen,
breathing at thirty times a minute, feeling terrible, and I'm declining,

(52:28):
and a doctor comes into my room and says to me,
doctor Corey, there's this medicine.

Speaker 3 (52:34):
It's one of the safest.

Speaker 4 (52:35):
Medicines in history, and based on the best available evidence,
it shows that your chance of dying will be reduced
by eighty two percent, because that's also in their documents,
statistically significant eighty two percent reduction immortality if you use Ivermaaten.
So let's say this imaginary doctor would tell me that,
and then he would say, but the evidence is it's

(52:56):
low certainty, would you like to be treated with it?
So that means that most well informed citizens would respond,
you know, because the evidence is of such low certainty doctor,
I'm not comfortably being treated outside of a clinical trial.
Did you understand the absurdity of what we're talking about?

Speaker 3 (53:16):
Yep? That's literally the world we live in.

Speaker 4 (53:19):
So when we go back to the old pier to
new pier, like I'm watching an organization that's supposedly shepherd
the public health of the citizens of the world use
this brazenly closh absurd, illogical, impractical, and inhuman reasoning for
one reason only to not recommend ifromactin.

Speaker 3 (53:42):
And why don't they want.

Speaker 4 (53:43):
To do that because of the people who control the
who it's controlled by Big Pharma and Bill Gates, who
has immense interest in big pharma, So of course the
who it's not a public health organization, it's literally run
by the pharmaceutical industry, and so of course to not

(54:03):
going to promote a repurposed drug, but the contortions and
the clownishness that they have to go to in order
to avoid doing that is so disturbing.

Speaker 2 (54:13):
Is so disturbing. Strong enough, No I could.

Speaker 4 (54:18):
I probably I'm a New Yorker, so I then probably
go into curse words. But it's funny though. Actually I
love how you just asked that.

Speaker 3 (54:27):
Ladies.

Speaker 4 (54:27):
You know why because when I talk about these topics,
I sometimes use the phrase I've run out of descriptors,
like I don't know how to describe this stuff evil, inhumane, corrupt, absurd, brazen, clownish.

Speaker 3 (54:41):
I don't even know how to describe it. But it's dystopian,
is the word that's frightening.

Speaker 2 (54:47):
Yeah, By the way, the interview I did right back
in the very early days of this and I said
I couldn't think of his name, Thomas Barrati.

Speaker 4 (54:57):
Oh yeah, Tom Barradi, Sure, I know Tom, and Tom
Tom was I mean, he was on the hydroxychloroquin very early.

Speaker 3 (55:04):
He knew that one he knew I ever meant the word.
And here's the other point.

Speaker 4 (55:09):
He's another example like a Paul Marek, less so a
Pier Corey, but a literally globally prominent physician who had
reached the heights of medicine, celebrated beyond belief.

Speaker 3 (55:21):
One of the most highly published areu Date.

Speaker 4 (55:24):
You know, brilliant physicians who got taken down for his
opinions in COVID because they were contrarian to the objective.
It doesn't matter how high you rise, they can take
anyone down.

Speaker 2 (55:39):
I've got to turn this round on to you again. Yeah,
you got taken down, but now now you're thriving. Yes,
and you gave us, You gave us, you gave us
part of an explanation for that. I think because you're
independent and you can charge and you apologize for people
who can't see you. And I saw something Onyx, I

(56:01):
think yesterday had said you charged twelve hundred or thirteen
hundred dollars or something, and that was abusive or people
like comments without understanding what the Can I talk about
that for a second.

Speaker 4 (56:14):
Because it's so It saddens me so much because people
think that if I charge twelve hundred dollars that I'm
getting the twelve hundred dollars Like people don't understand how
businesses work. My practice has twenty five employees, We have

(56:34):
teams of nurses.

Speaker 3 (56:35):
We do proactive follow up.

Speaker 4 (56:38):
Me and my partner have committed to being the best
employers we can. We very early on, before we even
financially we were barely financially solvent, we offered them health insurance.
Now we offer them retirement plans where we match. Like
I do not make a lot of money from my practice.
I really don't. But people look at the fees we

(56:59):
charge and they think that I'm laughing all the way to.

Speaker 3 (57:02):
The bank, or I'm retiring on a Hawaiian island.

Speaker 4 (57:05):
The economics of a medical practice that survives only on
consultation is impossible to calculate because you have to understand
how the medical system makes its money.

Speaker 3 (57:16):
They have massive profit.

Speaker 4 (57:18):
Centers that a practice where it's all our sweat and tears,
Like I spend immense amount of times with my patients.

Speaker 3 (57:24):
We don't have imaging centers.

Speaker 4 (57:26):
I don't have blood labs where I can charge dollars,
and I don't have surgeons and procedures or imaging. You know,
that's how the economics of healthcare works. And so it
saddens me that people look at a fee that I
charge and they think that I'm overcharging. To be honest,
I know what other folks, and I don't want to

(57:47):
call us alternative or integrative, but I will tell you
we are the most reasonably priced that I've seen. I have.

Speaker 3 (57:54):
I know colleagues that I like and enjoy respect.

Speaker 4 (57:57):
They charge immense amounts of money for what they do,
far far higher than what I do. We do pragmatic pricing,
and we deliver excellent care. And again, if this comes
across as defensive, it's somewhat defenses, but it's also trying
to explain to people that you don't understand that that
fee is not like goes into my wallet by the

(58:19):
time against my wallet, it's like a fifteenth of.

Speaker 3 (58:23):
What that is.

Speaker 2 (58:24):
I bet you wish that is anyway.

Speaker 3 (58:26):
Yeah, I wish it did. But and you know I
could And here's the thing.

Speaker 4 (58:30):
I could probably charge fifteen thousand or I don't know.
I probably couldn't, but three thousand of consultation five thousand,
I don't. We're just trying to make a decent salary
while delivering excellent care of supporting our employees.

Speaker 3 (58:43):
That's all we are, are just a normal business.

Speaker 2 (58:46):
Let's go back to public health officials. You'd be familiar
with Ashley Bluefield.

Speaker 4 (58:55):
Heard the name that's in New Zealand, right, yes, yeah,
they're all the same. By the way, I don't need
to know their names.

Speaker 2 (59:02):
Okay, they but Ashley blue well, Ashley Bluefield maybe.

Speaker 3 (59:07):
Unless shuld you telling me this one stood out? Okay,
well he did.

Speaker 2 (59:11):
He stood out because because he don't know, because he
dumped on Ivermecton and.

Speaker 3 (59:17):
Standing out leading. Hold on, let me check you on that.

Speaker 2 (59:20):
No, no, no, no, no, we're not no, We're not there yet.
I haven't finished.

Speaker 3 (59:23):
Okay, good good.

Speaker 2 (59:25):
He dumped on Ivermecton and kept dumping on Ivermecton and
that really pissed off a fairly large number of people
in this country. The sad ad it is that he
got a knighthood at the end of this, and the
Prime Minister got a damehood. And and I've asked this

(59:46):
question of other people on vodcast on podcasts, and I'm
going to ask you. I wasn't going to actually because
I've asked it enough. But I'm going to ask you,
would you support a move and I'm not asking you to,
but would you would you support a move to remove
those honors, so called honors from people who did such

(01:00:06):
damage to their country?

Speaker 4 (01:00:09):
Of course I would, of course I would that that
that goes back to my adjectives of clown world, bizarro world.
I mean, people are celebrated for participating in a humanitarian catastrophe.

Speaker 3 (01:00:21):
They're getting awards and united and damed. I mean that,
what world are we living in?

Speaker 4 (01:00:27):
And you know, you know what, you know what this
triggers in my mind, Laydon? Is that what what COVID was?
I mean, there's a lot of things, but ultimately, in
my mind, it was a war of information and those
that control the information sources and the dissemination of information,

(01:00:48):
they disseminated consistently corrupted information in the forms of propaganda,
and then they censored helpful, life saving information. It caused
the humanitarian catastrophe and and so to celebrate those that
were practitioners of it is sad is one word again,

(01:01:09):
I got to break down my fassaurs.

Speaker 2 (01:01:11):
Yes, but it's absurd, absurd, absurd. Okay, but that's not
the end of Ashley Bloomfield. He's now with the He's
now with the w Y Show and and the w
A Show is trying to corral the world with regards
as you would be well aware with regard to their
plan for the future. And and the question that I

(01:01:35):
have asked others before as well is should New Zealand
join up because they're going through.

Speaker 3 (01:01:44):
Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:01:47):
The more you centralize power and control, the more not
not the more susceptible it is to being captured, because
they can capture diverse entities across the world, but the
more you see power into a centralized entity that is
demonstrably cappure. There's been documentation for twenty years of how

(01:02:13):
the WHO of old, which is I would say last century,
has been transformed. It literally works in the service of
big Pharma. So any country that that joints the WHO
is basically seeding their sovereignty and their authority to corporate interests,
which is antithetical to the purpose of government. Why would

(01:02:37):
a government seat itself to a profit making corporation.

Speaker 3 (01:02:41):
I mean, to go into gates.

Speaker 4 (01:02:43):
Would be another hour, but he's on record showing that
like the eighteen billion that he learned that he earned
in the pandemic through his investments into all the things
that they mandated.

Speaker 3 (01:02:57):
So I just don't.

Speaker 4 (01:02:58):
Understand why I see the world in a certain way
and so few others don't. Actually, I shouldn't say that
I don't understand. I do understand because people have been
sickened with immense propaganda from every sphere three hundred and
sixty degrees.

Speaker 3 (01:03:16):
And can we talk.

Speaker 4 (01:03:16):
About propaganda for a second late, because the definition that
I've been most moved by for what propaganda is, it's
actually from a colleague patient of mine.

Speaker 3 (01:03:26):
He's a world expert in propaganda.

Speaker 4 (01:03:27):
His name is Professor Mark Crispin Miller from New York University,
and his definition is that propaganda is a story or
a message to get you to think.

Speaker 3 (01:03:40):
Or act in a certain way.

Speaker 4 (01:03:43):
And when I first heard that definition, I'd already been
deeply studied on disinformation. I'd already seen a world act
so bizarrely against their own interests. I saw people lining
up for these toxic vaccines.

Speaker 3 (01:03:56):
I saw examples of.

Speaker 4 (01:03:57):
Like someone passing out in centers after getting a vaccine,
and yet the line didn't disperse. People kept showing up
for more vaccines, and so the story or message to
get you think or act in a certain way. The
world just has no idea that they're being propagated, They're

(01:04:18):
being manipulated with information to get them to think rorrect
in certain ways, and their actions are oftentimes directly opposed
to their interests as a human, to their well being
and their safety. And they don't know this. They don't
know they're being manipulated. And I don't know how to
communicate that to the world. But I really my main

(01:04:39):
message is very trite, right because other people like Trump
and other people are saying, like, turn.

Speaker 3 (01:04:44):
Off your televisions, turn off your radios, employ critical thinking.

Speaker 4 (01:04:49):
You know, understand what is behind those information sources, What
are the financial interests that are driving that information towards you.

Speaker 3 (01:04:57):
I mean, I just wish the.

Speaker 4 (01:04:58):
World would just somehow be able to identify and listen
to independent, unconflicted researchers, doctors, media, folks, you.

Speaker 3 (01:05:08):
Know, folks like you. I'm sure you don't take pharmal money, Laton,
They never offered. Yeah, that's what I was gonna say.
But they wouldn't. They would that.

Speaker 2 (01:05:18):
They wouldn't.

Speaker 3 (01:05:19):
You wouldn't have me on if that was the case.

Speaker 2 (01:05:21):
They wouldn't They wouldn't get it. So Professor Mark Crispin
Miller and what's his what's his specialty.

Speaker 4 (01:05:30):
So he was a professor of propaganda at New York
University and he saw.

Speaker 2 (01:05:36):
All of this, so hang on. So he's a professor
of propaganda, not to propagate propaganda, but to to educate.

Speaker 4 (01:05:45):
The history, ramifications, consequences, presence of propaganda in society. I mean,
he's that that's been his life's work because and I
think it's as probably one of the most important topics
in the world today that doesn't get discussed. But remember,
propaganda has started back in the nineteen twenties with Barnet's
and the Germans used it. And everyone seems to Identifyganda

(01:06:08):
with like the Soviet Union, North.

Speaker 3 (01:06:11):
Korea, Germany. And you know, one of the.

Speaker 4 (01:06:14):
Really funny anecdotes that really has stayed with me today
is that I was talking to a friend of mine
who is German, and he said, you know, back you know,
before the Berlin Wall fell.

Speaker 3 (01:06:26):
He said, the.

Speaker 4 (01:06:27):
East Germans they didn't listen to the television. They knew
that it was the state line to them. They were
well aware that you don't trust the television, you don't
trust the media.

Speaker 3 (01:06:40):
They laughed at that stuff.

Speaker 4 (01:06:42):
Whereas I live in a country in the United States
where people turn on their televisions and radio stations and
read their newspapers.

Speaker 3 (01:06:50):
They have no idea what's behind them.

Speaker 4 (01:06:54):
They think that these are well meaning journalists with integrity,
who've done investigations and have determined accuracy using facts and conclusions.

Speaker 3 (01:07:04):
That is not true.

Speaker 4 (01:07:06):
If it's printed in the papers, it's because someone allowed
it to be printed.

Speaker 3 (01:07:11):
You know, you can't print anything that's inconvenient to the
powers that be.

Speaker 2 (01:07:17):
Something you just said was a trigger, and I was
about to launch into the fact that education is a
failure on a number of fronts. It's a failure here,
it's a failure practically everywhere. But my mind was cast
back to when I was still in still in school,

(01:07:38):
young young, I suggest even sort of the end of
primary school and certainly early high school. And this was
analyzing stories from the paper in class and deconstructing them
and working out you know what, it wasn't propaganda. It

(01:08:00):
was how to find propaganda if you like. I don't
know that I ever realized that, but it was too
basically find the true path about about all sorts of things.

Speaker 3 (01:08:13):
I don't.

Speaker 2 (01:08:13):
I don't think it lasted that long as a subject,
but I don't believe it happens at all now. No, No,
you don't learn to think certainly don't learn to think
critically as a as a kid, and it's easy to
brainwash you under those circumstances.

Speaker 4 (01:08:32):
I totally agree, you know, I want to inject something positive.
Why Why because because let's go back to how we started.
Lad you asked me about old Pierre and new Pierre.
You know, what happened to me is literally my perception,
my awareness of reality and society and what's really going

(01:08:54):
on truly expanded. I'm not going to claim I know everything.
I do know I know a lot more of the
world than I did. But the positive point is, and
that's been positive for me. I really I think the
only way you can live is being as well informed
as you can, and I think I was very poorly
informed in my prior existence.

Speaker 3 (01:09:16):
But I'm not the only one. This has happened to
a lot of people.

Speaker 4 (01:09:20):
You know, we use that phrase that they were woken
up in COVID, and I recently wrote a post I
have a substack.

Speaker 3 (01:09:26):
That's pretty popular.

Speaker 4 (01:09:27):
I do a lot of writings on medical and medical
adjacent topics. And I was doing a post on the
trust in hospitals and physicians because there was a paper
that got a lot of attention. But last July where
Americans trust in hospitals and physicians from twenty nineteen to

(01:09:48):
twenty twenty three or four plummeted from seventy one percent
to forty percent. Americans are disgusted with the medical system
and how they responded and all their actions they took.

Speaker 3 (01:10:01):
And I also found data in the media.

Speaker 4 (01:10:04):
So there's this survey they've done about media for like,
I think they had data going back twenty five years,
and they asked respondents to ask about their trust to media,
and there's three choices.

Speaker 3 (01:10:16):
It was lots of trust, some trust, and no trust
at all.

Speaker 4 (01:10:23):
And for the first time in history, last year, the
highest proportion were those that had no trust in all
in media. I think it was like forty one percent,
and then the other choices were something less. And so
I think people are waking up to the fact that
we live in a world of propaganda, and I think

(01:10:44):
that's only good for the health of the world, for
our sanity, for our actions, because if you don't trust
and people who are lying to you. Hopefully you can
make decisions that are better for your welfare and your
family's welfare.

Speaker 2 (01:10:59):
You know, you've distracted me from some of the directions
I would have liked to have gone in, and we've
got to conclude it in a minute with one of those.
But it's occurred to me that, let me put it
this way, the book and I have a lot of books.
The book is fascinating. It's fascinating for a multitude of reasons.

(01:11:23):
First of all for its information and education. Secondly because
of the way it's written. And I found myself thinking,
this is a scene out of a crime novel or
some equivalent to that. It was like, it was like
you weren't really writing about yourself and the circumstances that

(01:11:46):
you found yourself in. You were almost almost being fictitious
about it and writing about somebody else. But it was
that it's that the book has written, your co author
or whatever you called her, and you have done a
superb job.

Speaker 3 (01:12:05):
I appreciate that.

Speaker 2 (01:12:07):
There are two I really want to touch on. One
is you made reference toward the end of the book.
Here we are in the last two paragraphs of the
vaccine disinformation campaign forty. I am now estranged from not
only those who practice medicine inside that system, but from

(01:12:29):
science in general. At least, as it's come to be known,
I no longer know who and what to trust within
the system, and have now chosen to believe nothing that
cannot be confirmed by numerous objective data sources using an
assessment of the totality of evidence, and not the curated,

(01:12:49):
premeditated conclusions found in high impact medical journal studies. To
say it is a sad state of affairs is the
understatement of my life. To realize that this state of
medical science has existed for decades is both humbling and terrifying.
How many people have I hurt using medicines built on

(01:13:10):
lies in my career. My consolation is that oftentimes it
takes great destruction to realize where weakness lies. After a
natural disaster leaves a community in ruins, you can bet
the rebuild structures will be engineered to withstand the next one.
At least I know what I'm dealing with now, because

(01:13:30):
only good things can come from that knowledge. In one
film depiction of Pearl Harbor, the attacks planner, Japanese Admiral
Yamamoto declares, I fear all we have done is to
awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve. Yes,
I am awake, and I am filled with a terrible, immense,

(01:13:52):
galvanizing resolve. And I thought that there was a brilliant commentary.

Speaker 3 (01:13:59):
It is.

Speaker 2 (01:14:00):
It is, unfortunately not what contained what I was, what
I was heading for, but it was worth. It was
worth in search you mentioned you mentioned climate somewhere in
that vicinity of what I read. You wrote that you
don't believe things, et cetera. And you now don't know
that you believe what they're saying about climate change. Basically

(01:14:24):
that's what you said. You haven't had time to study it,
but you hope you will. Climate change was where I
started at least twenty five years ago, and I've been
I've been warring with the powers that ever since, because
it's a scam. It's like just like so many other things,
it's a real scam. And I've done multiple, multiple interviews

(01:14:46):
with people over the years on it. But climate is
not controlled by.

Speaker 4 (01:14:56):
Can I say that Since I wrote that book, which
is already I don't know, maybe two three years ago,
I haven't spent a lot of time in climate and
I'll tell you why, because is what makes an expert
is pattern recognition. And all the hallmarks of the disinformation
campaign around ivermactin are present with man made CO two

(01:15:20):
causing global warming. Now every single thumbprint, fingerprint of the
disinformation against cybermactin is there with gold warmer.

Speaker 3 (01:15:30):
So I don't care.

Speaker 4 (01:15:31):
And I also saw a documentary which really kind of
stirred me to my soul where and I can't remember
what the documentary was called, but they interviewed lots of
prominent climate scientists who described what happens to them when
they try to present or write papers about their data

(01:15:52):
showing that it's not about two man made CO two.

Speaker 2 (01:15:55):
Well that was a British That was a British documentary, eh,
And there were two of them, And I don't know
whether it was the first one or the second, because
I think they thought it a similar similar pattern in
bas But I more recently interviewed the director of that,
the man who put it together.

Speaker 3 (01:16:15):
Yeah, and.

Speaker 4 (01:16:18):
No hearing them, they were they were basically describing what
happened to my career. So like I identified, their message
resonated and I was like, you go fight that war.
I'm fighting this war, but I realized that's a war
of disinformation. This whole CO two thing is that, like
you said, it's a scam, just like ivermectin is a

(01:16:38):
horsety wormer.

Speaker 3 (01:16:39):
It's a scam.

Speaker 4 (01:16:40):
And and you know they lose grant funding, they can't
do research.

Speaker 3 (01:16:45):
I mean, if you're doing.

Speaker 4 (01:16:46):
Inconvenient science to the narrative or to the consensus, your
career drives up. So what you're left with are these
fields of science which are, yeah, there's consensus because they
get rid of all the dissidents, they starve the dissonance
to death, or they excommunicate them, so all you get

(01:17:07):
is parrot head.

Speaker 2 (01:17:08):
It's correct. And I was going to say that I
recognized what you said about about the link between the two.
The thing that intrigued me was I worked in reverse
and climate change scamming trained me up for being very

(01:17:29):
suspicious at the beginning and then developing it on everything
to do with COVID nineteen yep. So on that note,
I'm going to say that it's been one of the
it's been an amazing how long hour and twenty minutes amazing,

(01:17:50):
And you're on holiday in Hawaii, you're going to play
golf this afternoon. I know that, and I am so
grateful for the time that you've and the energy that
you were put into the time that we have been talking,
so much so that I'm going to put you on
the spot and say, would you rejoin us because there
are other things? Yeah, a few months down the track.

Speaker 4 (01:18:12):
Absolutely no, it's a pleasure. I'm happy to have joined
you for sure.

Speaker 2 (01:18:16):
Anyway, listen, my thanks to your very patient wife. I
hope that the golf goes well.

Speaker 3 (01:18:23):
It'll be good. It's beautiful weather here. Well, nice talking
to man. Yeah, anytime reach.

Speaker 2 (01:18:27):
Out likewise, if you feel this value in it, absolutely
thank you, Pierre.

Speaker 3 (01:18:32):
All right, lady, take care, bye bye.

Speaker 2 (01:18:33):
May No, I don't think you're going to argue with
me when I say it was one of the best

(01:18:53):
of the best. Just want to finish with a quote
from the cover flap at the very bottom. For anyone
who thought COVID nineteen was the enemy, doctor Cory's book
will leave no doubt that the true adversary in this
war is a elective cabal of power hungry elites who
put profits over people and will stop at nothing in

(01:19:14):
their quest for control. Pretty much says it all. I
can only recommend that wherever you can find this book
in a library or in a bookshop, or whatever, the
war and ivormectin, it will always be a great read.

Speaker 3 (01:19:29):
See you soon.

Speaker 1 (01:19:37):
Thank you for more from News Talks at b Listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio.