Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
Joe Rogan | RFK | Dr Hotez -Covid19 Debate w/Dr McCullough & Dr Malone
Recorded: June 18, 2023 Duration: 3:47:52Space Recording
Short Summary
The discussion primarily revolves around the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on vaccine efficacy, mandates, and the role of public health authorities. Participants debate the impact of censorship, the need for open scientific discourse, and the challenges faced by healthcare professionals during the pandemic. The conversation also touches on the implications of vaccine mandates, the trust in medical institutions, and the potential for future pandemics.
Full Transcription
Sully, can you hear me?
Yeah, yeah, I can hear you.
Hey, man, how are you?
Yeah, good.
I have to jump in as quick as possible because I've been shadow banned,
so you wouldn't be able to see me or invite me there.
Oh, shit, really?
I forgot.
Yeah, yeah, of course.
If you're shadow band, I can't invite you anymore.
All right, so we are going to organize the panel.
Dr. McCullough, I can see you in the audience.
I'm going to invite you now.
So we are looking for doctors.
We did have a pretty short time to organize this.
So if you are a doctor...
that is in support of vaccines.
It would be great to have you on the panel.
We do have Dr. Liza coming on shortly.
She's skeptical, but not as much as others.
She's a regular speaker.
So let me give me a couple of minutes,
Sully.
I'll get the panel organized and then we can kick it off.
But yeah, if you are a speaker that wants to come up,
do hit us up, do DM us and we can bring you up.
Let me send an invite to Peter.
I sent you an invite Peter if you can't see it on your screen.
I'll let you know.
Sam would be a pleasure to have you.
Sam, if you want to come up, this is the time to come up, Sam.
Let me DM Sam an invite.
Sam's the man, I swear.
He can take on a whole panel.
He can take on a whole panel, man.
Sam's my boy.
He can take up.
He's one of the few people who can destroy you, man.
He can't, but he's quite loud.
Yeah, apparently my AirPods are the reason I win all the debates.
I'm good.
Yeah.
You've never wanted a bit, that's fine.
So the way we're going to structure this is we're going to dig into the, before we introduce our special guests, what we're going to do is we're going to dig into the story between Rogan and Hortez and RFK.
And then everyone rallying around, rallying behind Rogan to get that debate going.
So they got a lot of press.
Yeah.
So we got to talk about that, explain that, and then start digging into the policies, RFK's policies.
And then what I want to focus on is the level of censorship, how kind of the tide is shifting, in my opinion, and then get into the bit of a debate on vaccines as well.
It goes beyond, it's not just COVID, by the way, Sully. It goes beyond COVID now.
But let me send out the invites.
How so? What do you mean it goes beyond COVID?
In this case, because Kennedy, Robert, has got issues with vaccines in general, not just COVID vaccines, but COVID obviously being his main focus.
And maybe I'm wrong, you know, you've done the homework here.
So let me co-host Mr. McCullough.
Let me send out all the invites.
By the way, have you gone through the comments?
Has anyone guessed who the special guest is or not yet?
Have you gone through them, so?
Well, I have gone through the questions, but I don't want to answer it because if I answer that, whether confirm or deny it, it's probably going to give it away.
If you're going to confirm or deny whether someone gets to the special guests on Friday?
That's right, yeah.
So, I mean, people have been asking me.
I can't go anywhere.
I can't go to any space without someone asking me who it is.
Oh, really?
Is it?
Oh, really?
I had no idea.
But they don't know who it is yet.
They just know it's major.
I don't know there's a lot of it because I haven't had time to check other spaces in Twitter recently.
So I don't know there's a lot of hype behind it.
And we get a couple of advice and I'm up and ready to go.
I'd love to get Dr. Drew here.
It's been a while we haven't had Dr. Drew.
He said he'll drop in and we get Liza in here as well.
There we are.
Debunk the funk.
It's been a while we haven't had him as well.
By the way, everyone, what I want you to do is I'm going to pin it.
Can you pin the tweet, Suli?
Joe, good to have you here as well.
If you can pin the tweet, there's a tweet where if you know any doctors that are willing to come up in debate,
debate I see in debate, Peter McCullough, on stage.
Do tag them in the tweet that's going to be pinned above any second or so my profile as well.
And then we could get them in.
So make sure you tag them in.
And I think we're ready to go.
And I've sent out all the invites.
There's...
Yeah, I think it's it.
Let me get Hik-Hals in and then ready to go.
Sully, what the hell happened over the last 24 hours?
Give us a bit of an introduction.
Yeah, sure.
I will.
I will give an introduction.
I just want to welcome...
Dr. McCullough to this stage and I will introduce him in a second.
But before I do, yeah, there's been on Twitter.
So what happened was Kennedy R. of K Jr., he basically had an interview with Joe Rogan.
He talked about various issues.
Obviously, he's running for the Democratic nominee.
as to get the
Democrat icon nominee
his polling is going up
so this effort
that he's doing
in alternative media
because mainstream media
isn't really giving him
the same level of opportunities
is benefiting him significantly
part of that debate
with Joe Rogan
was the conversation
about the vaccine
So they had the conversation about vaccine and we'll be playing certain clips from that podcast on the space and then we can discuss some of that.
But after the, after the end of the podcast, Joe Rogan went on Twitter and there was a bit of back and forth between him and Dr. Hortez.
And essentially what that back and forth was is Joe Rogan wanted him to debate RFK and he offered $100,000.
And Hortes seemed to not want a debate.
And then many other personalities jumped into the debate, such as Rubin, who offered 100,000.
There was Bill Ackman that offered 150,000.
All of this to go to charity as long as Hortez debates.
Hortez was arguing that he does, and then Andrew Tate offered as well.
So all, what happened was, Hortez was saying that he doesn't want to get bullied into the debate.
Others saw it as him unwilling to debate now that the conversation has progressed.
significantly and you're able to talk about these things.
But Horta, you keep saying he's unwilling to debate.
Didn't Holtes say I'm willing to debate,
but I'm not happy with the position of being put in?
Yeah, I gave both sides.
I said, that's what he said,
and then I said this is what the others are saying.
Oh, okay, because it's been long enough.
Okay, fair enough.
Yeah.
So, so that, I forgot where I was on.
But anyway, then there was a short video
where someone approached Hortez and said,
and asked him that, is he willing to debate?
And he said he hadn't decided.
So that's an overview of what happened in that regard.
Any questions, Mario?
No, it's pretty much, yeah.
I don't know what to make of this.
Like, I'm surprised Hotas wouldn't want to debate.
Like, we've had a lot of COVID debates here and, um,
I'll let Suleyman introduce Dr. Peter McCullough
because I've got questions for you, Peter,
and just how things, you know, where we're at today
compared to where we were a few months or a few years ago
and how the narrative has changed.
So before asking the question, Suli,
I'll let you introduce our special guests
and then we can kick off the discussion.
Sure.
And look, I mean, what you say, Mario,
I mean, one can only do it based on experience
and if you look at even your COVID debates
that we've had on these spaces,
The number of pro-vax and poor lockdown people willing to come up has decreased over time.
So that's something just that I've observed, but obviously there could be other reasons.
It might just be coincidental.
So I just want to introduce.
We have got a major special guest on this stage as well, and it is Dr. Peter McCullough.
And he is an internist, a cardiologist, a Peter M.
a paedomologist, sorry, I've said that wrong, and the chief science officer of the wellness company.
He was vocally against the vaccine and he has dozens of peer-reviewed publications.
on the infection and has commented extensively on the medical response to the COVID-19.
He has got a high level of publications.
And ironically as well, even though Dr. Hortez was offered a debate,
he has published much more papers than Dr. Hortez.
So we have got a distinguished panelist on here.
We will be asking him a number of questions, as he will, I'm sure,
disagree with some of the other panelists on the stage.
But yeah, that's Dr. Peters, Dr. McCullough.
So thanks for joining us, much appreciated.
Well, thanks for having me.
I was motivated to join.
I had some communication with Rogan this morning.
And let me just say where we are now.
We're two years and a half into the vaccine campaign,
three and a half years into the pandemic.
We've held four historic U.S. Senate panels on this early response to the pandemic in terms of treatment,
two that I co-moderated with Senator Ron Johnson on the vaccines, vaccines, safety, and efficacy.
And at every one of the panels, all of our public health officials are invited far in advance.
That include Dr. Fauci, Dr. Walensky, Ja, Murthy.
And none of them have showed face to face for a discussion on this.
And, you know, I can tell you that, you know, as this is kind of, you know, ways of judging one's scientific credibility and having a discussion on this.
In the academic world, it actually deals with the number of citations in the National Library of Medicine.
And Dr. Hottes is at 581, which is very strong.
I'm at 684.
My former officemate, Dr. William Roberts, who just passed away at age 90,
He had 1,300 citations in the National Library of Medicine.
It's in general about 25 to be full professor of medicine.
And all this really means is that you can search people in PubMed and see if they're credible or not.
All it means is that people have made scientific contributions.
They've analyzed data that they're experienced in handling kind of upper level scientific issues.
And let me tell you, there is no publication that I've ever had that has ever used the word misinformation.
I've never taken a board question on this.
It's never come up meaningfully in discussion at the bedside.
There's no such thing as misinformation in medicine.
There's simply scientific data and two or more interpretive points of view.
That's what we'll get out tonight.
I'll also say there's no such thing as anti-science.
or anti-vaxxer.
Those are just pejorative terms that are thrown out,
and I think they should be done away with immediately.
We simply just want to discuss the data.
Somebody recently, Dr. Jock Lanzweiler, gets credit for this, he said the word anti-vaccine,
it really ought to be translated to vaccine risk-aware.
And what we ought to discuss fairly are the risks of vaccination.
And that was the spirit of Kennedy and Rogan's interchange.
So I'm delighted to be here.
Thank you, Mario and Esselman.
Yeah, thank you for being here. And just one question, just on something you just mentioned. And that was, you said that Dr. Foshy's unwilling to come face to face. And there is this kind of indication that Dr. Hortez is doing the same. I mean, he's been offered a significant amount of money that will go to charity. Why do you think that is? I mean, these were people who were extremely vocal during the pandemic and now.
they are maybe unwilling to debate.
Well, you know what?
That's what Twitter space is all about.
Instead of me or someone else trying to describe their motives,
let's have somebody on the other side of this,
speak for them or if they mind it to Dr. Hottaz.
Why would they not just want to simply have a discussion of the published data?
So the argument I've heard here, and I can give you some context.
We do have some doctors joining.
But I've asked that question before.
Surprisingly, and I have no stance on this, but surprisingly, there hasn't been a conclusive answer that they all give.
The main answer that I've heard, Peter, is that they don't want to bring attention.
to misinformation or what they consider obviously misinformation.
So that was the main argument.
It wasn't a valid argument in my opinion.
It just doesn't make sense to me
because the narrative of the anti-vax narrative
has been gaining traction.
And I'm not saying everyone here's anti-vax.
A lot of people are pro-vax,
but they've just skeptical in one way or another.
But the skepticism around the vaccines has been growing.
So it's no longer that niche subject
that no one's talking about that you don't want to bring attention to,
It's dominating the narrative right now.
So that's why the argument, in my opinion, did not make sense.
What are some arguments you've heard, Peter?
You know, I've heard that privately that many doctors are fearful of discussing this psychologically
because it's very personal.
You know, most doctors took the COVID-19 vaccines.
Estimates are 96% of them in the United States took the vaccines.
And they're psychologically having a very difficult time.
discussing the side effects and discussing the published manuscripts.
It's not a matter of misinformation.
Again, that doesn't exist.
We're simply talking about peer-reviewed published studies, emerging observations,
patients giving their vignettes, and people have done this on Twitter.
We're just here to listen and interpret data.
Again, anti-vexor doesn't exist.
It's just a matter of, you know, we're risk aware.
We're becoming aware of the risks.
And like any medicine or biotherapeutic, there's risks that need to be discussed.
We always discuss safety before efficacy.
I think this is really important.
That's the reason why people are charged on this topic.
But what I've heard is that doctors, it's very psychologically difficult for them
to have this discussion because the vaccines in many places are still being administered every six months,
so they're facing shots every six months.
Jason, let me ask a quick question to Jason before going back to Peter.
Jason, I wanted to touch a bit more on what's happened today with Joe Rogan and RFK.
Can you give us a better overview?
I think Slaman's overview was very brief.
So I want a deeper overview of what exactly happened and what's the latest in that development, Jason,
because I know you've been covering it on your account.
Sure, yeah. I don't know if I've been covering it as much as I've been kind of involved in it. But yeah, Rogan, you know, after his debate or his discussion with RFK and of course, Dr. Hottes was weighing in with his own opinions. Rogan basically challenged him and said, hey, I'll give you 100K. You come on debate.
RFK about this issue.
If there's misinformation, as you say, clear it up, have the debate.
It'll be great.
No time limit.
We'll just kind of hash it all out.
I think the three minutes after, it was like only a few minutes.
I was actually at a hotel.
And a few minutes after Rogan posted that tweet, I just quote tweeted them and said,
I'll put 50K on this.
I'll put 50K on top.
And then just throughout the hours, it was like another person, you know, I'll put 100K on it.
I'll put 100K on it.
Like he was saying.
And then, you know, eventually I think we're past 1.5 million to the charity of Dr. Hotez's choice.
And my, the real issue that I'm seeing is I'm seeing him respond and deflect is, and this is my issue with people like Dr. Hotes.
And I'm sure he's very qualified and that's fine.
But...
It's the dismissive attitude that he can't, he doesn't want to have the debate.
He wants to go on.
He's offering basically Joe Rogan, I'll come on your platform.
as long as I'm not challenged.
As long as there's not a two-sided debate that takes place.
And he said the same thing to some other people who have big platforms,
possibly I can't remember who it was.
It was Elon or somebody else.
But basically his position is,
I want to come and explain why the COVID vaccine is awesome.
But I don't want to debate anybody who disagrees with my opinion on it.
Jason, two questions on that.
First question, I mean, yeah, you did offer $50,000.
What was your motivation?
Was it to pressure him to debate?
And the second question is he did say that what he didn't want to do was debate a lawyer.
His argument was RFK was a lawyer.
So then the question comes that would Rogan or would others be willing to set up a debate where it wasn't a lawyer and it was somebody who wasn't academic, such as our co-host, Dr. McCullough, that way they're on an even level playing field.
They're both experts in the field and then they can have a fair debate because his argument was he's a lawyer and he's going to just make lawyer arguments and I'm just an academic.
But anyway, I'd love to heat on both of them.
Sure.
Yeah.
And my motivation wasn't.
It really didn't have anything to do with the RFK.
My offer would stand if it was Dr. McCullough or, you know, a host of other people who are experts.
Why do you need to pay money?
That's what I'm missing.
Like, why did it get to this level where we need to pay money?
I'd love to get Avery's thoughts after, but go ahead, Jason.
I'll tell you why.
It's because, and look, I'm just a dad who has always been, like my kids have been vaccinated.
I've gotten the flu vaccine every year.
Like the opposite of anti-vax, but what's happened is...
what I, and I think I'm not alone at all.
I'm sure there's thousands of people on this space right now who agree and feel the same way.
What I saw happen during COVID was that you can't even ask what, what's in it or what, what does, what did the study say?
What is the safety, what are the safety guidelines?
What, what long term studies do we have that show this is safe for my kids?
And if you ask, you're an anti-vaxxer.
And to me, that.
That's why I say I'll give you 50K because it's a conversation that the experts, quote unquote, are refusing to have.
And I feel like for us to even move forward as a country, because I think the whole COVID thing and the response to COVID has really splintered the country culturally and for us to move forward.
after what happened, we need to have this debate of what went wrong.
Why aren't we allowed to talk about these topics?
Why aren't we allowed to talk about vaccine injuries?
Why is it anybody who just disagrees with the CDC is somehow now...
you know, a crazy conspiracy theorist person. And I think people just are waking up to like,
this is weird. This is like there's something stranger going on here because again, like people like
me who are not anti-vax who have got their kids vaccinated. Now all of a sudden, I'm like, well,
wait a minute. What do you want to put in my kid now? Tell me what's in it. Tell me what the,
what the studies are. Tell me how long the safety studies are. Like,
And then all of a sudden now, they're looking at me, like Dr. McCullough said, like I am an anti-vaxter.
And I'm not.
It's like they're almost...
accomplishing the opposite effect of what they're trying to do by getting me to trust the experts.
Now, Jason, is Dr. McCullough. I just want to let you know, I did communicate with Rogan this morning
and to address Hotez's concerns. And I said, listen, you know, why don't I just come to Austin?
I'm in Dallas. Hotez is in Houston. We'll both sit down together. We'll have a scholarly
discussion over this. We're both clinical scholars. I have over 70 papers published on COVID and
have, you know, a really dedicated clinical experience now. And, and we'll just simply go over the
published data as I did with Joe back in 2021.
And Joe said that would be fine.
In fact, no money needed.
Let's just have the discussion.
There won't be any trick lawyer questions.
And I think that's really the offering to HOTES.
It needs to happen.
If we don't have dialogue, we're at this impasse.
The money is an interesting,
just said the money is an interesting moral obligation in some ways
because by saying no to a, you know, to sit down for two hours.
But Sam, Sam,
preventing a charity, getting one and a half million dollars.
Can someone explain the other side?
I'd love you, Sam or Avery, if you can explain.
Like, what is the other argument on, you know, there's a lot of people,
you know, the doctors that are pro, that are supportive of the vaccine,
like Dr. Hotez, as you said, Jason,
they're not stupid people.
They're very accomplished doctors.
So I've got two things I want to understand is that,
The main thing I want to understand is why.
Why are they unwilling to debate?
Sam and Avery, what are your thoughts, guys?
Is there another side to this discussion?
Sam, Avery?
Thank you.
Yeah, thanks for bringing me on. I think a couple things. One, just like was said earlier, Mark Kuma said it well, you know, or somebody said something about, you know, talking to a lawyer. As a physician, we don't really have a good way to debate the way that lawyers do. You know, we're out taking care of patients. We just want to go with the data that's there and say, hey, this is what we know. This is what we think is good for you as a patient.
Okay.
And that's it.
HOTS is a better debater with the science behind it.
And so, you know, I do believe it would be beneficial to a certain extent to have him talk.
Now, I think...
some of the things that as a physician,
for one thing,
I'm a colon directoral surgeon.
I'm not actually somebody who's given the actual vaccine,
but I've seen the effects of giving the vaccine and giving,
and folks that have not given the vaccine.
So that's kind of where I'm coming from and why I'm pro-vaccine.
I think when...
We don't give the, you know, we don't have the discussion about the side effects.
That's where, you know, people start making up their own thoughts and where we have issues.
But, I mean, it's hard to have debates with people who are so against you and so against what you believe in as a physician that we as physicians just think, you know what, these people are not...
going to be convinced.
We'd rather spend our time
taking care of patients that
will listen to us and take
our advice seriously
and not just blow us off.
And so I apologize again.
I'm on an airplane, so if there's some
flat effect by I apologize.
No, no, you're doing good.
Did you just land or are you about to take off?
We just landed.
Oh, perfect, perfect, good, good.
I appreciate me.
Your audio is actually pretty good to being in an airplane.
I just got off an airplane.
The reason we delayed the space
because my flight was late.
But every, like this is,
and let me, let me,
I want to go back and forth with you a bit more.
So, Sully, this is the argument you should now from Avery,
because you were wondering, we were discussing the same thing before.
It's a similar argument we've had before.
And what some doctors and Peter would love to get your thoughts on it,
they'd say, Mario, we've had this debate time and time again,
many times on your spaces, because a few months ago we covered COVID very extensively.
And it just doesn't seem to go anyways.
Like we, I'm just telling you what they say.
We've given all the facts, we've given all the data,
And it feels like there is no result.
And at the end of the day,
I can't spend hours every day doing this
or hours every week doing this.
And I prefer to be doing what I do as a doctor
instead of sitting here debating.
That's the argument that I've heard from the other side, Peter,
which I think is, to be honest, is it,
It's understandable because this debate has been exhausted.
I think debates are still necessary, but I understand where they're coming from.
What do you think, Peter?
You know, if everything was just free choice, then I think a lot of people would take that stance.
Listen, just evaluate the risks and the benefits and everybody make a free choice.
What really charged up this whole thing, Mario, was mandates.
people got very uncomfortable with mandates and then not having a fair discussion on risks and benefits.
So I think that's where we are today.
If it was all free choice, people could have various levels of engagement.
Okay, so the thing that really...
made it very difficult when one side,
either side doesn't want to have a debate,
is the mandate.
And I think it's very difficult.
And maybe...
And the censorship as well.
So it was just,
it was the mandate and then also the fact that what,
I mean, I don't,
the other side,
the argument is that,
Yes, I mean, we had censorship with many esteemed doctors.
Dr. Mukula, were you also censored on social media?
Yes, very heavily, very heavily.
Well, I mean, I was only off Twitter for about two months, and someone created a hashtag.
I was trending just, you know, number one or number two with the World Cup during that time.
And then I was let back on.
But yeah, I've experienced censorship and other platforms, including in the peer-review publications,
but I can tell you the patients continue to come in.
The publications continue to mount about 3,400 of them now on COVID-19 vaccine injury syndromes,
and it's becoming quite voluminous.
So we have to discuss it because other doctors are going to need to help in managing these patients.
Let me read out, Cuban's tweet, and Sarah, thank you for sending me this.
Cuban's tweet, and Cuban's been on the show before.
I don't think we can have him jump in at such short notice for such a contentious topic.
But let me read out his response to all this.
Wait to talk in generalites, Joe.
Not saying there aren't a lot of fucked up things about pharma.
That's why we created cost plus drugs.com, which is one of a, I think, company he heavily invested in.
But to ignore that the same industry is saved, who knows how many lives is bullshit, and you know it.
It's also disrespectful to all the doctors, researchers and medical professionals that dedicate their lives to saving lives, like Dr. Hortez and the 800,000 plus doctors in the country that believes vaccines save lives.
You aren't trying to find the ground truth on vaccines.
If you were, you would bring on someone who focused on debating the issue, like the real truther.
Let me see who that is the real truther.
Let's invite, so the team if they're listening to this, do you invite the real truther?
It would be good to have him on since he's been recommended by Cuban.
Trying to bully Dr. Hortez is ridiculous.
You have producers that will prepare you and you get to control the conversation.
RFK also has a staff ready to prepare him and these topics are what he talks about in every speech.
You both do this on a daily basis.
Dr. Hortas works every day to try to find ways to help people.
Joe, you and Elon's Twitter are the mainstream online media and your platforms have become everything supposedly wrong with mainstream media.
oh wow
he's taking the six
yeah
mario i'm sorry
i just want to
jump in there i think mark
cruecubin is
absolutely right okay
joe rogan
and and uh
and elon all these guys
they have teams that can
sit down and just destroy us doctors right
now if i could sit down
and talk to somebody about colon cancer all day
I could destroy anybody about colon cancer, right?
But that's not what I don't do these kind of discussions with people that have teams of people to just have all the facts and all the things, you know, that.
This is Hotas's speciality.
This is his bread and butter, Hotens.
I agree.
I agree.
He could actually have, but he doesn't have that team that could set everybody up.
Can I politely disagree with you in saying one thing that.
I don't think it's random doctor's job to debate the vaccine.
I think it's people who have the expertise, but more, more specifically,
who should have been doing the debating and the transparency was the CDC,
it was Dr. Fauci.
And that's where I think everything came unglued because there was no transparency.
There was no debate.
It was censorship.
I agree with you there.
It was government top-down communicating with social media platforms.
And so really what should happen should have been Dr. Fauci or Wulenski or
Wielenski or whoever on the Rogan podcast addressing these issues transparently.
And then a guy like me who doesn't really have an agenda in this fight would say,
okay, now I understand or at least I'm being exposed to both sides of this debate.
And I feel like I'm not being.
Jason, like the question then becomes, though, when?
because if he'd been on Rogan's podcast
while the censorship was happening,
even Joe Rogan himself would have been careful
not to make sure that he gets cancelled
because he was treading the line carefully as well.
So do you mean now or do you mean then?
I mean, in an ideal world, it was then.
That's how you prevented kind of...
But then wouldn't have solved it, would there?
Because then what would have happened is what was happening.
And didn't fortunately go onto his podcast.
I can't remember now. I'm sure he did, but I could be wrong.
I don't know.
And so what really would have happened
because Joe Rogan,
I know he's coming out now,
but at that time,
he was careful not to get cancelled himself.
He was careful not to ask,
he'd maybe prod a little bit,
but he'd never go in.
And so if Fawshi had come onto his podcast,
wouldn't it be in the case
that he would have,
propagated his own position again with minimal push.
Sure.
But that's what I'm saying.
My point is that we live currently under an imperfect system
that led us to this point where we are right now.
And if we ever want to come to a place where we don't have every...
Because now, the way things are right now,
every time a new vaccine comes out, especially if it's MRNA,
this is the debate every single time until...
we feel like there is a transparent process
and where we're allowed to discuss different viewpoints.
And it's important that on Main Street,
like it shouldn't just be Joe Rogan.
It should be CNN.
It should be every platform having these robust debates openly
so that people don't feel like they're being misled.
So to your point, yes, like,
Where things are now, that's where things stand.
And it's unfortunate that, and I represent people,
and I work with people on social media platforms
who have very large platforms,
who have been de-platformed for saying things that today are true.
So I know very well the consequences of the way we're currently doing information control,
top-down government, social media, all this collusion.
But, I mean, if it doesn't change, this debate never does.
So Dr. McGowan, let me ask you this because I know you went.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
Go ahead, everyone.
Every than Sarah.
Yeah, I was just saying, Jason, I agree with you.
I think, though, there are specific positions that are, that is their job.
It's to spread the correct information.
But if you have, you know, individuals like myself that are just trying to, you know, do what we do in our specialties.
We're not the people to do that.
We have specific folks that are supposed to be going on TN,
going on Joe Rogan, doing the debates and doing that thing.
And I don't think Dr. Hotes can not be that guy.
Yes, he's the expert, but he is supposed to advise those that can do the spreading of the information.
So he may not be the best guy to debate because he doesn't do debate.
He's a scientist, right?
So maybe he's not the right guy.
Why should he have to debate if he doesn't believe that...
that
RFK Jr.
knows what he's talking about.
Why should he have to debate
a climate change attorney
vaccines and the efficacy of vaccines?
Why?
Why is that his duty?
Maybe
Maybe because if he feels that it's an important subject where there's misinformation spreading,
you know, RFK has a bigger platform than Professor Hote's.
Professor Hote's is a specialist in this field in molecular biology, you know, a vaccine scientist.
RFK is running for president.
He has a lot of stuff he has to learn.
So for me, it seems curious that Professor Hotes wouldn't want that bigger platform to put his point across
if he feels his point is so valid and important, which, you know,
I'm sure.
He maybe thinks that it's demeaning to him to debate this in that way on a podcast with Joe Rogan.
Yeah, and I see Hick putting 100% there.
Do you want to answer that particular question?
But a quick thing, a quick pushback.
Dr. McCleff, you said earlier that there is no such thing as misinformation,
anti-science, or anti-vaxxers.
Then what would you call misinformation and people that are anti-science and people that are
proud anti-vaxxers?
There are many on this stage and there are many listening.
Well, you know, misinformation in the word appeared in the literature in 1500.
It was extensively used in Nazi Germany as a propaganda term.
And then it was word of the year by Washington Post in 2018 before COVID because it's extensively used as a tool in partisan politics.
So it doesn't have any role in medicine.
And, you know, there's simply our scientific data as they emerge and as we publish.
And then we, you know, we observe the data and we have different interpretations.
Right.
So misinformation, you know, really need that, that needs to go away and it certainly doesn't have any position in medicine.
You know, anti-vaxxer, the better word is being risk aware, being aware of the risks of vaccines.
And certainly there is no such thing as anti-science because science is a process and it evolves.
over time.
I wanted to quickly respond
to Cubans tweet.
What I would say,
Dr. Mark Cuban,
is that, listen,
you know, I'm a doctor.
I'm taking care of patients
every day.
I'm doing research.
I am prolifically publishing.
And, you know,
I'm doing the same as everyone else.
And so it's people like me
and Dr. Hotez,
who need to have a discussion together.
When we've been in the U.S. Senate, we've, in many of the Senate witnesses are on this call right now.
We wanted to have a discussion with those who were in favor of COVID-19 vaccination.
No one will show up and have a face-to-face discussion.
Dr. Mukula, another question.
I know you went on the Joe Rogan podcast in December 15, 2021.
Did he have any experts during the pandemic who were against the vaccine?
Well, during the pandemic, ahead of me was...
Pierre Corey and Brett Weinstein who talked with him largely about Ivermectin.
And what I did is I brought, you know, my continuing medical education slides on the topic
with papers I've published and, of course, many others, roughly about 200 slides.
I sent them to producers to share with the Spotify people and say, listen, we're just going to go over the data.
Okay.
and just, you know, step by step by step.
And I think the reason why it got such a big listenership is really Rogan's reaction to this.
Rogan showed up prepared with some case vignettes of things that had happened after the vaccine
and wanted my, you know, clinical interpretation.
So he brought that to the table.
Subsequently, other people went on.
Actually, many, many people have gone after that.
But, you know, I was the one who kind of,
got this going with Joe Rogan and I think he's done a good job bringing people on.
You know, I agree with the sentiment that this really ought to be among doctors.
It ought to be a scientific debate.
Lawyers and others, they have expertise on the litigation efforts related to vaccine safety,
but that's a different field.
But then, I mean, a doctor, isn't that a problem?
Like, what I'm seeing with Joe Rogan is,
I know he's coming out now attacking hotels
and trying to, you know, pressure him into getting into the debate,
offering this money.
First of all, why isn't he asking for a debate with you
as someone who is an expert one?
And number two, which is more important,
why was he not willing to basically have asked for these debates
during the most crucial time during the pandemic
as opposed to after the fact...
And again, if he's meant to truly be alternative media,
that's when he would have shown that he truly is alternative media
rather than cash in now when everybody accepts possibly,
or a lot of people accept the anti-vax position.
Well, what I told Rogan,
early on because he texted me after I went on in 2021.
I said, yeah, if you can find somebody who's kind of my academic equal,
let's say more than 500 publications in National Library Medicine, something substantial,
I'd be happy to go on.
He could just find one doctor who's like a comedian in Las Vegas.
And I said, listen, I'm not going to debate somebody who just is not qualified and have a discussion.
And so this, you know, later on he did bring Hotez on.
Hotez is the most published person he's brought on his show.
That's in support of the vaccines.
So when I communicate with Rogan this morning, I said, fine, you've got them.
Let's, you know, let's go on and have...
you know, a scholarly discussion. I don't think money should play any role. I saw Hotez,
you know, messaging him back saying now he wants half a million dollars. You know, money should not be in
this. This is about the public safety. This is a very important discussion, and it should be among
the most highly qualified people. And there's ways to sort that out. One of the best is publication
track record.
Avery, before I've got one more question for Avery and then we'll go to Higgs.
Every, I've got a question for you.
Why do you think the sentiment has shifted over the last few months?
Is it the shift away from censorship?
Is it just expected because of the mandate that we saw?
What happened?
What happened?
I think it's just percolating through the society and people have been talking about it slowly over time.
I think RFK getting, RK Jr. getting involved, brought it up as well.
I mean, you know, the spread through social media.
I think it's always been there.
People have been questioning about the vaccine.
Physicians in general don't question the vaccine.
You know, we think it's a good.
Most of us think it's.
It's a good thing.
And so once you start having things percolate through Twitter, through, you know, all other types of social media, I think it's just always been there.
And you have these high profile folks, Joe Rogan, RofK Jr., Elon talking about it, then it just starts really spreading.
And it's just really easy to do on social media these days.
Okay, so one question I want to ask Peter.
Peter, there is, and Avery, and we'll go to you right after Hick.
Just one more question.
I think there's two ways to be skeptical of vaccines.
There is, you know, lightly skeptical.
Like Elon himself said that he's fully vaccinated, his kids are fully vaccinated,
but he wants a debate about it.
He wants free speech.
He doesn't want mandates.
Okay.
So questioning the vaccines, questioning the efficacy of the boosters, and then going on the extreme, which is where it gets a lot more polarizing and where there's strong disagreements.
arguments like vaccines cause autism where there's a lot of studies that counter this
believe that again i'm not the i'm not the best person to speak on this so i'm speaking on
behalf of other doctors that are sending me information but you know studies like the the the
study by on other on parents dot com and they've got a whole study on this among others
regarding vaccines and autism and most doctors agree that vaccines and autism there is no
correlation there peter um how would you differentiate between the skeptics of the COVID vaccines and
And the way it was treated and the amount of marketing and the amount of impact Pfizer's marketing budget had on people's opinion of the vaccine.
and not enough studies being done, versus looking at all other vaccines and putting them all into one big basket.
I would love your thoughts on this, Peter.
Quickly, the COVID-19 vaccine program was unprecedented.
It was the first one that was mandated against adults since the smallpox campaign.
Smallpox campaign lasted over 50 years.
And at the most, people had to pay what's tantamount to a speeding ticket if they didn't
want the smallpox vaccine.
With the COVID-19 vaccine, people lost their jobs.
They were thrown out of the military.
If they didn't go along with it, it was taken to a whole new level.
And then the side, you know, the adverse effects and others on the call, I'm sure,
will weigh in.
And there's so many studies to cite with the COVID-19, you know, side effects being death.
which is, you know, that's the ultimate side effect.
I think that's what's created the tension that's so high.
With the childhood vaccine schedule, the tension there is, you know, this rapidly rising,
epidemic of autism. And it's a broader spectrum of disorders called essence disorders,
includes tension deficit disorder and tick Dillero and Asperger's autism spectrum. Because there is an
epidemic. And when I was born, autism was one in 10,000. And today on the CDC website is 1 in 36.
I mean, we need a Manhattan project.
to study what is going on with children to create this disastrous epidemic.
I think that's where the tension is in the conversation.
I mean, these are important questions.
We are going to go more detail into the vaccine and the different impacts
and some of the things that Mario maybe doesn't believe in, but we'll go into that later.
Let me rephrase that.
He did believe it, but he asked me a lot of questions about it.
Hick, let me ask you, and just correct me if I'm wrong,
were you somebody who also was willing to donate towards this debate?
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
And thanks for having it.
Yeah, what was the amount?
I'm going to...
$3,000 for something like this.
It would be just very entertaining to both see this debate had in the public, but, you know, it poses the question.
What was your reasoning for it?
So go ahead.
Did you explain what was your reasoning for willing to also contribute towards a debate?
Oh, just, you know, just to see the debate, man.
It needs to be had.
I think like everybody's kind of saying here.
So, Hick, I mean, same question to you.
Like, I see Joe Rogan wanting this debate now in 2023.
He's trying to set it up.
He had Dr. McCullough in December 2021, almost 2022.
Why was he not?
And this is the issue I have.
He's meant to be alternative media.
We know mainstream media censored any other opposition to any other position.
Why did he not ask for this debate during the middle of the pandemic when he would have helped the most people out when doctors were being censored?
Doesn't this show some kind of hypocrisy on drogan's part?
What do you say?
When you say how people's that?
Well, the less people would take the vaccine, you know how people are in terms of bringing more transparency, more open debates?
What do you mean by the statement?
Well, both because...
We don't know that vaccines are bad or good.
I think that's not that we haven't gone down that path.
I think what we agree on is that we need to be discussing it openly.
Go ahead, Brian.
All right. So the problem, the problem with during mid-pandemic, okay, which is what I experience. And for those of you who don't know me, I am the leading U.S. treatment expert for COVID-19. I have treated over 10 or 20,000 patients in my clinic. My death rate is less than 1.1%. Okay. We were deplatformed from every...
site that we had from YouTube,
from Facebook, from Twitter,
okay, Joe Rogan could not
have that debate at that point in time.
Why? Because he would have,
he would have lost his platform.
They would have taken him off the air.
Yeah, Spotify was,
Spotify, even to this date,
they're pretty,
has hesitant on this content
So then you know, isn't it, that Joe Rogan,
when it comes down to it,
when as without sounding like,
when the shit hits the fan,
he's not going to actually have the debate.
He'll have it after everything's over and it's good.
But, but, but, Sully, Sully, you live in a bubble, don't you?
Like, if you get, do you know how it feels to get deep platformed?
We have a lot less power than you think.
Well, Joe Rogan does it?
So Joe Rogan's podcast gets pulled off Spotify.
I know a number of my friends who were doctors who got censored.
I know a number of my friends who were doctors who spoke out and were basically...
almost lost their jobs.
So yeah, people did do that.
I know you're saying Rogan Wooden.
He claims that Spotify gives him carte blanche
that he can't be censored.
So let's be clear, he is part of the mainstream.
He can be censored.
And so therefore we do need the other platforms
which are not Joe Rogan
that are willing to have the debate
during crucial moments.
That's my position.
It's a risk-reward thing, you know?
I mean, Joe has to calculate that.
And during the pandemic,
you know, the risk of having that debate in the open
was probably less than the reward.
Maybe, every, is there harm in having those debates?
Because we're all talking about censorship being, hold on, hold on, sorry, all good.
I wanted to kind of move to a different point.
Is that in having those debates, we're all treating it like it's, a done deal is definitely a good thing.
I had someone very influential push back on me.
I'm trying to remember who it was that pushed back on me two days ago.
And they were very critical.
I think it was that financial, who did we have on the CPI space?
All of you would know him.
Rubini.
Rubini was on the space, and we asked him on his thoughts.
We asked this to every special guest, and Peter will ask you at the end as well.
We asked him on his thoughts on Twitter spaces in general to get snippets.
And he gave it a little compliment on our show, and he started...
you know, attacking the whole model, the censorship free model.
So I'm saying there's a lot of negative censorship free.
There's a lot of content that none of us want to see.
And obviously he started talking about Nazi content, you know,
take it to one extreme to make a point.
And there's no good in having that content out there.
And he's worried, doesn't want to use, you know, a lot of people around him are not using Twitter as much because of that.
So, Avery, when you look at it from a medical perspective, is there harm in lack of censorship?
I know it's a very difficult argument to make, but it's one I like to discuss every single point and question everything.
Is there something that we're not talking or we're not noticing where censorship is needed when it comes to medical matters?
Right.
Censorship with medical matters.
I don't think that's a good thing in any kind of form or fashion.
I think when you have these kind of debates,
there is harm that can come when you're debating conspiracy theorists
or ideas that are kind of way out there
because patients will show up asking about these things.
these theories and taking away from the problem at hand.
As a community surgeon, I want to talk to you about your problem that's sitting in front of me
and not spend, you know, 30 minutes trying to convince you, hey, get this shot so we can do this surgery,
right? I understand you're concerned, and I will talk to you to a certain extent, but I can't
go on and on about how you heard on some...
podcast about, you know, all the different hundreds of different things that you think might be
happening to you. I know what I know and this is what I'm going to tell you. I'm going to move on.
Have you seen an update? Have you seen an update? But at the same time, but Moria, wait, at the same
time, how is that different than seeing a Pfizer commercial with their new drug saying,
ask your doctor about this drug, right? They everybody? No, you're absolutely right. I hate those
commercial. I hate those commercials. I hate those commercials.
You're 100% right.
I mean, we deal with it all the time.
And we don't like them.
Right.
A medical professional should be able to have medical conversations.
I think that that's what you're saying.
Yeah, I think that's what you're seeing.
We have those conversations and we say to them, we say patients, hey, I understand you saw that.
There's research that's going into those and there's pharmaceutical companies that are pushing that.
This is how I treat you.
And you can take this or not and you can find somebody else.
I mean, we got to move forward.
And that's okay.
That's how you do medicine.
Right.
Exactly. And I would agree with that. And I think that that's probably part of the problem that we've been having, me personally, with this whole COVID thing is, hey, let's have a discussion. Let me tell you what I've seen in my clinic, right? You're a colorectal surgeon. If you're seeing something in your practice that you want to get out to the public and you say, hey, I'm seeing this in my practice. I need to get this out so that other people can be aware of it. And the media says, sorry, dude, you can't. You're a conspiracy theorist.
Like that's not, that's not educational.
That's not, that's not helping the public, right?
So if you and I can have a conversation, because we're both medical professionals,
I think that's the only thing people want out there.
And it's been going on and on and on for too long.
That's why you're seeing the kind of numbers you're seeing,
which is we can't get them to the Senate.
We can't get them to the states.
We can't get them on the mainstream media.
So how do we get them in public to actually have a conversation?
I have a doctor,
I'm going to talk to you.
Jason,
before you jump in,
and Dr.
Dr. Dunn,
I want you to respond to this.
I know there's James and Heather,
and we've got Todd here as well.
So there's a lot of speakers I want to go to.
But you've been in so many of our debates over the last, at least earlier in the year.
I want to get your initial thoughts on what we saw between Rogan and Hotets and RFK and what your stance is on that.
And then I've got a question about the current discussion as well.
So sorry, I have not heard all of the discussion because I just got back in the airport.
So what little I have heard...
Have you heard the story about RFK and Joe Rogan?
Yes.
Okay.
So I wanted to get your thoughts on that as well.
And I was reading what Cuban said earlier.
I'll finish off what he,
his second part of what he said before someone jumped in.
Trying to bully Dr. Hortez is ridiculous.
You have to produce,
you have producers that will prepare you and get you to control the conversation.
Okay.
Robert F. Kennedy also has a staff ready to prepare him and these topics are what he talks about in every speech.
You both do this on a daily basis. Dr. Hortez works every day to try to find ways to help people. I already read this.
Joe, you and Musk's Twitter are the mainstream online media and your platforms that become everything supposedly wrong with mainstream media.
You are driven by self-interest, just like the mainstream media always has been accused of,
and you both have earned that right.
You busted your asses to be great at what you do and earned all you have accomplished.
But don't lie to yourselves and all of us and tell us you are different.
You aren't.
So that was by Mark Cuban.
earlier today, and that was yesterday, 24 hours ago.
Would love your thoughts on this, Dr. Donne.
Yeah, so I think that there's a lot of mistrust about the pharmaceutical industry in general.
And I think that, unfortunately, a lot of it is misplaced because there is an arm's length
between industry and everybody.
So, so...
Left, right, academics, individuals think that the pharmaceutical industry is motivated to just make profit.
And what they forget is that there are scientists in pharmaceutical companies that are developing products that are to help people.
They want to make the world a better place.
And like I've said on past spaces...
Five of the most important public health advances of the 20th century brought us a 30-year increase in life expectancy in the West.
And I'm watching this distrust of science erode that.
And I'm very, very concerned about that.
Now, those five public health advances are food security, vaccination, antibiotics, water sanitation, and vector control.
Vaccines are critically important for public health.
And they are not...
There's not a team of people out there that are doing this to hurt people.
They want to make sure that people have access to a high quality, healthy life.
and the pharmaceutical industry doesn't have the opportunity to defend itself publicly.
Academics won't talk to us.
Medical schools don't want to talk to us.
I shouldn't say that us because I'm actually in the ag industry.
So for everybody's in full disclosure, I work for bear, and I'm in the ag division, not in the pharmaceutical division.
And I'm in, was in academic medicine for,
a very long time prior to that.
And so I have a, I've got a little bit of a window on people not wanting to interact with industry.
And there's a very one-sided conversation about the motivations of industry, which I think
if we want to continue on as a society, getting the best medications and the best, you know,
products and live the kind of quality of life that we've lived, we need to really think hard about the things that we're
we're accusing other people of.
And I think it's really, really important to, I think what Mark Cuban's saying is spot on.
I think now that physicians should be having conversations with other physicians that disagree and they should be able to do it in a civil manner.
You know, I'm very pro-vaccine.
Other people aren't.
But,
But that doesn't make other people bad.
And I think that we need to actually do a little bit of a reset and start this conversation over in a civil way because it's deteriorated into a politically driven, destructive conversation.
And it's not healthy for our society.
I would agree with that.
And I think a lot of what you're saying, too, is the transparency that us physicians are not getting.
When we ask for the quality data, when we ask for, you know, some of the studies that they've been given, what are we given?
Well, we're going to release that over 75 years.
No, we want to know that data now.
It's new technology.
Yeah, so that's really interesting.
So that's a really interesting point.
So, yeah.
One of the things that happens when there is the question of litigation and FOIA and stuff like that is that companies have to produce mountains of email.
And that mountain of email is, I mean, I can't even tell you how many conversations are in emails that get, you know,
Hillary Clinton, what everybody's talking about her 33,000 emails.
So it takes a long time to actually get those to the right places and with with IP protection and things like that.
So not 75 years, sorry, not 75 years.
Not in today's world.
You're right, not 75 years.
But I think that that's an actual talking point rather than, you know,
I don't know how many people have actually discussed this with a pharmaceutical company.
Has anybody seen the safety data studies at six, 12, and 18 months post-Fizzer without a four-year request?
Well, let me, Brian, let me just jump in there.
You know, Pfizer was unwilling to release their 90-day post-marketing data.
They were unwilling to release that to the public.
And so under court order, their 90-day data, which they're obliged to keep.
And people report in with side effects, you know, was released.
Now, in that 90-day report, there were 1,223 deaths, you know, after the Pfizer vaccine.
And to this day, Moderna has not made their 90-day data publicly available.
Jansen, which is an off the market, didn't do it, and neither did Novavx.
But the post-marketing data, not emails, but the post-marketing data must be transparent
because, you know, people are being asked to take these products.
I think that that people who sell supplements should be held to the same standard, too.
For example, if there is a supplement being marketed as a thrombolytic for dissolving spike protein,
and we know that thrombolytic, you as a cardiologist know this, as thromboletics have a high risk of head bleeds
and they're very highly controlled and studied, we need to be very careful about the supplements we sell too.
So I think that...
If the pharma is held to a certain standard, and I think that that standard's important, but I think that that standard should be across the board.
Yeah, but with that standard, they're giving unlimited liability.
They have absolutely no liability on this.
And that's the problem that I think a lot of us have with this.
Not that, you know, we're anti-baks, but a new technology with limited liability is bad.
I'm going to take off after this.
I just wanted to make one point, Dr. Dunn,
just because I think you made a good point about what happens when,
because pharma is not all good and it's not all bad.
That's a silly binary.
There's no such thing as like pharma is just the best or farmer's the worst.
Pharma is just people, right?
Made up of people who are driven by profit.
And anytime you have companies or industries driven by profit,
it increases the risk.
for some not good decisions to be made.
And we all know, and I could bring, you know,
story after story of pharma, you know,
being caught, making, you know, some poor,
you know, research decisions or whatever it may be
to get a product to market so they could profit.
So I think when you have...
profit motivations with something like pharma it can never be just trust the science and
and there's no debate and we have kind of the the atmosphere that we had around covid there has to be
some way to increase transparency to get what you want and what i want is a restoration of trust
in the in the medical expert this whole field i want i agree but until we get to transparency i don't think
we get there
Yeah, and I think that one of the things,
one of the real tragedies of COVID
is that there was not a fair public debate.
And I think Dr. McCullough will agree with me,
having worked in academic medicine,
But Liza, Liza, a question.
Liza, Liza, I'm going to, let me make a point.
I try to make the points that no one is making, and I'm going to do it.
And even as usually the unpopular point.
And that tends to happen a lot in the COVID discussions.
So you said that one of the big tragedies of the, of COVID is the inability to have a debate.
Now, I'm not saying, obviously I'm not saying I disagree with you because I'm leading most of these debates now.
So everyone knows my stance with my actions.
But my question is, Liza.
it was like a world war back then like people were freaking out we were dealing with lockdowns around
the world death through a spiking is the first time we deal with a pandemic in many many decades
i know in hindsight we look at it like yeah we did this wrong we did that wrong but if you go back
in hindsight in world war two world war multiple mistakes were made whenever there's a crisis
mistakes are made so my question two is during a war
there's no room to debate certain aspects
especially when it's a major war
it's like World War for example
you just go into battle
you're going to defend it's a game
it's it's about survival
so when you go back to COVID
I agree with you. I think debates would have been healthy and we could have moved quickly.
But another argument that's been made is that debates would have slowed things down.
Like our goal was to get a vaccine out there as quickly as possible to try to slow the deaths.
And debates could hinder that when we didn't have much time.
I remember back then, because I wasn't as deep as I am now and trying to understand all the different narratives and listening to debates and debates weren't even available.
So obviously I'm a lot more educated now.
But do you remember back then? It was like,
Everyone was just waiting for the vaccine and trying to rush the vaccine.
It was a very small minority of people pushing back,
but everyone was just pushing, pushing, and when the vaccine came out,
everyone was celebrating and rushing to get it,
at least in the early stage when the first vaccine came out.
So thinking about the crisis where back then and trying to remember those days,
do you think there's any argument whatsoever that could be made
trying to play devil's advocate,
where censorship and lack of debates would have helped us move quickly?
Absolutely, Mario.
Absolutely.
Let me, let me answer that, Mario, from a frontline doctor.
So when you're in war, do you want to know what's going on on on the front lines or do you want to know what's going on in central headquarters?
Right? Everybody needs to know what's going on in the front line.
So listen to your frontline doctors.
If people would have listened to me when I broke the news on KUSI in San Diego,
and instead of suppressing that video and deplatforming them off of the air for the video that I did showing that early treatment works, how many lives would have been saved?
Right.
Now, progress that forward to the paper that Peter McCullough and the protocol that we put together
and how that was censored.
Now look at the ivermectin data from Pierre Corey.
Having discussions with actual physicians taking care of patients would have saved thousands
to hundreds of thousands of lives.
So I agree that there should have been a discussion between physicians that that was, and in what's happened
before. Being in academic medicine, there are discussions all the time about how one manages
patients and disagreements all the time. And to be honest, we're not very nice to each other
during those disagreements. And I think that's what you saw in real time during COVID.
And it was the first time that it was public. So I think that the discussion is important
And I think that having an open discussion is important.
I think early on, I think people were saying that there were,
there were problems with how the whole, not the vaccine,
but the whole COVID policy was laid out.
And I think that that led to a lot of,
a lot of consternation about about the actual vaccine.
I mean, when Operation Warf Speed was a implemented,
Trump, that was a Trump thing.
And so, and the people who were anti-Trump were like,
I don't trust this vaccine.
And then you have, you turn around and people who are now, you know,
you know, in office are like, oh, no, we take that back.
We trust this vaccine.
You have to have this vaccine.
So it got very politicized as opposed to having a discussion on the merits of the science.
And that's the difference.
And do you think the debate that Joe Rogan is trying to get between RFK and Holtes helps
helps the
polarization that we have,
or does it do more harm than good?
I don't know.
What I do know is that...
Because RFK is obviously,
because obviously RFK rightly or wrongly,
I think we all agree.
He is politicizing it.
It doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad thing,
but it's a fact.
Yeah, but RFK is a Democrat.
What I'm very concerned about is I'm very concerned
that we're losing...
the actual scientific debate over,
over politics.
And I think that Peter Hotez is an excellent scientist and is very, very, very,
He's one of the leading voices in vaccine medicine,
and he's done wonderful things.
I know him personally.
So I think he's being excoriated for political reasons.
Liza, a couple of questions.
First of all, I don't think you're...
what you're saying in terms of the political, what happened with Trump and the political aspects of the vaccine is accurate.
But I guess the debate's not about that.
But in terms of what about Hortez himself, fine.
I accept the fact that why he wouldn't want to debate RFK because he's a lawyer.
Like I accept that point, no problem.
But why won't he, for example, be willing to debate someone like Dr. McCullough, who basically was in the trenches, was against COVID and was banned?
Right.
And he wasn't like, and he wasn't more like Rogan who literally said it after the fact.
Sorry.
I think, I think you're right to,
I think that there have been very few physicians on the pro-vaccine side or pro-COVID vaccine side
who've been willing to come up to these platforms and debate.
And I think that that has been,
that the very first time I debated in December,
I couldn't believe the lack of physicians who've been,
you know, really pushing for this vaccine to be willing to step up to the plate to talk about
these things publicly with physicians who disagree with.
Does that lack of confidence in their ideas?
Well, there are two things.
There are two things.
One is litigation.
And people do not want to be dragged into litigation because they have their lives ruined.
So why would they, why would they be dragged into litigation unless they're lying?
oh no no no you if you you can the way the american tort system works is fascinating and it is
not like the rest of the world and so that so a lot of people are very reluctant to get into public
discussions because they're afraid that things are going to be clipped out of context and put in front
of a jury and and that's just that that's just the simple fact
of the way American litigation works.
And so very few people are willing to step up to the plate
and talk publicly about these things
because they're frightened.
Then they shouldn't be leading an agency.
They shouldn't be leading positions of power, period.
Okay?
If they're afraid to talk, they shouldn't be leading
because then you're hiding something.
No, there's a lack of transparency going on by the police.
There's a lack of transparency.
And you know what?
As I'm listening to you right now, you mentioned, well, it's not about politics,
but you've mentioned Clinton and Trump.
So why are you mentioning politicians if it's not about politics?
So let's bring it back to me, see me, see me.
It's got one bottle.
Sabine, just on the point.
No, I'm a little bit pissed off about this because I'm taking my time off
that I could be with my father to be on this space
because I felt it was important.
And the one thing that you guys have forgotten
is there were lies that were told.
during this pandemic, okay?
The lies that hydroxychloroquine is a dangerous drug.
The lies that ivermectin is a dangerous drug.
Oh, it's not dangerous for babies with scabies,
but it's dangerous for dying patients.
Hydroxychloroquine is not dangerous for...
Let's get lies
Because you made a lot of points
towards lies
I let her respond
just to keep that back and forth going
But you've made some great points
They were lies
They lied about the
The beauty interval
The beauty interval
I understand
No one had an elevated
So it's hard to make, let's go back and forth.
So Liza, I know she mentioned a few things, for example, the politicians that you mentioned.
I can answer that one for you.
The reason you've mentioned the politician, I think, is to make that exact point that Sabine agreed with you is that it was politicized.
That's why you mentioned them.
But I'll let you address the other points.
The other points are that hydroxychloroquine has looked at.
I don't particularly have a problem with people using drugs off-label.
My problem with hydroxychloroquine in particular is,
is that it has a toxicity profile that is not just QTC prolongation, that's a cardiac problem.
You can have blindness from this drug, right?
So this is not a drug.
It's got a narrow therapeutic.
Sorry, I'm going to interrupt you.
I'm going to interrupt you there.
We've given out millions and billions of experts.
I understand.
So don't, don't go there.
Unless you're a prescriber, don't go there.
Unless you're a prescriber, unless you have written.
Unless you have a DEA number, do not go there with me on that.
I have a DEA number and I'm a medical toxicologist and I have taken care of people.
So then, so then you know, so then you know damn well that at the doses that we give it, it's a highly, highly irregular.
And they are very bad.
Highly irregular.
That is a.
Lisa, Lisa, Lisa.
Wait, one second, guys.
One second, guys.
Let Lisa finish a point, and then I'll let you...
Yeah, and then I'll go to James.
And then I'll go to James.
He's a couple of...
Your point, and then I can let Dr. Sabine...
James.
No, no, no, go to James.
Go to James. James's been waiting for a long time.
Okay, James, yeah, yeah.
Go ahead, Liz.
Hydroxychloroquine has a narrow therapeutic window.
I took an oath.
That oath said, first, do no harm.
I personally don't care if people take Ivermectin.
You can take Iremectin until the cows come home.
I don't care if you take Ivermectin.
I don't want to tell people, if people are concerned
that there are side effects of the vaccine,
They should be absolutely concerned that there are real side effects for hydroxychloroquine.
And I cannot in good conscience tell somebody that they should be taking this prophylactically
for COVID if they have a potential to go blind.
I cannot in good conscience recommend that.
Stella Emmanuel will tell you, Stella Emmanuel will tell you,
With her lifelong experience of kids in Africa,
taking hydroxychloroquine prophylactically for malaria prophylaxis.
Stella, where are you at?
And I will tell you that having taken care of malaria patients myself,
hydroxychloroquine is not the first-line drug that people use anymore.
One, and two, I think that the...
potential for harm outweighs the benefit.
Now, I will not...
100% wrong in the 5-8-1-100% wrong on the...
100% wrong on the...
Yeah, I'll let you respond to Ivan Mactrine.
Then we'll go immediately to James.
Also, Casey, yeah, Casey is the first time on stage.
Good to have you.
Whenever you want to speak, feel free to arm you or just put your hand up.
Again, pleasure to have you.
And, you know, before you go to James, just want to mention, guys, that we had, you know,
we try to balance every panel.
And Liza graciously accepted the invite, so did Avery now, Casey, just to balance out the discussion.
So as we have this discussion, keep in mind that we're trying to prevent echo chambers.
And in this case, Avery and Liza allowed us to do that.
So James, go ahead.
Yes, thank you very much, Mara.
Thanks for being here.
Thank you, Lisa, and everybody for joining on this platform.
I have a very unique perspective on this, and I want to share it with all of you.
So let's start with a premise that I believe that my subspecialty, my specialty, HHS, CDC,
Deputy Secretary of the HHS and the American College of Obstetricians and Gondicologists
targeted pregnancy.
Now, hear me out.
Mark Weber's Deputy Secretary of HHS in March of 2020, as well as HHS and the CDC and the American
College of Obstetricians and Gondicologists, knew that this was an extremely important.
a dangerous drug, the vaccine.
Not only did they know it,
that it is, there is no other drug that's had a many-day rollout.
James, quick question.
How did they know?
They knew because I knew, okay, a whistleblower dropped the 5.3.6 to everybody in the world.
I knew it, and everybody had it.
And I provided it to them, and I provided it to the American College of OBGYN.
So let me carry on here, Mario.
The reason why my pregnant patients were targeted is twofold.
And this is extremely important for all of us to realize and understand.
So that why...
We're pregnant women targeted two reasons.
It is a simple marketing strategy.
Because women constitute the brighter side of a marital relationship or any relationship.
And over 90% of the medical health care decisions in the world are made by women, not by men.
Number one, Mark Weber knew that.
I've known that for 40 years.
I've been an OBGYN physician taking care of high risk obstetrical patients for 44 years last month.
Okay.
The second reason.
why they targeted pregnancy and my pregnant women.
It's very simple.
It's very simple.
If you can get the most vulnerable population in the world,
That's my pregnant women and my preborns and my newborns.
And by the way, they are vaccinating the newborns through the mother in pregnancy.
Those are the most vulnerable population in the world.
If they can put a $13 billion marketing campaign
Of my tax dollars and your tax dollars, through the Department of Health and Human Services, as Deputy Secretary Mark Weber did.
$13 billion, $13 billion with a B, targeting about 300 sectors of the most influential sectors of the American society and really the world.
to market it as a safe, effective, and necessary in pregnancy, which they did. It was a theta
complete. That was their marketing strategy before. So they want to capture. They captured the
American College of OBGYN. And my wife, Maggie, is brilliant attorney and has expertise and
Freedom of Information Act. And we've published this. They were captured the
The American College of OBGYN was captured in March with millions.
We've documented well over $11 million.
What do they do?
They signed a contract and they were not allowed to leave their lock, step stance with the vaccine,
with HHS and CDC.
And if they did.
They would be breaking that contract and they would be liable for paying everything back.
So the American College of OBGYN, the Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine, and the American...
You broke up, James.
But yeah, we've got your main point.
Tiro, I know you want to say something, so go ahead.
But just before you do it, in addition to that, sorry, I was going to ask you a question as well,
so if you can answer that and then add anything you want.
And just short comments.
Yeah, go ahead, go ahead, Dr. McCullough.
I was just going to make a case for short comments from all the colleagues so we can get more people participating.
Yeah, yeah, I agree. I agree. Thanks for that. Yeah, I totally agree with what Dr. McCullough said. Keep a short guy and then it keeps people interested as well.
Tira, so adding whatever you wanted, but in addition to that,
Based on what we're hearing and based on what we're seeing and based on some of the conversation,
do you think that what's actually happened now is people have lost trust in any future vaccines
and also have lost trust in physicians, in scientists,
when the next time something major comes up, they just won't believe them.
Tira?
I think there has been a delegitimization of all sorts of expertise.
I think it's not just scientists, doctors, its attorneys, it's everyone.
I think maybe it's not a bad thing, but I think most people now, many people now seem to sort of say, well, I can, I know as much as those people.
And I think that's sort of unfortunate because I do think that medical professionals, scientists, know more certainly than I do.
You know, they can read things and understand studies.
I can read them.
I can maybe try and understand that, but I might understand the nuances.
So I think this is a problem we have, which is that people basically...
Don't trust experts and I'm concerned.
Okay, I'm concerned about that at all sorts of places.
The point I wanted to make was that I don't think Dr. Holtez should.
Before you make the next point about Dr. Hortez,
Tira, how's it going to look like?
How's the next pandemic going to look like?
Because during COVID, I'm like,
I always try to see the silver lining in things.
And I'm like, silver lining, we're ready for the next pandemic.
And it reminds me of Bill Gates' TED speech.
I am, you know, talking about it, no one caring about it back then.
Obviously, he's very polarizing.
You figure I don't want to get into this.
But now that we have a pandemic, I'm like, all right,
now we know how serious it is we've learned a lot.
And a lot of people were saying this back then,
that we've learned a lot from this pandemic,
we'll be ready for future pandemics.
But I feel like we're less ready now.
And the destruction of the system and caused by censorship
and the polarization, politicization of medicine,
is gonna make it more difficult when it comes to the next pandemic.
And it will immediately be people polarized.
They'll immediately be that skepticism.
I think we're in a worst off position.
I agree. And I think, I mean, look, I think that, you know, the CDC needs to
maybe really discuss some of the, certainly communications errors, okay, of which there were any number.
But I do think when it's rapidly evolving situations with what appears to be a global pandemic,
you know, things are said that are maybe not quite right or they were right at the time, etc.
We need to have a discussion about that.
We need to actually go back to basic science curriculums, quite frankly, in schools.
I don't think a lot of people understand a lot of things.
I mean, I'm constantly amazed.
by how little sometimes people understand and that goes for me too okay i'm not trying to hold myself
out as an expert in this area because i certainly am not um i i don't know mario i mean it is of concern
if people don't trust authority if something you know let's say something with a real kill weight
of you know a bowler or something like that comes along we are just screwed and because nobody wants
to listen to anyone anymore i don't i i don't i
I don't know how to handle that.
I really don't see many solutions except that conversations need to be had.
And maybe the CDC needs to have real conversations with people about, you know, what they do and why they do it and things like that, which may go some way towards, you know, rectifying some of the lack of public trials, but I don't even know.
I did want to discuss over the Peter Hottis thing
I don't think
Let's let's excuse me
Mario
Mario let's let's stick with that point
I'm talking
You don't get three points
Let's stick with that one point
Let's stick with that one point Marri
But I wasn't even allowed to make the point I wanted
Brian we'll let her make the final point
That I'll let you respond right after
Tara I didn't make me a point
I was responding
Yeah she answered my question
I take blame for that one Brian
Okay, so what I want to do is say that I don't think Dr. Hoda should have to debate because I do think, you know, in this sort of situation, things are going to be not as, it's just very difficult to fact check, to, you're just going to have dueling studies, no, everyone believe what they want to. It's going to be a mess. I also feel, I feel badly for him because I know somebody went to his house today and I think that's, you know, out of bounds myself.
You know, I really do, and I think if I'm him, I'm troubled by my family, etc.
I was wondering, though, and I want to ask people this, and I'm dead serious.
But, Tira, a question on that.
Tira, question on that.
Why do you think it's okay for him to perpetuate his own position, unanswered, unchecked on Joe Rogan?
And you have a problem if we have, for example, Dr. McCullough, their,
on there at the same time where they both can give competing positions.
Wait, wait, wait, can I ask you?
That was going to be my question.
Now, I believe that Dr. Hottes was on Joe Rogan, what, back in 2020.
Is that correct?
Will someone just give me.
give me the details because I'm wondering why there has why doesn't joe rogan just ask dr.
hotez on his own why are we doing a debate we've now had jfk we've had dr mccullough we have
peter corey we've got all sorts of brett weinstein talking about their concerns about the vaccine
which is fair why don't we have a person on joe rogan talking about what they view as the positives
of the vaccine before we get to the debate
That's what I'm asking.
Thanks.
No, no, but they've had.
That was actually my contention against Joe Rogan.
That when it was during the pandemic, he mainly did have people who were pro.
He was very hesitant to have anti-vaccine people.
The argument on the stage was poor old Joe might get canceled.
So he has to follow the narrative.
Fine.
But he didn't have.
Suddy, what are these speakers, the pro-vaccine speakers that Joe Rogan had?
Dr. Hortas was a good example.
Okay, how many more?
So Tira mentioned four anti-.
He has San Jacob
on CNN.
Okay, perfect.
Thank you, Peter.
Is there more?
I'm looking now,
and I'm trying to find more.
Mario, those were during the vaccine, but after,
during the pandemic, but after the pandemic is when he had the anti-people.
Like, I would have loved what a dream it would have been for society
if someone like Dr. McCullough was on exactly during the pandemic
and people had an alternative position at that exact moment.
I think we all agree on this one.
Mario, listen, like, I know you keep thinking, but listen, like, if we were in Rumble,
Now Rumble, this is why we appreciate these alternative platforms,
because now, let's say there is another pandemic.
The hope is that these other platforms will give a voice to people like Dr. McCullough
and others who were banned.
And so then we will get a second opinion.
And my only argument is Joe Rogan wasn't that guy and that's sad.
But Brian, you have to have been.
Yeah, before going, Brian, I've got an answer.
So we have, says I found Dr. Michael Osterholm, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Dr.
Ronda Patrick, Dr. Paul Offutt.
So these were pro-vaccine doctors he's had.
And correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just using chat GPT here.
And then doctors who are against the vaccine, obviously Peter McCullough, Robert Malone.
But even Dr. Malone he had afterwards, didn't he?
Yeah, yeah, afterwards, correct.
Now, back during censorship, there was no anti-vaccine voices.
For obvious reasons, it was being censored.
So I think we all know that, and we all agree that this is just difficult to defend.
But Brian, I know I interrupted you.
This is the problem, Mario, because he claimed that he's on Spotify.
He has carte blanche to talk about what he wants.
He won't be censored.
But now you're all admitted that.
There's no, but silly, silly, silly, there's no card blanche.
You can go and they start talking about how...
You know, I'm not going to say them here, but there's some things that you know will get anyone cancelled.
No, no.
So, for example, we've had the Rumble CEO on here, Chris.
And Chris has said, and I will see if the time comes and he goes against this, but up to now he's been quite consistent in this.
He has said consistently, and I message him as well, and he is consistent that he will not censor anyone about anything in terms of.
any type of conversation, even things that we find abhorrent, even things that we find disgusted,
he still has those conversations. He allows those conversations on his platform.
So what my point is, Joe Rogan wasn't that guy, but hopefully Rumble or these other platforms
are. Sorry, Brian, you were going to say something.
Yeah, so I just want to go to the point of what happens during the next pandemic?
Because I think that's, that is a huge, huge question.
What we need to do, this is what we need to do.
Number one is we need to work with our local public health departments.
Okay, during the pandemic, I had the California Department of Public Health
in my clinic for a year and a half.
The problem is we were collecting data,
but the data that they didn't want,
supposedly weren't collecting, was the treatment data.
We've now since diminished all of that,
and we're now integrated into the public health department system,
at least in our area.
And I would encourage...
every frontline provider to start talking and developing those relationships with their local public health departments.
to have a treatment strategy the next time this comes around.
So that way it's not about what he said, she said.
We're integrated.
We have a communication system.
And we can't communicate with them to say, hey, this is what we're seeing in clinic.
This is what seems to be working.
This is what not's working.
And so far, I'm really optimistic that the next time we have a pandemic,
they're actually going to listen to me and my treatment.
Okay.
Avery, you've got your hand up, please go ahead
and then we'll ask you some questions as well.
Sure. I wanted to address the mistrust that was brought up of physicians. I think that's basically a reaction to the amount of information out there, social media, Google, how many patients come into our clinics with the things that, hey, I read Google, and I want you to do this to me. And that's what we deal with every day. And this is going to happen to the next pandemic. And I think those of us that work,
on the front lines and see patients every single day,
we're constantly battered by this.
So there's a mistrust,
but we as the frontline workers
in the position that see patients every day
have to just reassure patients,
tell them what we know and how we know it,
And they're going to make that decision.
So this mistrust that is supposedly building up, we deal with it every single day and been dealing with for years.
And it's just because of so much amount of information is out there.
And so I think that mistrust is not that it's not a big deal to us as the folks that are taking care of patients because we deal with it every day and we just address it.
And patients will agree with us if they're sitting in front of us or they won't and we will take care of them as we always do.
But Avery, isn't that from an individual patient's perspective?
Like, I get that.
But from a holistic perspective, the next time there's something major,
let's say there's a major pandemic again, a major medical pandemic.
the vast majority of people, or if not the vast majority,
at least 50% or 40% of people,
will just not trust it.
So what's your thoughts on, do you agree with that?
And the second thing, what's your thoughts on that?
How are you-
That's fine. That's fine if they don't trust it.
Our job is to do our best to treat them the way that we know it
and what we as the physicians trust and understand.
And we will tell them, and if 40% don't believe it,
that's the way it goes, right?
I mean, we can only do so much as physicians
and take the information that we get and understand the studies
and everything the best that we know how.
push that on to our patients and they will take it or not and that's okay right i mean that that's
we don't have to treat everybody you know 100% a i mean 100% 100% 100% it's okay okay i
So Brian, let me ask you a question because you mentioned this.
You said, trust the frontline workers.
And please correct me if I'm wrong, if not just explain it.
I trust the frontline workers.
Now, I do have a number of friends who are in the medical profession.
Frontline and...
And both, a lot of them had varying positions.
And so dogmatic that they basically fell out.
So, I mean, which frontland worker do you basically trust the one who is anti-vax,
the one who is pro-bax, the one who is anti-lockdown?
No, that's a good question.
There's a lot of front-line workers are not going to be anti-bax, but you're asking specific.
No, no.
And I'm going to tell you, Mario, yeah, and I'm going to tell you this.
You trust the people who are seeing patients.
That's who you trust.
No, but they both are.
They're both.
It does, but again, that doesn't matter then.
Then what are they seeing?
What's working?
What's not working?
But isn't that, isn't that?
But isn't that, isn't their experience anecdotal?
Shouldn't you be looking at studies instead?
No, we can't have a study.
Listen, during a pandemic,
During a pandemic, there's no chance for studies, right?
Everybody says, well, what we did.
But isn't that the reason why it was so polarized, you know, putting censorship out of the way?
It's because there were lack of studies and everyone was trying to make sense of everything.
No, different people came to different conclusions.
No, the reason why I was so polarized.
The reason why I was so polarized is there was people who didn't want to listen to what was going on.
Okay, so example we treated patients early on between between zero and seven days. We had a 100% success rate
But we used everything from Ivemonoclonal antibodies to hydroxychloroquine Ivermectin Zithromax
Budescineide
We used oxygen
All the things all the things okay, everything that we had available to us
If people listen and use the same thing and got same results, that's how the early treatment protocol was developed.
Now, in the hospital, it's a whole different ballgame.
In the ICU, it's a different ballgame, right?
Those patients who develop severe disease who are on ventilators and what they were getting, we need to know what was going on and how that was being translated.
The problem is communication.
And I go back to the transparency issue.
This is why we're so insisting on having debates.
What we're doing early on in treatment versus what you're doing late in treatment.
Never in the history of medicine, Mario, has anybody said there's no such thing as early treatment until after 10 days?
Right.
Mario, remember, remember the governments don't treat patients, doctors do.
And so what Brian's saying is that the next pandemic, we need to bring doctors forward, treating
doctors forward at the local, you know, state and national level very frequently every month.
And they need to give a report from the front lines on what's working, what's not working,
as well as, you know, concurrent review of the literature in a paper by Gugliacos and colleagues,
I'm the senior author.
By December of 2020, we had clear and convincing evidence, P value less than 0.01, that early treatment was working.
It was reducing hospitalizations and dust.
You know, Brian Tyson and his team were on the right track, Sabine and many others.
And it doesn't matter whether or not someone took a vaccine.
They still needed early treatment.
So when the vaccine came out, the issue was basically to be fair balanced.
It was a brand new.
Most Americans took a genetic vaccine.
No doctor in America had ever previously advised on a genetic vaccine.
vaccine that turned out to be in every six month shot. This was brand new and so we needed
a time for equipoise and discussion as we move through this. And the reason why I think there's
a lot of tension is we didn't have that. Let's try to get to some other questions. So many
people have kept their hand up for our time. Yeah, Casey, I want to go to Casey then Sabine and
Heather. Thanks for that, Dr. McCullough. Casey, you've been waiting for a while. I think it's
the first time on stage. Good to have you. Thanks for having me. I think it's
It's important to note that when it comes to a pandemic and crisis relief, you know, it happens often overseas, you know, and I've participated in that for many years. And so a lot of times it's whatever resources are available and that
here in America we have a you know patient driven care it's up to the patient and what
they want to do and it's important to know it as healthcare providers we're there just to simply
educate them on an individual level because some patients may be able to tolerate one treatment or
this or you know whatever it might be and it's just important for the providers to be able to
provide that perspective to the patient and educate them on all aspects whether or
And if you're using, you know, the vaccine for an example, it's up to you to say these are the benefits and these are the risks.
And as it would pertain to your individual health care, there's not like just a one cover all.
But it's also important to note that all of the things that we're talking about and going back and forth between the debates, one, it really does cause.
serious concern for those that are not in the healthcare fields.
First of all, it makes people think they have no idea what they're doing.
Nobody knows.
But there's always been a great divide of those that would add in that alternative treatment
and those that only stick with modern medicine.
And the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
You know, things are very beneficial from both sides.
And it's just up to us to be able to provide that information to said patients,
whether it's inpatient or outpatient.
And so, you know, we can debate all we want.
We can go back and forth all we want.
But on some level, we have to be able to come together as actual professionals
and working together to create a better narrative.
Because the next time a pandemic comes around, we are not prepared.
Like we weren't even prepared for COVID.
I never thought what I witnessed in New York City that when it first hit, I never thought I'd see it here in my country.
You know, like we're supposed to be the cream of the crop.
So it's really a failure on us as the professionals and at the individual level for not being able to be more cohesive and to stop being so...
you know, in each other's spaces about this, but it comes down to the fact that it's our health care system.
And we need to focus on the fact that that's the foundation.
It's the failure of our health care system that has led it to this.
And the patients and the people seeking our care have every right to doubt everything about all of it.
it because none of it was procedural, none of it was done the way it should have been done.
So I think it's fair and I think it's up to us to acknowledge that and hope for the best.
I want to go, Sully, can I go to...
I want to see what...
Why did HOTES get so pissed off at what RFK said?
What exactly did RFK say that triggered Hotez?
Heather, does anyone know exactly what was said that triggered Hotez?
I'm not sure if you got the clips, Sully, or Heather.
You mean, like, what specifically RFK said in the interview with Rogan?
Yeah, exactly.
Specific snippets or things he said that HOTS responded to it negatively
and that triggered this whole...
I don't know what specifically triggered HOTES, but I did like binge that interview right before this space.
And three things that stuck out to me.
The first one was RFK was basically talking about the sort of the timeline of the vaccine industry and how it sort of overlapped with his research as an environmentalist.
where he was studying and suing people for, you know, polluting with mercury and that he came across these mothers that were basically alleging their children were injured from mercury levels being in the vaccines.
And so he cited these studies and actually like went before regulatory committees and called all these people in high places.
to get to the bottom of it.
And I guess there was some studies he did,
and he cites them all in his Rogan interview,
which is actually what I loved about it.
Like he wasn't just virtue signaling.
He was citing and explaining specific studies.
Right.
One of which, he said these kids were given, like, tuna fish sandwiches, right?
And, like, that there's warnings that pregnant women can't, you know, eat tuna because of high levels of mercury.
But yet there's these levels in these vaccines.
But there was this study where the kids were given the tuna and their mercury levels were monitored in their blood or something like that.
And then the same kids were...
monitored, I guess, after vaccination.
And in the tuna face examples,
the mercury was there much longer.
And in the vaccine, it was only there for like a week.
So the theory or what people were saying was that that meant that they were safe,
right, that the mercury didn't stay in the system and that it was a different kind of mercury.
Or at least this is what people were telling him.
And then there was another study he cited.
basically combating that, saying there was a study where this scientist gave the vaccine to monkeys.
And because the toxicologist wanted to know, okay, well, when you vaccinate the kids and the mercury is gone after a week, where does it go?
Do they secrete it?
How does it leave the body?
And the people in the vaccine industry weren't asking that question.
So he did this study on a monkey.
And apparently they killed the monkeys and found out that the mercury went to the brain.
So, Mario, I've got to jump in here.
The hot button for Hotaz is very much out in the open.
He published a book in 2018 called Vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel's Autism.
My Journey as a Vaccine, Scientist, Pediatrician, and Autism Dad.
So this issue is personal for Hotaz, and I think everybody, you know, can understand that.
So, so.
First and foremost, many children have died of measles because they haven't been vaccinated.
Measles is one of the people sort of think that this is like a benign rash.
It really isn't.
It's a devastating illness that keeps kids immunosuppressed for several years after infection.
And the idea that that...
a vaccine that prevents literally thousands of children from dying for...
for over over time it could is is is causing autism when there is actually no no association
whatsoever and if you look at the article that it spawned that idea yeah Andrew Wakefield's article
in 1998 that was not retracted from the Lancet um for 12 years uh it it's fatally flawed it's a fraudulent article
And I think that is absolutely egregious.
that there's even a discussion.
I'm happy to talk with people about
whether or not measles is fatal and deadly
and awful for children.
But once again, I've said this over and over and over again.
We have five public health advances
of the 20th century that bought us a 30-year increase
in life expectancy, and vaccines are one of those.
And to minimize...
The long-term effects of measles.
So people like Andrew Wakefield can actually make money.
We hear all about Big Pharma.
Big Pharma does not make all sorts of money off of measles vaccines.
Andrew Wakefield stood and does make all sorts of money off of countering that discussion.
And there are dead children in his wake.
So let me go to Dr. Sabine.
Can I add one more point?
Because I got dropped down.
One second.
One second.
I will come to in a second.
Add a question for Dr. Sabina or Dr. Payne.
Dr. Sabine, I know you also were...
censored, and you spoke out against the, again, against the vaccine and against lockdown.
So you were very bold.
The COVID vaccine, yes.
I spoke out against the COVID vaccine.
Sorry, that's where I meant.
So, I mean, we saw, we had a space on this before.
And so my question to you is about the medical journalists, journals, and expertise in academia.
Yeah.
which kind of influences society as a whole.
So we saw, for example, in the Nature magazine, Dr. Fosci, Dr. Anderson, overseeing it,
almost directing how that paperwork was going to go to ensure there wasn't the Lab League theory.
So when we see that type of influence or impact on academia,
can we even trust academic journals even from the higher academics
or from like distinguished text in any specific field?
No, we can't. No, we can't. I've been doing clinical trials for 30 years, practically, since my first year, a University of Florida as a fellow. And I won the Dean's Research Award, by the way, for those who question my ability to do research. I've done over 300 clinical trials for pharma.
And let me tell you, what I've seen in the pandemic has made me lose all faith for pharma.
And I question my wasted time for the last 30 years of having done clinical trials.
Because yes, I too was believing in, you know, treating and hoping to get a new treatment and believing in pharma.
until this pandemic, until what I saw with this pandemic
of shutting down treatment.
We're in the middle of a pandemic.
You don't just, you, it's like being in the middle of a fire.
You don't just say, oh wait, you got to check
which hose you're using to put water on the fire.
You just use as many buckets,
and as many hoses as you can to turn off the fire.
We didn't turn off the fire in this pandemic.
What we did is we delayed the fire,
we let it grow, bigger and bigger,
and then we pushed the vaccine.
That was the agenda, that was the narrative from the beginning.
Do not tell me any other way because
I stepped into it.
I wrote the protocols.
I did the clinical trials with on my money, on my time,
taking care of patients,
putting holters on them to monitor the hydroxychloroquine and ZPact.
When I saw there was no QT interval,
and there's a paper that showed that there was a problem
with a QT interval,
I asked myself, what's going on?
Why is the data that I'm supposed to trust
I can't even trust it because what I observed on the front line with my patients,
treating hundreds and putting halters on them, I didn't see any QT interval prolongation.
And Peter McCalla is my witness.
And my husband, the cardiologist that you all saw on the Michael Jackson Conrad Murray case,
also is my witness.
We did not see any QT interval or any problem with hydroxychloroquine and ZPAC.
anywhere.
So that was number one.
Okay.
Now,
you listen to those,
people have said,
well,
who do you listen to?
You listen to those
who achieve success.
I'm not going to go
to someone who has on their list
10 people that have died
on their shift.
I'm going to go to the guy
who has success. That's who you listen to. That's who the government should have paid attention to.
That's what we should have listened to. Courageous doctors that were brave enough to write drugs.
And these were not dangerous drugs. Biologics are way more dangerous than hydroxychloroquine and iburemectin.
So the fact that we stopped treatment, we made doctors fearful of giving a drug that we give for
millions of people with arthritis, or another drug we give for babies with scabies
And we were, we stopped them.
I couldn't even write a hydroxychloroquine for a homeless guy at CVS because they thought I wrote it for COVID.
When actually I wrote it for that guy for arthritis.
So till this day, I'm a GI doctor.
I have to go through like a huge list of why I'm giving Ibermectin.
My patients have parasites.
They're entitled to having Ivermectin.
So here is my, here are my questions.
300 clinical trials, hydroxychloroquine, fake paper in the Lancet, why was nothing done about it?
Why did the media not talk about the fact that it was a fake paper?
Why the fake news about the high QT interval when it wasn't?
Why were trials paid by Bill Gates when he had his own agenda of pushing the vaccine?
How was that even allowed?
What about the poor studies on the animals?
Why stop treatment off-label when you should be
pushing doctors to treat their patients.
It's a patient-doctor relationship.
Let doctors be doctors.
I'm just going to let-Li-1 more second.
Why 400 papers retracted?
Why were the doctors on the front line that were achieving treatment?
Why were they harassed, bullied, you know, trolls after trolls?
Anyways, I could go on and on, you know.
And then the last thing I'm going to say is,
why did we give vaccines to those people who were already,
who already had COVID?
That was the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Let me go to Liza.
Liza.
Can I make one point before because I don't have too much longer,
but I did watch our TV.
I will come to you, Heather.
Let me just let Liza, just to get a bit of balance.
And I'll let Liza respond, then I'll come to you
because I know you're going to hold the anti-Vax position.
Go ahead, Liza.
Okay.
not an anti-vax position though it's literally just making the points that rfk points
silly what do you hold on man man man you don't say that silly you don't just say
that you don't just put people in a bucket like this i know you're gonna make an anti-vax position
let me let me say what i know i know i know heather well as well as well
i'm not trying i'm not trying i'm good trying i'm good trying to have i'm good trying to
vaccinated. I got all the vaccines growing up as a kid. My mom brought me there. Lord knows what they're doing inside my body.
Heather, Heather, to be able to come up on staging. You've had the COVID vaccine, Heather. Let's go, let's go, Dr. Liza, I'll let you respond just to Sub B before going to Heather, just to, because there's a lot of points made there.
Yep. Like I said, once again, first, do no harm.
I don't have a problem with people using medications off label if those medications have a mechanism of action that appears to work.
And the risk benefit of those medications are worth it.
So for me, having taken care of patients with hydroxychloroquine overdoses,
I get nervous. I mean, everybody's talking about.
Oh, enough. Enough of the hydroxychloriclin.
Enough. I get. I get nervous. I've not seen one person blind.
How many patients have you taken care of with a hydroxychloroquine overdose?
You know why they don't have overdose because I know what dosage to give?
Why?
So they don't have an overdose if I know what to give.
And I've not seen one person.
Nobody's making this argument about chloroquine.
Nobody is making this argument about chloroquine and how chloroquine should be used off-label.
And hydroxychloroquine is the.
cousin of chloroquine. Why aren't they making this, this, this, this, this, this claim that
chloroquine is wonderful and it's being suppressed and stuff like that. Because the very first
people who were reported in the news media for chloroquine's benefit, which is theoretically the
same thing as hydroxychloroquine died.
Liza, the patient is dying.
Mario.
How many patients that were dying that you took care of?
Hold on. Hold on one minute, guys.
So, so.
No, this is an important question.
How many patients did you take care of that were dying?
Liza.
How many?
Yes.
How many doctors of your friends that were dying that you were taking care of?
I can send you all the stats of the patients that were in the at Wachute.
I've got those.
So can you, can you, how many of your colleagues have you tweeted?
Sabina, I'm just trying to get Dr. Liza.
Yeah, go ahead.
I really don't care if people give Ivermectin because Ivermectin,
has a side effect profile that is very benign.
I don't care.
If they want to give Ivermectin, if they think it works,
I mean,
people do homeopathy and take a whole bunch of vitamins
and do all sorts of stuff that has no randomized,
double-blind controlled 70,000 patient studies
that demonstrate efficacy and safety.
And I, so, so, so I'm here.
Can I please stop?
Yes, finish.
think if people want to take ivermectin off label fine i don't have a problem with it i don't have a problem
if they take vitamin d i don't have a problem if they take is itramycin i that that's fine take it we i i don't
care i don't think they particularly work i care i care about patients outcomes i want i want patients to
have the best outcome possible and if those patients think that these things work
Fine.
Your patient is dying.
Hydroxychloroquine in my mind has a toxicity profile that I am not okay saying,
okay.
Okay, your patient is dying.
So you basically let your patient die.
So let me just tell you this and I'm going to speak because this is very important for everybody to listen.
Okay.
I found COVID in the stools.
Do you know what is the one medication that kills COVID in the stools, Liza?
hydroxychloroquine.
So when your patient is dying, I'm not saying give it to everybody, to the young, et cetera, I agree with you.
And those, that population I would have given ivermectin doxycycline, and that's what I did.
However, in the patient that's dying with an oxygen of 60%, you want hydroxychloroquine in there first because that's what's going to kill the virus.
You know why?
Because the patient has zero bifidivoc bacteria.
And if he has zero bifidyl bacteria.
We need to kill the virus first.
We didn't say that hydroxy chloroquine is intensive care treatment.
We said hydroxy, this is the claim that hydroxychloroquine is early treatment.
And by the time you are in the intensive care unit with respiratory failure,
hydroxychloroquine is not the number one drug that you are going to be giving.
And if you can give a vaccine with a lower side effect profile.
If you can give a vaccine to people who are at risk with a lower side effect profile,
we're talking about treatment or vaccine here?
Wouldn't you do that?
Wouldn't you do that?
We're talking about treatment with a vaccine.
We're talking about patients dying.
The patient is dying.
I understand.
You have two days to resuscitate him.
I don't want patients to die either.
And I would not deny them.
How many have died on your shift?
By the way it sounds, a lot of people have died, or maybe you didn't do anything. But guess what? No one died on my ship. You know why? Because when my patients called, even with their oxygen saturations of 63%. The first thing I did is I gave them hydroxychloroquine on an empty stomach morning and night. The second thing I did, I gave them Z-pack at lunchtime. And then I gave them Ivermectin with a fat meal. And then I gave
and you had patients that were set.
And you know what?
No one died.
63%.
You're telling me that you had patients with
63% and
they were sitting at home and you didn't
sit the set the sent them.
They did not want to go to the hospital.
Oh, no.
So because they were going to die.
They didn't want to go to the hospital.
I have to respect my patients to go.
To sit at home.
That that's my patients.
They not want to go to the hospital.
Ladies.
I'm going to, listen.
This is embarrassing, ladies.
This is exactly what I was referencing earlier.
And I really don't want to be a part of this or associated with it.
Okay, then get all.
I'm going to.
Right, listen.
I'm just going to jump in.
Go ahead.
As the kind of senior doctor,
you have a lot of people who...
published extensively on hydroxychloroquine.
Treated patients have a tremendous clinical experience.
The doctors who found hydroxychloroquine safe and effective and did use it that way,
you know, they ultimately have the final say because they're the ones who made the call.
Dr. Hazen and separately Dr. Jackie Stone have successfully published that they treated hypoxemic
patients at home and save them.
That's in the peer-reviewed literature.
We always use drugs and combinations, not about a single drug.
It's drugs used in combination.
It starts with vibracidal nasal washes and sprays, and then the drugs in the sequenced approach.
And there's a variety of protocols that are very effective.
There are no large-scale technology.
definitive randomized trials.
To this date, there's still on,
more than 20,000 patients in a multi-drug trials.
So this is all about clinical judgment.
Let's move on.
So many people have been waiting, Heather and others,
I want to hear from some other people on the call.
All right. Thanks, Dr. McCullough. So I just want to, I just want to say that there are so many physicians on this call that could really give testimonial to what Dr. Sabine is saying. And so the physicians on here that have treated and saved lives with hydroxychloricloricin, ibupin, Dr. Hazen, Dr. Soap, Dr. McCull, Dr. Tyson, Dr. James, Dr. Lindley, Dr. Dr. Bowden, Dr. Cole, Dr. Triboney. They've all said that.
The safety is there, and they can attest to the, to the effectiveness.
Certainly, no side effect profiles that would have been worth the thousands of lives saved.
But moving on, so the point of the space is with regard to Joe Rogan and RFK, Dr. Hotez.
And what I want to say is that the broader topic,
that's such a hot topic is this broader vaccine debate,
not just the COVID vaccine debate,
but the broader vaccine debate.
And what I think,
needs to happen is for that debate to occur, whether or not it's between HOTES and RFK Jr.
Not the main question, but the main point is for that debate to happen.
And I think one of the reasons why so much money is being raised is because people are starving
for that debate.
And there's so much information that's been coming out that has, that has pointed to the
truth about the true pre-licensing clinical trials and the fact that none of them on
on the for the vaccines that are on the CDC schedule have been tested against a true placebo.
And so patients are realizing this and they want to know the truth.
And those that are skeptical and want better data, they get labeled in a derogatory manner.
They get called this derogatory term.
And then they get to and make sure.
They get told to trust the science,
which then turns into a religion,
and they're told to believe the science
and have faith in it.
They just want to talk about the data.
And then one of the things that I've heard on here that seems kind of disheartening is this discussion about whether or not the broader medical discussions if they should occur and whether or not they would do more harm than good.
That sounds like censorship.
That sounds like censorship.
And the discussions that need to happen in medicine need to be allowed.
I don't think that we should be...
deciding whether or not discussion is going to cause more harm than good.
The fact that discussion needs to happen is the only thing that needs to be asked.
I think that we should not be censoring.
We should not be saying and making that sort of paternalistic statement that,
oh, we can't be having these discussions because it's just going to cause vaccine hesitancy
or it's not even worth talking about because the science is already settled.
Right.
I'm glad to be able to have the discussions on here.
And I will agree with you, Heather, and I think that's what you just heard between me and Sabine.
Sabine and I actually have a friendly relationship, even though we've been arguing.
I wanted to go to first, I don't believe.
Can I piggyback off of what she said?
Because that was earlier was that the other point RFK made is that all the other vaccines
not just the COVID vaccines,
but all of the ones that are on that schedule that you give kids.
Like I had mine as a kid.
My mom brought me that there was a,
what he was saying,
like the same time frame years ago when those rolled out
was where we also saw an increase in autism,
which to Dr. McCullough's point,
Dr. Hotez,
in his interview with Rogan,
admit he has an autistic daughter.
And he was also pushing the vaccine.
It is kind of that could be like the hot button issue for him.
But the other thing that RFK mentioned was that he was actually tapped by Trump to go into a meeting with Dr. Fauci and other officials where he asked them, do you have these?
like placebo groups that any of these scheduled vaccines have been like tested where you have like
the vaccine group and the placebo group and Fauci like pretended to look through papers
couldn't find anything said he would send stuff to them but never did.
I mean that's important right there.
So does any of these doctors that are pros of a vaccine on here do you can you cite
any study whatsoever for all of these scheduled vaccines for kids that actually has like the placebo
portion of that study because I'm curious now because I got all of my vaccines as a kid and
it's just hearing this for the first time like I'm curious if anybody can cite those studies
So are you talking about placebo or are you talking about no treatment?
So there are like there are people who get the vaccine versus not.
Whereas drug trials, there are people who get a drug versus a drug versus a placebo.
Not not drugs, the schedules that are given to children.
So yes.
So yes, there are very strict regulations.
They're very strict regulations.
Can you cite the study?
There are.
Cite the studies.
Like, cite them.
Don't say they're there, but not.
So, yeah, the study about the study regarding mumps in the 60s was a randomized double-blind control study.
And it showed that mumps is prevented by this vaccine.
Polio in the 50s was prevented by this vaccine.
Like, who did these studies?
Can you cite them so I can go and...
Yeah, salk.
Yeah.
Studies.
Yeah, so the current vaccine-
And what a Nobel Prize for it?
None of them have been tested against a true placebo.
They've either been tested against a current...
True placebo.
So you're talking...
So no, no, no.
The difference...
You're talking about a true placebo, right?
So if you have a drug that's supposed to have an effect,
you need to test it against a placebo, which is a dummy drug.
Right.
if you have a vaccine that is really not supposed to have an effect, it's supposed to prevent a
disease. So you're trying to prove a negative. You're trying to, it's not a question. It's comparing
somebody who hasn't gotten the vaccine versus somebody who has gotten the vaccine.
Our safety and efficacy and you cannot.
prove safety unless you are testing each of those vaccines against a true placebo.
So you know what happens is if you've got no no no it's okay so the placebo is
saline and they got they've gotten saline that no none of the
They have they got saline no man not on the CDC schedule have been tested against a saline
placebo no ma'am yes ma'am they have no
Which one?
You cannot double blind.
You cannot blind researchers without giving in vaccine trials, without giving both people shots.
Let's say you've got you're comparing somebody who's vaccinated versus unvaccinated.
You cannot compare the two of them.
The research will know who got a shot and who didn't get a shot.
So placebo is a shot of saline versus a shot of vaccine.
Yes, ma'am.
That has not happened with these CDC vaccines.
That has not happened.
Please show me the data.
Okay, we'll get you the book.
We'll send it to you.
Please do.
Let's see it.
Just to jump in, the concern is,
that with contemporary vaccination, none of these things are immediate emergency. So let's take
infant hepatitis B vaccination among normal mothers, normal babies. There's not an imminent
risk there. And so, you know, a large prospective double-blind, randomized placebo control trial,
you know, should have been done. I'm talking about tens of thousands of
of children and you know there can be versus placebo and the hepatitis B vaccine can simply be
deferred for a later time like you know many of us have taken the hepatitis B vaccine you know
careful let me finish let me finish careful large scale clinical trials
with a placebo control for safety have not been sufficiently convincing, and they haven't been
done to convince us that we've got the safety profile characterized.
Unless you live in Asia where the majority of hepatitis B is vertical transmission.
And so if it's maternal fetal transmission, you really want to get that vaccine on board early.
So I don't think.
Right. So Asia is a different story. Asia is a different story. I'm talking about in America where our greatest concern would just be an active IV drug abuse woman with active hep B.
So active IV drug abuse is also going to be maternal transmission if you want to.
I know, I know, but what I'm saying is, what I'm saying is those people would be excluded from the trial.
All of us can conceive trials that would need to be done to, to give us robust safety information.
And what Heather's saying is that because since we don't have that, that's what's leading to great concern regarding these, you know, the childhood epidemics of these essence disorders.
Also, you know, asthma, allergic dermatitis.
And the other thing that's coming out is the evolving data of parents going natural,
having their kids take no vaccines.
and have those children actually have superior outcomes to those who take the full schedule.
I'm sorry.
I disagree with that.
When polio makes a comeback because it's making a comeback, we might have a little different discussion.
And once again, measles is not a benign disease.
There are lots of kids who get measles and become immunosuppressed from it and die.
And have long-term complication from the disease.
So I have to...
respectfully disagree with you on that.
And I'd also like to know, once again,
there are all sorts of alternative treatments
being promoted for COVID and a variety of other different diseases.
I would like to know that how those studies are
are conducted and if those studies are randomized double blind controlled studies for proving that that that demonstrate safety because i i'm not sure that
they're out there for the whole group of people that are are selling supplements to people either and guys um
First of all, we appreciate Dr. McCullough coming on stage and we're having a very lively debate.
This is what we wanted.
We want positions from both sides on the same stage, arguing in a respectful manner, something that's not been happening.
And so, guys, in the comments section, bottom right and side, I would love to hear your thoughts on this specific point that they're referring to.
Actually, two questions.
One is, is Joe Rogan Wright asking for a debate between a lawyer and a scientist? Should he be...
Should there be a debate between Hortez and Dr. McCullough instead?
Second question, what do you think about this debate in terms of the anti-vax pro-ax?
Do you think that, you know, I'd love to hear your thoughts on both of those things.
That would be brilliant.
Mario, we're going to jump in?
Can I ask one more question?
Yeah, go ahead, Heather.
Go ahead.
I want to know from everyone, both McCullough and from Lisa or whatever.
The other thing JFK brought up was that the time frame when vaccines were made immune from any sort of liability that they became basically like they could do know, like even if they rolled out.
all of these vaccines and caused all of this damage, there was no sort of personal accountability
because that liability protection was removed. So do you support that measure? Like,
would you support that liability protection being stripped from these vaccine manufacturers?
So what liability protection did they have? Can anyone explain to me? I'm curious.
And I'm going to go to you right after.
Go ahead, Peter.
Briefly, in 1986, there was a vaccine injury compensation act,
which gave broad liability protection to the vaccine manufacturers
and cases had gone on before that and through that,
even up to the Supreme Court.
And there were dissenting opinions at the Supreme Court on that legislation, particularly
a Sotomayor, who said that the legislation was taken, you know, it's the, what Congress wrote
and what actually became reality is not indeed what Congress wanted at the time.
But suffice it to say, there's broad liability protection for the vaccine manufacturers.
There is a government injury compensation fund, and that's where we are today.
And what's the, so obviously the downside of it is that, you know, it's more difficult to hold them accountable. And what's the upside? I'm sure there's an upside whether we agree with it or not. Is that just to allow them more flexibility to, I don't know, limiting their liability gives them the ability to innovate? What's the upside of that, Peter?
Well, you know, why as a lead company back in the day, you know, they felt they were going to potentially go bankrupt with all the liability claims being brought forward before 1986.
So the companies make the claim that they need some liability protection in the 1986 Act.
The term is used unavoidable harm.
that with the routine childhood vaccines, there is unavoidable harm
and because there is the company's need liability protection.
Aaron, I, hold on, I'm going to, actually, I love that you want to speak because I want to go to you.
About that Congress with the 1986 Act was supposed to be monitoring the safety.
There were multiple measures that were in place from that 1986 Act that have
all dropped away that had to do with accepting the ability to monitor that safety and bring
in a periodic review of that safety.
And we're not doing that.
We are doing post-marketing surveillance.
That's not true.
We're doing post-marketing surveillance.
Let me ask, Aaron, I have to admit, the reason I ask that question is to bait you to come up on stage and it worked.
So I'm really glad it worked.
So I'm going to introduce Aaron.
Aaron, Siri, he's a lawyer, you know, everything when it comes to to, you know,
mandating, you know, the civil rights involving mandate medicine,
and you've dealt with a lot of class action lawsuits.
So on that specific point, holding those pharmaceutical companies liable,
it's very easy to see the flaw in the protection that they have.
But what are the advantages of it?
Where is the line drawn?
When can we, can we not hold these pharmaceutical companies liable?
And can we hold them liable for anything that happened during COVID?
Good evening. Happy Father's Day to everybody.
So the ability to hold pharmaceutical companies to account for vaccine injuries is extremely limited.
And as Dr. McCuller correctly pointed out, that's because of a law that was passed by Congress in 1986 called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
The primary reason that law came into effect is that leading up to 1986, there were only three routine childhood vaccines at the time.
Two injected, one oral, the MMR, DTP that were injected, OPB that was orally administered.
And the amount of liability and injuries from those products...
resulted in all of the manufacturers either going bust or stopping to produce the vaccines
until there was only one manufacturer left for each of those three products.
In particular for the DTP vaccine, and this is actually a U.S. Supreme Court decision,
it was facing 200 times the liability from the injuries caused by the product and the litigations that were resulting
from then the revenue was bringing in.
And so Congress and its wisdom,
unlike every other consumer product virtually out there,
planes, buildings, drugs, you name it,
when a product is causing more harm than it is good
as measured in dollars, which is how we do it in the,
in the United States and other countries,
you force the company to make a better, safer product.
But instead, Congress decided to just eliminate effectively the liability that the vaccine manufacturers had for those products so that they can continue to sell them.
And the real issue was not only that they gave immunity to liability for the injuries for those three products at the time, they gave it prospectively.
They provided in the law, and anybody could look it up themselves.
For the lawyers on there, it's 42 U.S.C. 300AA-11, which meant that vaccine manufacturers
pharmaceutical companies were now effectively told, hey, look, you can go and make a new vaccine.
Most states will then go out and mandate it, so you have a guaranteed market.
You don't have to worry about liability because you're now immune from liability.
The federal government will also promote your product for free.
And so you created this a really great business model, right?
Captive market, no liability, free promotion and defense by the federal government with taxpayer dollars.
And so, you know, the explosion in the childhood vaccine schedule really came about from that.
And I don't think that, and to your question, what's the upside?
I really see almost none.
You know, we're talking about that's injections that are given into babies.
Of all the products in the market, of all the products in the market that you should be able to hold the manufacturers accountable, liable for the injuries they cause.
Injections given, which is now five to six infections at two months, four months, and six months each, that's not the place to give immunity liability.
We've seen exactly pharmaceutical companies operate.
You want them to be fully able to be held accountable because once you've eliminated the market forces, you've eliminated the primary tool we use in America and other countries to make products safe and safer.
Right.
Interesting.
Okay.
Can I ask you quick question?
Yeah, yeah, please.
Quick question.
So why don't you see the same litigation in any other country in the world
than the United States.
Because the United States has,
the answer to that question, most countries have the same immunity.
The answer to the question is that you have to have a scientific basis for your argument
to bring it to the, to bring it to court in a worldwide.
No, the answer to the question, it's a good point, but the answer to your question is that you can't sue in virtually any of the country.
It's actually, the success of the 86 Act has effectively been effective.
No, no, it's.
The American Trial Lawyers Association is able to bring things to court that other countries can't.
And that is not because of...
of, you know, the nefariousness of pharmaceutical companies who are trying to protect children from diseases and trying to solve problems.
That is because of the nuances of the American tort system.
I mean, Johnson and Johnson just lost a $4.7 billion lawsuit.
over whether or not baby powder causes ovarian cancer.
There is no association between baby powder and that is science-free litigation.
Lisa is correct.
I mean, we have a broken, and Aaron isn't, I mean, I would like Aaron to, I mean, my question, Aaron is, do you think that the,
litigation system, the medical litigation system we have, works well in terms of assigning cause.
I mean, I think we have a really big problem in the United States. And most doctors, you know,
who practice are well aware of the fact that, you know, you present a case to a jury of your peers.
And the jury hears two sides, two experts battling and...
You have folks that are, you know, you have pharmaceutical companies or other companies or
physicians or whatnot that get these massive, massive settlements.
And the problem is that it's very hard to ensure, you know, so we have these huge medical
malpractice premiums that doctors pay in order to have multiple funds in order to, you know,
be able to continue practicing.
And the problem in the vaccine world is that, you know, you're giving vaccines to 25, you know,
all 25 million, five to 17-year-olds.
How do you insure against that?
But my point to Lisa is that, so I mean, I have a problem with how medical litigation and that process works.
But my other problem, my question of Lisa, is that Lisa, you would agree that the vaccine compensation.
So the compromise that was made in 1986 was that, okay, they're going to have protection so that we can get protection from the broken malpractice system that we have.
But we're going to have a vaccine compensation fund so that if some people are injured...
we are going to compensate them, right?
But that compensation fund is completely utterly broken.
That social contract that said,
okay, we're going to give everyone the vaccine.
You're going to do this because there's going to be a net positive effect to society.
But you know what?
When you're doing that, you're going to have people that are injured, right?
When you're doing this net, net utilitarian ethics thing.
But we have a vaccine compensation fund to help you.
Our vaccine compensation fund is completely broken, at least when it comes to COVID for sure.
Right.
In South Korea has the same, has a similar thing where you have a compensation fund.
They have they have given out 22,000 payments.
for the COVID vaccine.
Let me respond to you.
I can respond to your first comments if you'd like.
The United States has the vaccine compensation fund apparently has paid out for four, the number four.
So we have a broken, we have a broken.
So the problem is twofold.
We have a broken litigation malpractice situation, which results in these ridiculous awards for things that are.
correlated and then we also have a broken compensation fund so in the end
citizens end up getting screwed I think well I I don't disagree that there is I don't
disagree that there's a that the justice system quote-unquote is isn't
perfect oh to be sure it's not perfect but here's the problem with letting
pharmaceutical companies who are very smart
and very successful and they're doing what's supposed to.
There's nothing nefarious.
I heard somebody saying nefarious.
Something nefarious about pharmaceutical companies making products and selling them and making
lots of money.
That's what they're there to do.
They're publicly traded companies.
They're supposed to make money for their shareholders.
That is the capitalist system.
The way though we assure products are safe, right, that we incentivize the companies to self-regulate
safety by assuring that their bottom line hurts.
Right.
if the product that they put out on the market causes harm.
Let's look at the five.
There's a website that has what it claims are the five biggest selling Pfizer products in the history of the company.
Four of those are drugs.
One is a vaccine.
If you pull up the package insert and you look at section 6.1 and you look at the clinical trials for those products,
you will find that the pre-licentral clinical trial for the four drugs were years, typically,
and all had a placebo control group.
When you pull up the package insert for the one vaccine on that list, it's far less than a year,
and it was tested against another actual vaccine, which that vaccine also wasn't tested against
a placebo control.
It was...
Clinical trial actually had a different experimental vaccine that was the control.
I can't even begin to understand doing that, but there it is in the documents in black and white can see for yourself.
Why would Pfizer do that?
The reason Pfizer would do that, and I'll finish my point, I'll finish my point.
I'm just trying to clarify.
Are you talking about the MRNA vaccine?
No, that's not what it's top five sellers, according to the site.
It was the, it was Prevon.
It was Prevon 13, which was tested against Prevonov.
Prevonov 13, which was tested against Prevonovic.
against another experimental vaccine.
But here's the question, which is,
why would Pfizer do that?
It's nonsensical.
The reason they would do it,
and the reason it does make sense,
is that with drug products,
they actually have an incentive to know, truly know.
What is the actual safety profile
before they go and unleash it on the market?
Because if they do, and it causes widespread harm,
They're liable. They have to pay for those damages. But with the vaccine products, their business motive is to get it on the market as quickly as possible. They don't have a financial incentive to assure safety. I'm not saying that's nefarious or anything. This is just good business. Okay. They take the shortest regulatory route to licensure they can to get their products to market. And that's what they did.
what they do with vaccines.
When you look at most childhood vaccines,
hepatitis B,
there's only two Hep B vaccines on the market
that are given to newborns.
Recomavx, HB and EnderxB.
They each had five or four,
Recomovacs had five,
and four days, days of safety monitoring
after injection in a clinical trial
relied upon to license those products
given to children.
That's again, you can go to the FDA website, go pull up the package insert section 6.1.
Those numbers seem so incredible.
We actually submitted Freedom Information Act requests to the FDA.
We have copies of the actual clinical trial reports themselves.
They're all on a website.
ICandecide.org.
You can go and read the reports yourself.
It seems incredible, but when you understand the lack of incentive to assure safety beforehand,
and then after they're licensed, there's really a lot.
There's really no incentive.
I mean, the FDA, please.
Yeah, I guess those are good points, but I mean, I don't understand when it comes to the COVID vaccine.
I mean, normally the FDA is actually has a lot of different steps to try to, you know,
evaluate safety.
For instance, the smallpox vaccines,
if you look at their attempt to safety,
and what happened,
you know,
the post,
so the smallpox vaccine that was given out
after the whole Gulf War,
Saddam Hussein.
So the smallpox,
the smallpox vaccine, sorry,
had ended that,
and nobody was bringing back.
Wasn't that anthrax?
No, no, no, smallpox.
It was smallpox.
So there was this concern
that Saddam Hussein had smallpox vaccine or so.
1991, suddenly the smallpox vaccine was reborn and we started giving it out to first responders
and our military personnel, right? And it turned out that that smallpox disease causes
myocarditis. Smallpox vaccine was ultimately pulled and now the FDA then mandated certain
trials were done looking for subclinical myocarditis. I mean, if you read the story of that,
it's pretty obvious that the FDA has a bunch of regulatory steps.
that activates, even if you find things on the post-marketing side,
for some reason, I don't quite understand why the FDA has kind of not been as active
on the safety side when it comes to COVID.
I don't know.
I'm going to have to, listen, I, on the smallpox vaccine, there's, you know,
my firm does, we've got nine people at my firm, including three medical professionals
who are full-time at our firm who just have action injury work.
You know, we get calls all the time from parents who say, hey, my child got X vaccine, had this issue.
Where do we start?
We start in the clinical trials.
Why?
Because that's where you can show causation, right?
When you've got an exposed, unexposed group for it's properly powered for a long enough duration, that's the data you want to look at.
That's the best data to show causation.
That's the reason I even know all the clinical trial reports, but they're almost all useless for evaluating safety.
You know, so A. P.R. I just have to really push back on the FDA's commitment to safety when it comes to assuring safety prehand.
They're very focused on efficacy to be sure.
And they do a lot of their work on the efficacy side.
But in particular, you know, phase three trials are designed around efficacy.
The powering is not.
designed around and you can just read the FDA's own literature on this.
They are focused on efficacy.
If it's properly powered to hit efficacy, that's kind of where they typically stop.
They don't keep going in terms of all those things.
Look, I'll just say this too.
So I'll bring it back to RFK and when I instit the topic to be.
Yeah.
everybody should be free to get, you know, and as many vaccines they want.
You know, if they want to get, you know, all five boosters of COVID and wear 15 masks and live in their basement forever, that's freedom.
They should be free to do that.
I think the problem here, and the reason that, frankly, Peter Hotez should go and debate Mr. Kennedy is because...
vaccines are not like every other product because they're mandated.
So once you've mandated them and you've mandated them based on the argument that they're safe and effective,
the question of whether they're safe and effective is no longer just a medical question.
It is a civil and individual rights question.
Peter Hotes is on record, pushing, promoting mandates.
Right.
And so Peter Hotez has not only gone beyond just the medical question of these products, he has directly gone into the realm of using the claim they're safe and effective to push for mandates.
Bobby, Mr. Kennedy, is exactly the person he should be debating.
Right.
on that issue because it's a mixed question of medicine as well as individual and civil rights.
And whether they are safe and effective is not a question merely for, you know, it's a question for everybody who has their rights implicated by this.
Two questions for Lisa. Lisa, do you think the vaccine compensation fund is broken given the fact
there have only been four payments made in the United States and the vaccines have been out for two and a half years?
South Korea, again, 22,000 payments. And then second, is there anything given what we've found out?
Is there anything you would do different in terms of trials in terms of the COVID vaccines if you had to go back and do it over?
Would you design larger trials? What would you do or would you leave it just the same?
So I think that these were the largest vaccine trials that two date, you know, 70,000 people.
A lot smaller than polio vaccine.
So, but no, in a very short time in the middle of a pandemic.
So you had a whole bunch of volunteers who were interested in participating with a disease that was widely prevalent,
as opposed to things like moms or polio or things like that where you had to wait for people to come down with the disease,
which stretched the trials out by a longer time.
So I think that I think the trials were well designed.
I think that the trials were demonstrated efficacy.
And I think that they demonstrated safety as well.
I think that they prevented people from dying of a horrific disease.
Now, mandates, lockdowns, masks, all that.
Lisa, they didn't catch.
Completely different.
They weren't large enough to catch a 1 in 5,000 rate of myocarditis or 1 in 12,000 rate of myocarditis in young teens.
Of course not.
Of course not, but that's what post-marketing surveillance is about, and that's what happened.
They actually picked up the myocarditis part.
So it demonstrates that those things are functioning.
Israel picked up mycarditis.
The question is, the question is, do you want pharmaceutical companies
to make vaccines.
The question is, do you want pharmaceutical companies to make drugs?
Because if you hold them liable to the extent that they go bankrupt,
that you will not have pharmaceutical companies
making vaccines or drugs or anything else.
And then you are, as individual citizens,
completely subject to the whims
of charlatans selling their supplements.
So you decide.
Drugs have liability for you can sue manufacturers of drugs, and yet there are drugs on the market.
And yet there are drugs in the market.
You know what's great about that?
The drugs that are harmful come off the market and new drugs take their place.
And that's what should happen with vaccines, but it's never going to happen.
So robust.
The FDA is so robust that they prevented...
solidimide from coming onto the market in the first place.
That's how good the regulatory system is in the United States.
Our regulatory system is held up as a model for the rest of the world.
And that's what's scary.
On the other hand is not.
Liza, just one quick question here.
I was just looking at the numbers of Pfizer.
It's my, I had no idea they're that big.
Like I was thinking earlier, everyone's talking about farmer, farmer, farmer.
Look at tech, look at all the other industry, look at all companies.
And look at Pfizer's profit.
It was modest.
In 2016, it was 10 billion, 10.8.
2017, 12, then 13, then 14.
And then 2020, 28 billion.
2021, 66 billion, and now 66 again.
It's exactly the same profit 21, 22.
So you can see profit tripled due to COVID, quadripled, actually,
even more if you go back four years, five years.
Okay.
I think the profit margins allow them to be able to deal with that liability protection.
What do you think?
I agree with you.
I think that the profit margins allow them the wiggle room to do that.
Now, look, Mario, at the hospital profits over the past...
three years and and and insurance profits and this is once again a unique feature of the
American medical system the America there's no place in the world like the United States when
it comes to litigation and profit on insurance and profit on on on in terms of that's true very
litigious country I agree right then but the country functions pretty well in other industries
without such protections
No other consumer product has this kind of protection.
I do feel like we are, and I think that doctors on this space can attest to the fact that you can have absolutely science-free litigation.
I'll dispute that.
Who's saying that?
You can't have science-free litigation.
You can absolutely have science-free litigation.
So...
Yes, Amish and I disagree with a lot of stuff, but I think you and I are on the same page in this.
If you are a doctor, you can be, there are these claims that can be made about your particular practice and what you did.
I mean, Zarelto, which is a bloodthener for atrial fibrillation, which prevents stroke, right?
you know, fairly large trials ever done, you know, it causes bleeding.
I mean, I mean, Zerlto, because it, if there could, but, but again, if there could be
completely science for litigation, I'll just put there, there are, there are innumerable
drugs in the market.
There are only a few multi-district litigations of a few drugs at a time.
There are typically, you know, a very small percentage of drugs are typically under, you know, essentially an MDL at any given moment, you know, in any year.
So most drugs are not, most drugs are not being litigated for injuries.
Wait, so just one second.
An MDL is different than a class action lawsuit, right?
So with drugs at least, you can get, you can, you can see that a prescription was written, right?
And MDL is going to be like, oh, I went into the store and bought.
Well, you can't really bring a class action for, you can't bring a class action for drugs typically because the damages or injuries typically vary, which is why they consolidate them into a multi-district litigation.
I don't know.
This is probably getting too nuanced from those folks, but you typically don't bring a class.
The MDL is effectively what I think most people think of as a class action when it comes to drugs.
Class actions are really where everybody that's harm has pretty much the same injuries.
So you can bring a class action with drugs often.
You typically, but not always, you typically proceed under MDL because of the variability of injuries and so forth.
So I don't know.
We might be saying the same thing as all I'm saying.
Mark,
Marcia Angel, who was the editor of the New England Journal of Madison, wrote an article that was fascinating in 1998 that I would suggest you all read.
And I will try to actually put it up on a nest.
She talked about how science is actually manipulated by people who have a financial motivation.
And what she was specifically talking about in that article was the breast implant litigation.
So in the 90s, there were allegations that there was an association between silicone breast implants and
autoimmune disease like lupus, right?
And that was absolutely science-free.
And that led to companies not making, well, first of all, Dow Corning went bankrupt over that litigation.
And then that litigation went up to Dow itself, the overseeing, the overcompany.
And then companies that were making life-saving,
devices for children with hydrocephalists, water on their brain that makes their brains well.
They were not able to get shunts because of this litigation, because there was a concern that they would.
And once again, this is a unique feature.
of the American tort system.
This is why you don't see this litigation around the world,
because you have to have a scientific basis for your claim.
I will agree with you wholeheartedly that financial motives do result in the corruption of science
and what could be a greater financial cent than what I said earlier,
the ability to get a liability-free,
mandatory product on the market.
Those are billions of dollars of guaranteed revenue every single year that are there and in fact have the exact corrupting influence that you are talking about from within, not from without.
One other point, just as something I was said earlier, is, you know, in terms of the size of the trials, yes, Jonas, the trials of the Salk vaccine back in the 50s did involve millions of people.
Though if you get the book on the Salk trials, and I thought somebody said they were going to send it to somebody else on this call.
I have that book, actually.
What's interesting about those trials, by the way,
is that they didn't actually assess safety
in the millions of people that participated.
It was efficacy.
There was a small, very smaller group
out of the million or so people in the trial
that they assess safety,
and you can read, there's a chapter on it in the book
that actually compiled all of the Salk trials.
But putting the Salk trial, and by the way,
the Salk vaccine is not the current inactivated polio vaccine.
Sinoffi reformulated it.
There's a different, they don't just do it on monkey kidney cells.
It's a effectively, completely different product
that was licensed by Sinoffi.
So you can't really even say the current Sinoffi IPV
inactivated polio vaccine using that in state since 2000
is the Salk vaccine.
So putting the Salk trial aside,
Other than that, the COVID vaccine trial was longer in safety profile to comparatively, to virtually more powered than pretty much all the other vaccines out there, especially childhood vaccines.
And so if anybody's concerned about the clinical trials for the COVID vaccines, I mean, you'd have a lot of concern about pretty much the clinical trial for any other childhood vaccine.
It's not a question of how long it takes to come up with the science needed for the particular technology for that vaccine.
It's about how long and how robust the study was when it was used in human beings.
And that's the, you know, I think what you want to focus on when you're trying to assess whether you want to engage in a particular product or not.
There are 650,000 children.
That's so poorly a vaccine.
Anish, one second, I'll come here.
Let me just go to Theresa and Todd, who basically had the hand up for a significant amount of time.
But we had really strong personalities on stage, so they're not had a chance.
Teresa, go ahead, and then I want to go to Todd, if that's all right.
Go ahead.
All right.
Thank you very much.
My name is Dr. Feldman, Teresa.
I trained in Houston at UT, so I wasn't at Baylor.
So I'm an internist and a PEA.
pediatrician, so I do adults and pediatrics.
So I finished my residency in the late 1990s.
And that's towards the end of my residency
is when I started to see vaccine resistance
among parents.
But that's also when I started to see kids admitted
to ICU's being on a ventilator
for completely preventable diseases.
So that's number one.
Number two, I think as doctors, we don't discuss just immunizations in general.
How do, not COVID specifically, but what are immunizations?
What is the goal?
How does it help the body?
Because at the beginning of COVID, there was always a lot of the, I want my own natural immune system to respond.
And they don't really, we don't explain to patients that even though you're immunized, it's your immune system that's responding.
It's responding faster and quicker.
We also don't couch the patient's expectations.
Get a flu shot, you won't get flu.
That's not true.
you can still get the flu.
There's only four variants that influenza shot covers,
but there are other flu variants.
So if you get exposed to that one,
flu shot's not going to help you.
So I think expectations, especially with COVID,
were sort of failing on medicine's part to explain
or help understand the expectations.
Right.
And I know immunizations are not 100%.
I do practice medicine on benefits versus risk.
And although we make general recommendations like this group of patients should get a shingles vaccine or a pneumonia vaccine,
you then have to tailor it to the patient.
So you have to individualize it.
I always give an example as well that my friend immunized for influenza.
She's an RN.
She had influenza and died several years ago before COVID.
So it didn't help her, unfortunately, but it didn't harm her.
So you have to put things into perspective.
My last thing is I've heard people talking about doctors using anecdotal information for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, but at the same time, they say, yes, but, you know, there really wasn't a placebo-controlled trial, so I doubt that data.
Medicine is, there's subtlety, there's nuances.
And even when you have, as you have seen on this, you know, this panel, you know, this panel,
Even doctors do not agree and take different stances.
So Dr. Hottes discussing something with Mr. Kennedy is not going to do anyone any favors.
Yes, we should have these discussions.
But to say, giving hydroxychloroquine and isythromycin is what helped a patient through COVID,
when their oxygen level is 63% is BS.
You have to get someone oxygen.
They are not going to live long with an oxygen level at 63%.
Zithromycin doesn't treat viruses.
It treats bacteria.
When you have a virus such as COVID, you can get a bacterial infection.
So those are the subtleties I'm talking about.
So, you know, people going to these streams, yes, you have to get a COVID vaccine and there 100% and da-da-da-da-da.
And people who are like, well, take hydroxychloroquine.
And I find that a lot of physicians who have pushed not getting vaccines and to use ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine,
And you have sites that people can go to for virtual visits where histories aren't really well taken,
and they are prescribed these medications for fees.
So if you're going to talk about fees and who's making money,
I think you have to consider that as well.
So I'm a middle-brown person.
Okay.
Let me just, just, Jill, go.
Yeah, let me just respond to us, Dr. Peter McCullough.
When we published our papers, our prospective, you know, our protocols and our prospective
comparative data, analyzing the randomized data that emerged, we relied on the principles
that, you know, at the time where there's no vaccine, and we're looking for signals of benefit,
well-characterized safety.
And then making our careful observations and found success over time.
The two papers I cited Hazen and the one from South Africa about hypoxemic patients at home.
They were given oxygen at home to clarify.
But signals of benefit, well-characterized safety with known drugs.
was the best we could do as we were attempting to save lives.
We had one doctor on who's treated many thousands of patients.
Medicine is both in our art and science.
There are no large prospective, double-blind, randomized, multi-drug trials.
in the acute treatment of COVID-19 as outpatients, designed to reduce hospitalization and death.
They simply don't exist.
What we were astonished with is the large numbers of deaths that were reported nearly immediately after taking the vaccine,
including the 1,223 deaths with the Pfizer product, the paper by McLaughlin.
in April of 2021, where they adjudicated all the deaths and the vignettes,
and they find nursing home patients dying within a few hours of taking the vaccine.
And as things have mounted, the death toll has mounted.
That's what's created all the tension regarding the COVID-19 vaccine.
We just simply can't have a public health situation where the intervention is resulting
in a near immediate death or deathless day.
So, Peter, are you saying that elderly patients with...
who are at risk of COVID should not be getting the vaccine.
Is that what you're saying?
No, I'm just simply reporting the McLaughlin analysis that, you know, very early on basically reported
that patients were dying nearly immediately after taking the vaccine.
My experience, Peter.
Let me just finish.
Let me finish.
Let me finish it.
The adjudication of that.
When they asked the question, is there any other ready cause?
The answer was 86% of time.
There's no other cause outside the vaccine.
While we had data coming in from Tyson and from many others,
demonstrating successful treatment of even the most elderly and frail patients in nursing homes.
Okay.
So is your recommendation, again, is your recommendation that
elderly patients not get vaccinated against COVID. Is that your recommendation?
Let me be very clear. Let me be very clear. Elderly patients are under my direct care as a doctor.
I am immediately responsible for them. And I can tell you, on December 7th, 2022, I called on the floor of the U.S. Senate to remove all the COVID-19 vaccines off the market, all of them.
And I'm very unlikely to reverse that stance.
And that's based on the totality of data.
With the current variance and where we are, it's a very readily treatable illness.
We've gained great expertise in treating it.
I'll let Dr. Tyson pick up.
Thank you, Peter.
So let me shed light to a little bit of what's going on.
There clearly are three main variants of COVID-19.
There's the alpha variant, the delta variant.
Both of those were extremely deadly.
The vaccine from Pfizer had protection against the alpha and delta variant in the very beginning.
So those who got one vaccine did very well.
At this point in time, what we are seeing in clinic, okay, and this is real life experience.
And let me tell you, I mean, we see three to five thousand patients a month in my clinic.
Those with serious COVID disease illness at this point in time, at this point in time, not before, but at this point in time, have had at least three COVID vaccines.
That is the problem.
The disease has progressed to outweigh the risks and benefits for the benefits of this vaccine.
And yes, I will go on record to tell you that this vaccine is no longer appropriate for anyone at any age.
Let me go to Todd. Go ahead, Todd.
Oh, thank you. Yeah, I just want to say three points.
I've been having my hands up for a couple of hours, and I don't even do that many push-ups.
So I'm really appreciative for let me speak.
I would just like to say that three things really quick.
I'll be quick because I'm sure that I'll be interrupted by somebody.
But I just want to say...
that as far as the topic, original topic,
Rogan, you know, RFK and Hotez,
my thing is, if it were me and I had written six books
and I was labeled as the expert,
for the vaccine. And I, you know, I wouldn't be afraid of anybody. And especially if, okay,
600,000, 100,000, whatever, given to charity of choice, you know, because, I mean, you think
about it, we got Aaron here. We're doctors and lawyers. We're debating and communicating and
other things. And we're doing fairly well. So I don't see why the lead expert with the vaccine
pro-vaccine stance could not have an argument or discussion or healthy discussion with
RFK. Dr. McCullough would do an excellent job. I'm friends with, I know, I had dinner with him
in Tallahassee. I appreciate him being up there. Second thing really quick is the other thing
that Mario mentioned earlier about what happened. What, where did the, why did the tide turn a little
bit? That was one of the original things from two hours ago that I had my hand up. I,
I'm glad I remember what I'm going to say,
but it had to do with trust.
And I think the,
the,
you know, we say we need to trust the experts, listen to the experts, listen to all of these people that are, uh, uh, that have the majority of studies and all of this other stuff. That's fine. Well, I've, I've trickled down. If we trickle down a little bit to the, you know, we mentioned frontline doctors. Well, what all does that mean? Well, it means, for instance, I'm a rural physician. I, I treat, I've treated, uh, several, uh,
you know, I've treated not as many as 10,000 with Brian, but I've, I've treated hundreds of patients with COVID.
And I think when you, when you have looked from a global perspective and you see what, what these experts are doing, I mean, you've got a University of Pennsylvania, a professor, uh, having sex with a dog, you've got, um, uh,
several people that are basically saying that, hey, Lancet study, oh, it was retracted, so therefore
it's not important anymore. Hey, there was no QT interval issues. That article was retracted.
However, we get letters from pharmacy to pharmacists. We get letters to physicians. We get letters
all over the place scaring the hell out of us, saying that,
you cannot, you will not be writing hydroxychloroquine, even though that study was from Lancet, triggered it all, triggered all of the fears.
We give out hydroxychloroquine like candy to all of the military.
We say, here, put it in your pocket, take off, go and fight your war.
Well, you know...
Hydroxychloroquine I've written it for 30 years.
I never saw one.
I sent people to the ophthalmologist.
I sent them every six months like I was told to do.
And no one saw any eye abnormalities if you're giving it as prescribed.
That's the only other thing I would like to say with that.
And the third and last thing, when it goes back to the trust issue,
You know, there's reason why, and that's because we as the experts, we as the doctorate degrees, we as the MDs.
You know, I heard a surgeon mentioned earlier that, you know, all these Google WebMD moms and all of this other stuff.
Well, measles is very important, but so is autism.
So if somebody would give another reason as to what is causing the rapid increase in autism or all of these, I'm not, I'm not saying that it's vaccines. Let's don't even go there. But let's have a discussion as to what is causing it to go from one out of 10,000 kids to one out of 20 out of 25 by the 2030 or 2050, whatever they're saying. I mean, we need to have.
this discussion. We need to have discussions like this. And I think it's very important for us to do that
because it's not just autism. It's other things. When I was a medical student, most medical
students in the school that I was at and several others, because I talked to others throughout the
state of Georgia, they were not taught one thing about a vaccine. They weren't taught anything about
vaccines except the vaccine schedule.
and when you get this and when you get that by the age of 18.
Well, you know, that's a problem.
If you are the physician...
If you are the ones that is handing out these vaccines like candy, we should know ingredients.
We should know what are the possible side effects, reactions.
We should know these things.
Not just somebody working for a drug company.
I mean, or not somebody just giving shots at McDonald's.
We should be the ones that have that knowledge.
And I think-
So I agree with you, Todd.
Can you tell me, I agree with you 100%.
We really should know about pharmaceuticals.
And so why have medical schools put pharmacology completely on the back burner?
I mean, Washu has a six-week pharmacology course, and that is it.
And other medical schools don't use pharmacology at all.
And that's the problem.
Not just pharmacology, but I'm talking about vaccine. Let's talk about vaccine. I mean, and
Vaxia, this has been the Liza show. Please don't interrupt me because I've had my hand up for two hours, okay?
So, so after this, you can speak for another 30 minutes. My whole thing is I just want to get that out that...
The common people, the people do not trust us because we've been talking out of both sides of our mouth.
When you have somebody, the pediatrician that just hopped on and said, hey, I do peds and somebody didn't get the vaccine and all these kids are dying because they didn't get it and all of this other stuff.
Well, I had people die within two days of getting a vaccine.
So that has to be investigated.
This is a crutch for us just to say,
hey, if we don't do this, if we don't do that,
people are going to die.
Well, the common people that go to my church,
that work near my business,
that go here and there,
when they're coming to me,
as a local rural physician, and they are saying that they had a, their father, their father-in-law got one Moderna shot and then ended up having ALS symptoms for the next two years.
There's a problem.
And we cannot discuss it because the woman that was just here earlier was.
She's having her license threatened because she spoke about Ivermectin.
I mean, this is, you know, it really is, I don't know a better word to say, but bullshit.
I mean, I'm sorry, but we've got to, we've got to be able to speak on both sides without a threat of losing our license, of
Of I had the Georgia State, I had the medical board come to my office.
So, if you just want to summarize your point in 15 seconds,
and I'll pass it over to Liz's right.
Two hours, so I just, I'm trying to get out.
You know you're okay to jump in any time.
It's just like long monologues.
People, it's fine.
Go ahead, touch.
Real quick.
I had the medical board come to my office.
They were saying, are you prescribing Ivermectin?
I said, yes, I am, and I prescribed it for 30 years, whether somebody had worms in their poop
or whether they need early treatment for something.
I'm the physician.
Let me practice the art of medicine.
That's all I have to say.
Thank you.
Go ahead, Liza.
I agree with you, Todd.
I think you should be able to practice the art of medicine.
Okay, let me go to Dr. Molly James.
Thanks to coming on the stage, and then I'll go to Dr. Sabine as well.
Go ahead, Dr. Molly.
Yeah, hi there.
Thanks for giving me the stage.
So everybody in this debate makes a choice if they're going to be private or public.
And Dr. Hotez has made the option to be very public and very vocal in his criticism of people
and stating that he is against fighting misinformation and calling people who disagree with him, labeling them and labeling them anti-vax.
And so now that he has the opportunity to debate with somebody, he's called anti-vax.
To clear up the misinformation, he has an obligation to do that.
So there are all kinds of people saying he shouldn't stoop to that level and this isn't a doctor.
That's nonsense.
This person was within the realm that he could criticize him before this.
And if you listen to RFK, one of his specific criticisms of Dr. Hotez is he wrote a book about his daughter, God bless them all, that his daughter is autistic.
And he speaks as a vaccine expert, but he writes as a father.
And that is very misleading when you write a book that you don't cite scientific evidence, but you speak from the position of an expert.
And I think that is where a lot of the issue will take place.
And go ahead, Dr. Sabine.
I just want to re-alliterate something that was said, the right, that it's true that patients do not trust us.
And I see it. I see it in Malibu. I see it in my practice. I saw it when patients didn't want to go to the hospital.
That's something we need to be sensitive about and we need to bring them back to trust us again because we are the ones taking care of them.
I just want to tell a quick story.
I had a Jehovah's Witness about 30 years ago that I watched die.
He was 13 years old, and I watched him die, and he dropped his hemoglobin to 3.
This was very traumatic for me as a physician, obviously, as you can all imagine.
But I respected that patient because he had his choice.
It was his freedom of choice.
I discovered then freedom of choice.
And I think we forget freedom of choice for patients.
We didn't respect the freedom of choice.
of patients with this pandemic.
If they didn't want to be vaccinated
because they were afraid of the vaccine
because it was too fast researched
or because of the religion
or because they had COVID,
we should have respected that.
And I think that's what lost us our trust.
Right.
And at the end of the day, whoever spoke about, you know, the kid that dies because they didn't get the vaccine, well, you know, it's the patient's choice and it's the parents.
And it's probably because we're not doing a good job ourselves at educating the patients and going over the risk versus benefits.
I did a clinical trial for C-DIF for Sanofi Pasteur.
It took 10 years of my life and the trial failed.
Okay.
So for this vaccine to just come out in eight months and mandate for everyone to use it.
you know, it brought me to, you know, ask questions.
And last time, I'm going to ask one question to Aaron.
Aaron, do you think there will, is he still on?
No, it seems to have.
He's still on or he left?
No, no, he's left.
Okay, then never mind.
I'll ask him privately.
Yeah, so, guys, I do believe that Dr. Malone is also going to be joining us.
So we'll have Dr. Malone and Dr. McCorme.
Dr. McCuller on the stage.
So that's going to be huge because obviously we know there are antivacs.
So that's, we'll watch out for that.
But while he's coming along, guys, comments on the walk.
I'm going to have to drop out.
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to drop out.
It's a good time, Peter.
Yeah, of course.
It's a pleasure to have you and we'll be having Dr. Malone.
Thanks, Peter.
All right.
And surely, you got to stop, number one, I like how you just can't pronounce Dr. McCullough's name.
It's embarrassing.
And number two, you've got to stop saying anti-vax and pro-vax.
It's just simplifying such a complex...
No, when people...
Listen, Mario, Mario, when you say anti-vax, people understand that you mean specifically, generally speaking, for most people...
everyone in me let's see let's see okay so everyone in the in the in the in the audience let us know
in the comments on the bottom right corner is it fair to just label people anti-vax and pro-vax
because there's some people that are anti-vax across the ball don't there's people that are
anti-vax across the ball what if someone who's anti-vax but not for kids but certain vaccines
yes certain vaccines no depending on various factors what do you label them
And just for the people, in the context of the COVID-19 debate,
when one says anti-vax,
do you understand it to mean that they're against what happened in relation to specifically
the COVID vaccine?
Put it in your comments.
But I'm right on the side.
Let's see who is right.
Sorry, Ma'am, you're going to go to somebody, I shall I?
You can go to somebody, bro.
Okay, cool.
I thought you want to.
I'm just inviting Dr. Moulon.
Robert Moulon.
You want to come back, you see.
No problem.
Let's go to Ganesh.
how about pronounce that right yeah yeah that's right sir lemon hello guys i am an md in uh jerky and
i heard that's like we're at dr ganache dr ganache i was actually stuck in turkey during
covid i was in yeah yeah look it's funny story so i i i'm a dancer as a hobby so i travel
the world dancing i'll give you the mic don't worry it's a it's a good story i never told you
this silly so i was a i still am a dancer but i haven't danced in eight months because of this show
And I used to travel the world dancing and I go to festival so I get invited as an artist.
And I went to a large festival in Turkey called Istanbul Dance Festival in Istanbul.
And I've been everywhere in Turkey.
I've been to Istanbul.
I've been to Ankara.
I've been to Izmir.
The list goes on seven, eight cities.
Anyway, so I was in Istanbul.
And COVID here and all the festivals were closing,
but that one was not closing until the end.
Then a day before, the whole world is freaking out,
lockdowns are starting to kick in.
But do you remember Ganesh, how you guys in Istanbul,
like, we're safe, there's no COVID here,
we're one of the few cities that are still safe,
one of the few countries that are still safe.
It's so funny.
The entire world said they have COVID.
COVID is spread into their territory,
except like North Korea.
Obviously he's making it up.
And a couple of other countries that no one knows.
and Turkey, probably the only large country still said.
Everyone was saying, Mario, this is bullshit.
I'm sure COVID is here, but the government is trying to hide it so the people don't freak out.
And I was happy to stay in Istanbul because I felt like it's one of the,
because I was really worried about COVID in the early stages.
It was one of the few countries, the few cities that was safe.
And I took it very seriously.
So I locked myself up in Istanbul, and then you guys had the lockdowns and everything else.
So, yeah, man, I've gone with you.
I've gone through the lockdowns with you guys in Turkey.
But go ahead, Ganesh.
Sorry, dude.
Yeah, yeah.
That was actually my point because, I mean, the United States has some kind of complicated health care system that I've made my researches there and other stuff.
And I guess in Cleveland and Mayo Clinic's when I was a resident and like student and you guys.
I don't know where you're from, but the United States is really focused on money, unfortunately.
And there are so many...
financial problems with creating all these new drugs.
And as far as I know from my pharmacology,
classes, it takes nearly two or eight billion dollars and eight years to develop only one drug and to be get abroad by the FDA.
If I remember correctly, but unfortunately or it's like the next thing for a miracle, we as the scientist people don't really have faithness.
just like in their religion or in their flat earth or whatever or their anti-vex things going on in the world.
Like, we developed the CRISPR and MRNA technology, and it was developed so quickly that it was just...
some kind of, how can you say it? Like, it's this closest thing to Miracle, and we developed it in
seven months, and it was crazy. It might be rushed. It might not be, and it was a fully developed
thing. And as far as I'm concerned with my
plus 5,000.
So what you're saying,
just goodness,
just understand,
what you're saying is that
the speed in which the vaccine
was developed is something
that should not be forgotten.
It is an achievement
whether the vaccine was good or not.
Is that what you're trying to say?
I think yes. I mean, it might not be as perfect as 50-year and mercury-included vaccines,
but as far as I'm concerned with all my 5,000 patients, more than 5,000 patients, including the ICU ones,
I think it worked. And this is not what I think or what I believe or what I
see that in my feeling or guts, it's in our articles.
And so many people are concerned on the trustworthiness of the articles.
I mean, it's the best thing.
The best thing we have, what can we do more of it?
And I personally...
What do you think, just briefly, because we want to go to other speakers,
what do you think of the mandate that kicked in?
The fact that the vaccine was mandated.
Was that a necessity?
Was that a necessity?
Because you kind of, viewing off top,
was that a necessity just because we had to achieve herd mentality,
herd immunity and herd mentality?
Or was it a big mistake?
That was caused by capitalism.
I don't like, there is no black and white, but if you guys ask my ideas or like what I think, I think it was really on point and it saves millions of lives if I have to cut it short.
So you think going back in time mandating the vaccine was the right decision in hindsight.
Is that what you're saying?
Yeah, yeah, that's what I'm concerned.
And about the Rogan and Hottis.
I'll go just before you continue, Ganesh.
Dr. Molly, I'd love you to respond on that particular point that Dr. Ganesh has made before going back to Ganesh.
Go ahead, Molly.
So we have to remember that the part of the coronavirus that made this problematic and a pandemic is the spike protein that was inserted upon it.
When you look at these shots, they are instructing your body to make that same spike protein that is the problem from the virus.
This whole concept is nonsensical.
It has failed universally across the board.
Everybody who is at low risk for COVID doesn't need a shot.
Everyone who's at high risk for COVID is at high risk for the shots because it increases their spike a thousand times worse than the virus.
And that is exactly what we're seeing with adverse events.
And these people just keep saying it's a long COVID.
It's a long COVID.
It isn't long COVID.
People who got the virus, if you study these patients and if we get honest in this country,
the people who are suffering right now are people who trusted their doctors and they went
and got shots and they went and got boosters and they're screwed.
Yeah.
Because nobody will help them.
They're spending anywhere from $50,000 to $70,000 with corporate medicine to try to get answers
with absolutely zero opportunity for improvement because those corporate medicine entities are profiting
from giving them the shots and they won't acknowledge what the problem is.
And so they have to find doctors like Dr. Tyson and other doctors who are on here that understand their pathology that can actually treat them.
Liza, are you there?
I am.
How are you?
I'm well.
I've got a question for you.
What did we get right during COVID and what did we get wrong?
We, that's a mixed bag, Mario.
We got right that this was a really bad disease for a significant number of people.
We got right that this was a disease.
a terrible pandemic, and it was a tragedy.
It was a tragedy.
What we got wrong was we made all sorts of mandates on the fly
that we weren't willing to walk back from
because we were so wedded to our version of the truth.
And I think that everybody...
really started out on the same page.
We all want to do what's right for and beneficial for the most people.
But we made mistakes on the way.
And the unwillingness to talk about mistakes and the unwillingness to...
engage with people who have different opinions.
And this is both camps.
This is people who are pro-vaccine, anti-vaccine,
and then I'm not saying anti-vaccine and in,
wait, wait, wait.
You need to hold that right there because the doctors who have been arguing against the narrative
have begged repeatedly.
Right.
for people to come debate us.
Ryan Cole is on this.
Let me finish.
And here I am.
And Ryan Cole has said, bring me your data.
Bring me your data and let's have a conversation about it.
Doing it now is everybody's heard.
Molly.
We're doing it now.
You and not, Molly, I am.
I am Peter Hotez is not sitting here
I am and I am not Peter
You're not sticking up for them
You're not sticking up for this
I am I am not sticking up for anybody
I think we failed miserably
All of us
On both sides.
Did we? Did we actually, let me ask you in a question.
Did we actually, and Greg, Brian and Adam, I'm going to go to you guys.
But just one question to Liza and Liza's been a while.
You haven't been on stage.
As all as you, Molly, it's been a while.
We haven't done a COVID debate.
But did we fail?
It's far from perfect, but...
COVID is no longer an issue.
How did we fail? I'm curious.
So COVID is no longer an issue.
I actually think the vaccine is something absolutely incredible.
I think it's an incredible feat of science.
But I think that you can have the most incredible feats of science.
And if you, that get completely derailed when you create all sorts of doubt.
And the way you create doubt is by suppressing discussion.
And so I'm very disappointed in how people are, if they are pro-the-covid vaccine versus anti-the-COVID vaccine, they got put into political camps.
Right.
and labeled as as one thing or the other.
They're a communist, they're a fascist,
they're trying to do all sorts of horrible things to each other.
Instead of having a lively, important academic debate
where both sides are erred,
and there's a consensus that's reached somewhere in the middle,
which recognizes that,
People genuinely want the same thing.
They want to get out of this pandemic.
They want to do it the right way.
They want to do it in a way that is the least harmful for people.
But there are...
It's frustrating.
That is false across the board.
This was run by the DOD.
Do you think if Brian Tyson figured out in California that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine treats COVID, Anthony Faucied, he didn't know that?
We need to stop saying that this is like, oh, the doctors didn't know.
Bullshit.
Everybody know.
Okay.
This was an international effort.
This was an international effort to black treatment.
And people die.
I'm sorry.
There is a whole bevy of doctors that are not here, which I wish they were on this platform,
that disagree with that.
And they have data to support that.
And so I do not believe that there is a conspiracy of physicians trying to suppress who are
I didn't say they were in the COVID patients.
who are taking care of COVID patients who are trying to suppress information.
We're on the same page.
We want the same thing.
No, we don't.
We don't want people.
We don't want people. Okay, so maybe you're not.
I don't want people to die from COVID.
I don't want countries to get shut down.
I don't want people to go out of business because of this disease.
Right.
I want to, I want, do you understand, I think we're on the same page.
Do you understand to this day that the United Nations and the WHO and our government are funding mobs to report the very doctors who are here tonight talking so that.
Which is why I wish the doctor.
And reporting us to the medical boards and trying to get our accounts to lead us and causing us problems.
Like, do you think that's open and fair debate?
And I, no, I don't think that they had.
I don't think you all have had fair debate at all.
I don't, I don't think that at all.
And once again, I am the one of the very few doctors on my side that is sitting here and talking to you all open.
This is, and this is, I want to ask you about that one as well, Liza.
You know, just for the, for the audience, when we do these spaces to get doctors,
And I want to ask you why, Liza, to get doctors, so even I tweeted, I'm like anyone that's, I would like doctors that are favorable of the vaccines.
I don't want to say pro vaccine because then Slamas says, hey, you did it as well.
So that are more favorable of vaccines.
And the team are like, guys, we should have speakers from there because we organized the space last minute.
75 to 85% of the replies were people, where doctors or people that are against the vaccine.
Right.
So Liza, you know already and you've jumped in spaces before to help.
And you replied to one of those tweets.
I messaged you and the team message.
You didn't see the messages, but you replied to the tweet.
But you know you've jumped in many times because they're like, hey, Liza, it's becoming an echo chamber.
We need you to jump in.
We've been struggling.
COVID discussions are the second hardest spaces to do to balance out.
LGBTIQ rights are the hardest.
So my question to realize is why is it so difficult to get doctors?
I know the majority of doctors are pro-vaccine based on the studies I've seen.
So why is it difficult to get them on stage here?
I think it's difficult to get people to be willing to talk in controversial spaces.
And Molly, I think you're probably, you know, one of these unique individuals who is willing to step up and speak out because it's actually probably harder for you to speak up than it is for me.
I am out of clinical medicine now.
No, I got fired from my three jobs because they wouldn't let me treat patients in the ICU.
So that is the exact problem.
That is the exact problem.
Doctors who have nuanced views about different things get fired and they have, and I can't say that I won't get fired for my job, but I am at.
I don't think you'll get fired from your job.
Right. So I think that, I think that, Doc, the average medical student now in the United States is graduating with $250,000 to $300,000 worth of debt.
Right. They cannot afford to go against the grain in the United States. Once again, this is an U.S. problem.
And so I think that really good people who have different opinions do not have the freedom to express those opinions.
And that's one of the things that I really find valuable about these Twitter spaces. I might think.
I fundamentally disagree with Molly, but we're able to have a civil conversation.
And I think I think that it's the reason why, well, one, most doctors just don't go against
the grain because they've not been trained to do that.
And two, they have a lot to lose.
And.
And so I just, you know, you've got, you've got all sorts of pressures.
You've got your job.
You've got litigation.
You're very, very busy so you don't have time to engage in these spaces.
But look at a take a step back now.
Don't you think that people don't go against the grain because of exactly what we're talking about?
They don't go against the grain.
I agree with you, Molly.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So what's the solution to that?
That's a really hard question.
That's a really hard question.
Because, I mean, I'm sure that when you're taking care of patients in the ICU and you have a kidney doctor who wants to do one thing and a heart doctor that wants to do another thing, you all have discussions and disagreements about a particular patient.
And that's in the normal course of medicine.
This was, the COVID was that on steroids and in public, right?
Actually, I want to give you an example.
I had an ECMO patient that the CV surgeon wanted to give...
Ivermectin at my recommendation.
The ID doctor wanted to give Ivermectin and a pharmacist blocked the order because of a
blind COVID committee.
And that should not be.
That should not.
And that's what's happened to the art of medicine.
Medicine is being practiced by people who are not at the bedside.
And that's across the board.
That's insurance companies, administrators, you know, I'll be.
PBMs, all that kind of stuff.
And so the art of medicine has been lost.
Like I said, I don't particularly care if a person wants to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID because I don't think it's going to hurt.
I personally don't think it's going to help, but I don't think it's going to hurt.
And the reason why I'm not pro-hydrachychloroquine is because I've taken care of patients with those overdoses.
So that's my personal experience and it's bedside experience.
So I think we've lost the art of medicine.
So the problem is that at the very beginning of this pandemic, what should have happened is Fauci has never once been challenged by anybody.
Fauci has never once gone on any media source that questioned him, that gave him hardball questions, or had someone who disagreed with him to challenge him.
He's been basically...
walked through this entire pandemic with whatever he wants to do is fine. And nobody's questioned him.
In future pandemics, we absolutely need to up front have public debates and let people share their ideas.
And that kind of happened on Facebook, but it needs to happen at a high level of the government and let people make their own decisions.
Because within this space, there's what, 15, 17,000 people.
Different people want different kinds of care.
Some want to go to a hospital.
Some want to take supplements.
Some want a combination.
There isn't ever going to be just one solution.
We have to provide an array of solutions for people with different backgrounds, with different needs, with different desires for their care.
And we as a medical institution have to be able to accommodate that.
And we can't and we can't spend all our time Monday morning quarterbacking everybody else.
The reality is that you have to take care of patience.
and meet their needs, right?
And so, and, you know, we have no problem saying, oh, fine.
I mean, the Cleveland Clinic has its own homeopathic medicine division.
The NIH has its own alternative medicine organization.
So if they're going to give wiggle room to that, who cares if somebody takes
ivermectin, right?
Who cares?
It's not going to hurt them.
Let me go to Alpha.
Alpha, no, you got a question.
Yeah, I appreciate it.
Happy Father's Day to all the dads that are in here as well.
A lot of doctors have left, but for the ones that still remain,
my question is, and this is a hypothetical,
but I want to kind of gauge what we've learned from COVID.
In a hypothetical scenario where another pandemic was to come,
let's just say, right before elections,
and it's something, you know, Ebola, Marburg, whatever,
given what we just went through in the last pandemic,
would you guys still...
take the same directions if masks come out, vaccinations come out, or what would you do different?
How would you treat your patients different? Or would you just go with what the CDC and the NIH says?
I would not go with what the CDC and the NIH says because they're captured organizations.
I mean, I think one of the things that I wish I had been more cognizant of. I got the vaccine in spring of 2021 in my clinic and, uh,
The plan was to give it out to high-risk patients because the data to that point seemed pretty
impressive. And I just, of course, witnessed a lot of my patients dying of COVID in the spring of 2020.
So when the vaccine came out in the spring of 2021, I applied in December, got it in the spring and the spring
and, you know, ran multiple vaccine clinics, gave out hundreds and hundreds of.
the MRA vaccine to patients that were high risk.
But what I kind of, and I think given what I knew at the time,
I probably would do the same thing, that part again,
in terms of giving it to the high risk patients in the spring of 2021.
But what I kind of parroted it in which I probably shouldn't have pirated,
in which I now realized was that we didn't have enough data in low risk
patients. So, you know, does the 17, 25-year-old, you know, healthy person who'd had COVID already,
why were we vaccinating them? Why were we telling them that the vaccine is safe and effective when,
you know, yes, the trials, the COVID vaccine trials were, you know, 20,000 strong, each individual
one, but, you know, they were a relatively short duration and they didn't have tens of thousands of
20-year-olds in them, right? And there are 25 million 20-year-olds that you're trying to give the
approximately in the U.S. you're giving the vaccine to based on a trial that had maybe a few
thousand, you know, in that demographic. So the understanding that we need to focus on people that
are high risk and kind of, you know, wait until we have more data.
in the lowest group, and I think that that's something that I would do different.
I don't think I would have offered it to any younger folks.
You know, we would have extra vaccine doses.
So, you know, healthy young people who wanted the vaccine because everyone was recommending it would come in and get it.
And, you know, it turned out, you know, we've learned pretty quickly that there was this rate of vaccine myocarditis, which, yeah, which probably was something that was avoidable if we had just targeted the vaccine to the highest risk group that was suffering, you know, the worst, certainly earlier.
And then as time went on, of course, more and more people were getting COVID itself and recovering.
You know, I'm not sure why the CDC and the different regulatory bodies and many of the public health folks didn't quite lean into the fact that, you know, recovery was an important thing in terms of whether or not you should get vaccinated again.
So, yeah, I mean, so those are some things I would, I think that we should have probably done different.
Can I chime in on?
Yeah, I was literally going to go to you.
Go ahead.
Yeah, so let me just say, when you're talking about a pandemic, there's not time, there's no time to wait for data and studies.
When you really think about it, I mean, in order to collect enough data in studies and do randomized control trials, you're looking six to 12 months out.
You have to trust the people on the front line.
You have to listen to the doctors like myself.
right when i what what we saw in person 100% in clinic chest x-rays evaluating patients that is the
most important feedback you could ever get during a pandemic this is what i'm seeing this is what
they're responding to this is what the chest x-rays brian is that is that right because if if
you take yourself back to the beginning of the pandemic
You had basically doctors panicking and saying that the hospitals are overflown.
That was, and I don't know who was impacted who more.
Was it the media impacting the hospitals?
The hospitals impacting the media.
But it was like the doctors were having a significant impact on this hysteria as well.
But you know why?
But do you know why?
Because everyone closed their doors.
But Brian, yeah, but Brian, what about the fact, in terms of pushing back at this idea about what people are seeing, I think, you know, we clearly in New York now there's, you know, we had this idea, not we, I'm not a critical care doctor, but, you know, certainly you are critical care physicians that were seeing patients who are coming in with COVID.
you know, they felt that they needed to intubate patients early, right?
And there were these stories, you know,
they were in the New York Times that reported about patients on cell phones being taken off,
saying, hey, get off your cell phone.
We have to intubate you.
And so, you know, but I can tell you, there's clearly fallacies to that, right?
And then that's not true.
That's not true.
And it's because I can tell you as a practicing physician, I saw SARS in 205.
I saw H1N1.
Okay, so the fact that we waited so long, the problem in COVID was the fact that people were telling everyone there's no outpatient treatment.
That was the biggest fallacy of all.
If I told you, you have to wait 10 days before I treat your pneumonia or ecoli sepsis, how well off are you going to be once you end up in the hospital?
You're not going to do well.
Right.
Right.
No, no, buts. No, buts. I had a patient, okay? And it actually happened to be a very close friend of mine in New York who had COVID-19, who went to the hospital. They told him you're not sick enough to even get tested. He went back to the hospital. He said, you're not sick enough to be even admitted. And then he finally went back for a third time. And that was the last time I heard from him. Okay. I don't want to hear this.
I can tell you as an ER doctor who's worked 13 years in the ER that if you put a patient who's sick in front of me, I can fix them early.
What I can't fix is somebody who's been waiting 14 to 21 days to get to get any sort of treatment at the end of their life.
That's the problem.
And that was the problem throughout COVID.
And anyone who tells you different is 100% wrong.
I've seen patients, just like Sabine said, Pulsac 6365, left the hospital, came to my clinic, got treatment, and lived.
Okay?
If they listened to what we were telling them, they would not have died, period.
Same. I'm an ICU doctor and I used Brian Tyson's protocol and we were pulling people out of the hospital. We had a really good protocol set up to do that and everybody we pulled out of the hospital on home oxygen lived because we knew within 24 to 48 hours the meds would kick in and they would start improving. The hospitals were grossly under treating. That's what led to fear and that's what led to the death.
So Brian and Molly just would you, I mean in low risk groups, right, where most people were getting better regardless of what you did, does that, would you, would you give a 25 year old who had who was COVID test positive on day two? Would you give them Brian's protocol?
Absolutely not. Absolutely not. So again, you look at risk factors, you look at who's in front of you, just like we do as doctors all along. If somebody's here and they're like having no problems, but the difference was I told every patient follow up with me in three days. And in three days, if you weren't doing better, then we put you on treatment.
No, I think I support, I mean, obviously, we support people on the ground doing things that aren't arming people.
And if you guys are seeing benefit, then, you know, you've got to be respectful of the fact that you guys are seeing a lot of patients and maybe you're seeing benefit.
There's, of course, a ton of patient.
There are a ton of folks, you know, obviously we're not on the call, just devil's advocate, right?
Like Jeremy Faust on MedPage, the editor, right?
you know, a vast number of people that all of us can name because these guys were very critical.
But they obviously also were seeing folks. Why do you think they...
they were not similarly saying, okay, here, let here take this protocol.
You know, the protocol that Dr. McCullough published, right?
That's one of the most downloaded articles.
Why do you think many, many, many, many, many ER doctors and critical care doctors
did not do what you two did?
Because they're obviously also seeing all these patients.
And I mean, why?
So number one, so the number one, the number one problem was the pharmacies would not dispense the medications.
Right.
And in the hospital, our hospitals out here, the pharmacists absolutely refused to dispense the medications.
The ERs were not allowed to dispense the medications.
A lot of the pharmacies would not dispense the medications.
We had to find mom and pop pharmacies here and there.
I had a church from Trinity Baptist, Pastor Moore.
who gave out over 3,600 prescriptions that we prescribed to his congregation or anyone who showed up to his church, the medications, because the pharmacies at the time would not even dispense it.
That was a problem.
But yet everyone that got those medications, they lived.
Every single one of them.
No, no question.
You folks think that this is highly efficacious and it worked.
And again, I'm 100% support the right of you folks to do that without being threatened and all the stuff that happened, which was pretty terrible.
But...
There's clearly equipoise, equipoise meaning that there's clearly a whole raft of doctors that don't believe these things work, right?
That these treatments work.
So, so in response, you know, pushing back what you're saying in terms of, uh,
you know, we didn't have time to get trials on.
If these treatments were so incredibly effective, right, you would need very, very, very small
trials.
You know, you would need 100 patients, right?
Of 100 patients presenting, you know, who are 65, who are hypoxic, whoever's
factors, and you would need, you know, 100 of them.
And again, there are enough doctors who would say, look, I don't believe that ivermectin,
hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D work.
and you would find enough of them to randomize them to two different arms, right?
One treatment and one not.
And you're saying within 10, you know, you're saying that the treatments are so quick.
I mean, literally you need 100 patients do that.
So I think the failure, wait, okay.
The failure was doing these trials.
Wait, let me respond.
Let me respond to that.
So I'm going to tell you, do you know that the state of California was in my clinic for a year
and a half?
And I presented them with over 10,000 patients full of data.
The only data that they were interested in was the demographics, their comorbidities, their age, and their sex.
When I asked them in particular, why they were there, okay, how come you're not worried about
reinfection rate or treatment data?
They said we were not collecting that on purpose.
We were not asked to collect that.
So I'm going to tell you in my book that I wrote and the paper that I tried to get published,
nobody would publish that data because why?
I don't know.
But I'm going to tell you that the state of California was in my clinic for a year and a half.
They had access to it.
Yeah, no, it's a failure. Obviously, they'll say, look, you're just treating 10,000 patients,
whereas your placebo group. But my point, you're absolutely correct in the fact that I have no
idea why the state of California, which is pretty well resourced, is not able to do a trial.
And again, you make, you guys make the protocol, right? And if, if, and you, and you randomize
100 patients. If you're saying it's this effective, we should be able to see it within 100
patients in 10 days. That would literally take, how.
how long to do in the midst of this pandemic.
And I have no idea why they didn't do any of this.
I guess we'll get some other speakers on.
I think Greg Marchand has been waiting a while.
I'm pretty sure those studies were done.
And they, for mysterious reasons, Pierre Corrie's spoken a lot about this.
They didn't get published.
Yeah, let me go to Greg.
Greg, go ahead.
Oh, yeah, well, thank you for calling me. I really appreciate being invited here, especially Mr. Nowall. Thank you for letting me in this prestigious room with all these prestigious fellow physicians. I know there's a lot of people that want to talk, so I'll be as brief as possible. I'm a dual board certified OBGYN and I'm director of a major research institute that does a lot of COVID research on Marshawn surgery on Twitter.
first, I wanted to address the question you brought up, but why a lot of pro-vaccine doctors aren't available to talk online to defend their ideas.
I don't want to be judgmental in this, but they were really, and I think we all saw this, a ton of doctors out there, just pushing the narrative that this vaccine was necessary for everyone.
And then even above and beyond, whether they felt politically about this, they really'd
abandoned their duty to give the full risk benefits and alternatives analysis for each patient.
They weren't telling each patient about what the possible alternatives could have been,
and they weren't doing this on the basis of judging each patient's a particular medical history,
particular illnesses, and so forth that they should have been.
I think so. I think there's a lot of shame getting people from that side of the issue to talk.
As far as my positions on COVID, I think I think most people in this room could be what Dr.
Cymetty kind of labeled as the alt-middle or hold the middle.
I don't think there's many people in this room where they're completely against vaccines altogether.
But I think we feel that the population that needed this vaccine was...
was mostly those that were going to be in danger of death from a serious novel virus, a serious flu.
Basically, those that would have died from a serious flu within the next 10 years.
That was the population that should have been reserved for,
and everyone else really should have had a risk, benefits, and alternatives analysis, you know,
to see if they needed or not.
So for most people, this was not going to make sense.
I do a lot of research into its effect on pregnant women for those, you know, where we've kind of got those effects of what's it going to do 10 years down the road.
How is it going to affect fetuses, you know, similar situations to what happened to diethylostobestral.
So there's a lot in that that I study.
That means these risks probably outweigh the benefits for a lot of patients.
um and uh the last thing i just wanted to comment on that i've heard a lot tonight is uh dr hotez's
invitation uh to debate i think that's an absolutely great idea i'd love to see him uh you know
debate uh with the r fk that political candidate i think it probably be more appropriate to see
him uh debate with dr mccullough
I guess the thing is everybody says that they should pitch in.
So I guess I'll pitch in $10,000 as well if he'll take that.
But one thing I really just want to point out that, you know,
in such a wonderful platform like Mr. Rogan and on Twitter,
This isn't a political debate. This isn't something where somebody can say the most, you know,
swaying, seductive remarks to win the crowd. I really would like to see Mr. Rogan invite community notes to be involved.
And, you know, it wouldn't have to be a very strange thing to, you know, the two debaters or the three debaters could just agree on, you know, let's send this to community notes and have a break, say, every 30 to 45 minutes.
Because if it's going to be that technical of a topic about what went wrong,
with this COVID vaccination in the United States, what worked and what didn't.
I'd really like to see community notes points, you know, come in on this and inform the crowd.
It's not like a political debate where you can just, you know, just average person can just,
you know, think about what their belief is.
So that's my views on this and I really appreciate it.
Does everyone know in terms of HOTES?
Because I've said anything about that.
Do everyone know that HOTES in, I think it was October of 2020,
signed a letter that Eric Topal wrote to Pfizer and trying to delay the vaccine
because they did not want the vaccine to come out before the November elections?
And what they said was that at the time was that, oh, you know,
we don't want Trump's strong arming the regular FDA regulatory process and stuff.
And Pfizer actually...
Pfizer bowed to that pressure and did not release the vaccine until after the November elections,
you know, even though they had met the predetermined criteria for when they could publish the results and get the FDA to approve it.
So, you know, I think Hotez is just way too partisan.
I think, you know, the fact that he signed that letter is just damnated.
damning that you know you can't have i mean in terms of good faith it's funny that i hear people
who support hotez and hotez himself saying oh you know rfk doesn't argue in good faith when i think
hotez is is really not a good faith actor i mean how could you sign a letter delaying a vaccine
that you thought was so incredibly going to be so incredibly beneficial and the moment the election
turns out the way you want it to suddenly it's like
you know, get boosted every six months or whatever.
That's slight hyperbole, but, you know,
get, you know, now suddenly, it's incredibly, incredibly being pro-vaccine.
So I don't know that Hotez is necessarily a good faith actor to do the debate.
So I, my plug is for Vinay Prasad to come out and debate,
uh, debate RFK and his points.
And that'd be a much more useful conversation.
But wouldn't that actually be beneficial that you have two people who are on the left?
Right.
You have a Democrat running for office and somebody who supported the Democratic Party.
So that actually takes politics out of it.
Yeah. Let me go to Defeet.
Defeet, I know you had a question, so go ahead.
Yeah.
So I think sometimes when, you know, we're so many years into COVID, we sort of forget the sequencing.
Okay.
of things, and I want to gently correct something Dr. Anish said.
So there are still a huge number of colleges that have vaccine mandates on their students.
And last summer, it was very clear about the myocarditis issue, and yet by and large, doctors
remain silent.
And...
Tons of colleges, Harvard, Yale, the University of California, all continued to insist and mandate that those students who we knew didn't need the vaccine and were suffering from myocarditis at much higher rates still get updated vaccines.
And the medical community, which you sort of intimated, figured it out fairly quickly.
Didn't say anything.
They didn't want to appear to be anti, let me finish.
They didn't want to appear, oh, we don't want to be anti-vaccine.
So we know, we know in the summer of 2022 that there's this myocarditis issue
and there's no real benefit for college students to take the vaccine.
But even though we know all these colleges are maintaining it,
their vaccine mandates and insisting on boosters, the medical community, with exceptions,
largely remain silent and allowed college students throughout the country to have to go through
the boosting process to their harm and to no real benefit.
And my second point, and I want to say it real briefly, and I really appreciate Dr. Eliza being here,
but you've sort of made, I think, a false equivalency.
You've sort of both sideism here.
And the fact remains there was never a single person in America who was fired for taking the vaccine.
There was never a single person in America who was de-platformed for advocating for the vaccine.
So this isn't a, oh, well, both sides engaged.
No, that's not true.
This is not true, Dr. Liza.
People were fired.
Millions of people were fired for not taking the vaccine.
Not one single person was fired for taking the vaccine.
Millions of people were kicked off social media for questioning the vaccine.
Not a single person, even on GAB or Gitter or True Social.
They weren't kicked off for promoting the vaccine.
Thank you.
No, I just want to clarify that by April 2021, Israel had released data that suggested that vaccine myocroditis, that there was a link between the vaccines and myocroditis.
And so, yes, there are folks in the medical community that had established the link.
And then it's a massive black mark on...
I think the U.S. regulatory agencies that, you know, it wasn't until much later that year that
they didn't even say anything, right, for a while. Meanwhile, countries in Europe were saying,
all right, we are not going to give Moderna, which has three times the dose of the vaccine of
M RNA as Pfizer. You know, countries in Europe had banned Moderna for, you know, folks less than a
certain age because they were seeing this link. So, no, and college mandates that continue to this day
are terrible. So,
the established, you're absolutely right,
the established from medical community in the U.S.
continued to kind of persevere on this,
on mandates when it was pretty clear, pretty early on,
based on pretty hard data that vaccine marocarditis was happening,
and that, you know, again, this is a point of contention
that is brought up over and over again.
I have many, many threads about this,
and I've written a lot about this,
the fact that people would say, oh, COVID myocarditis,
even though if there's vaccine marketitis,
COVID-microditis is happening more often than vaccine microcreditis.
And that simply put is not true.
It's like mixing apples and oranges,
and in brief, you know, COVID-mycroditis...
is kind of boosted by by folks that are in critical care units that are ill, that are elderly,
that are having releases of cardiac enzymes into their blood, and people are being mislabeled as
mycroditis. And the studies that suggested corticotomycratitis are really, really bad and very,
very flawed. And it certainly seems pretty obvious at the time, and in retrospect, for sure, that
that young male age group, especially that we're getting the Moderna second dose vaccine,
that those folks were higher risk of getting vaccine markeditis than
any, you know, complication from COVID.
And it's really, you know, looking back, I think people are going to be, it really is a black
mark on regulators and on the established medical community that we, that, you know, that nothing
was, nothing was said for a very long time.
This day, a 17-year-old can go in and get, you know, the minaretomaxine.
Yeah.
Well, I think it's also a black mark on, like, I think it's a black mark on, like, the whole public health community,
which was clearly working with college administrations.
And in the summer, you know, at the very least in the summer of 2022, everyone knew Meyer
Carditis was a problem.
But somehow, the public health community allowed the, you know,
college like higher education in America to continue with it and I think that's not just like a oh that was so unfortunate
that's a real problem
That's a real problem when the medical community says,
hey, there's this issue with myrocarditis
and the public health community,
which I get is not always the same as the medical community.
You have a lot of people with MPHs who control things,
who really aren't that really should be there controlling things,
and you have a huge part of our population
who are most at risk for myrocarditis,
who are being forced to take...
booster after booster
to go
It gets even worse.
It gets even worse.
Like literally I had, you know, a young college student to come into my office who had chest pain after getting his first dose of his badona vaccine.
And his place of work was then mandating that he got a second dose.
He tried to get J&J, but nobody would give him J&J because he already had one MRNA vaccine.
And so I wrote this, you know, so he had his primary care doctor write a note, but the note was very small and was on like a prescription pad.
and the vaccine committee that his company had set up said no this doesn't fly and if you will not work so the poor guy had no insurance was on cobra was paying a ridiculous amount of money and was desperate to try any but he didn't want to get another dose of the m rna of an m r vaccine and so i wrote this long two-page letter
detailing, you know, a bunch of data and stuff about why I didn't think it was a good idea as a cardiologist for him to get, you know, a second Moderna vaccine.
And, you know, just as a sign of maybe the tide shifting, because I don't know if this sort of worked in 2021, but certainly in late 2020, when I wrote it, and I posted it on my substack.
And I've sent it to a bunch of people that use if they want, if it's still happening.
you know, the company relented and, you know, he's, he's working.
So, so yeah, it's really terrible what happened.
I let Liza wanted to clarify.
Yeah, I mean, she shouldn't have had to have, you shouldn't have had to write a two-page letter documenting to a bureaucrat for why you thought this was the case, right?
You are the bedside doctor taking care of this patient.
And that is what's happened to medicine.
We've had to, we've gone from the nuance of taking care of patients at the bedside with their own unique particular circumstances to having to answer to a whole bunch of people who don't have the history and the physical.
exam there.
Right?
So I do think that it's tragic.
What has happened to our profession?
I am absolutely in the court of this particular vaccine.
I think it's wonderful.
I think it's got a lot of potential.
I think it's,
I think the science is unbelievable.
But we have lost the art of medicine.
And the art of medicine is the only way
that you regain the trust of the public.
And you can't just blanket say that this particular intervention is the best course of
everybody.
But that's what they did say.
And even when the medical community knew that was not the case.
that did not get translated by a very expensive public health system to our higher education system.
And so you can't just say, oh, that's unfortunate.
And like, this is why Robert Kennedy is making such headway.
It's because we can't just say, oh, that was unfortunate.
We need fundamental change.
I am, I, I left Madison for Monsanto.
because I thought Monsanto was a much more moral company.
Right, guys.
I just want to thank every single person that contributed to this space,
including Dr. McCullough.
And we were meant to get Dr. Malone on.
He did say he was looking, but then maybe he couldn't make it.
So I really appreciate the debate.
I think we had an excellent debate.
Any final thoughts before we end it?
No, thanks guys for having the spaces.
And thanks, Liza, for as usual, being the person in the Lions Den, if you will, giving the view of the other side.
I just think it's really important to have these discussions.
And I think that we're all in this together.
And I just hope we emerge from it.
I hope we emerge from it in a better place.
As then, I think that's an excellent point to end up.
Appreciate your time, get everyone and see you again, same time tomorrow.
