U.S. Critical Care Doctors: COVID Treatment Guidelines Are A Crime Against Humanity, Follow The Science, Systematically Deploy Ivermectin Now

Majority of Deaths Unnecessary, Systemic Medical Malpractice Due to Obscene Corruption, Censorship of Doctors & Non-Patented Treatments

This interview with Dr. Pierre Kory does an excellent job of laying out many key points that we’ve been reporting on over the past year.

He speaks in very clear terms accurately. I spent valuable time editing this 3-hour interview down to 50-minutes here because it is absolutely critical for people to understand all the issues that are discussed.

Dr. Kory is part of a nationwide U.S. group of COVID Critical Care doctors who have treated and cured thousands of COVID-infected patients with Ivermectin-based treatment protocols.

Dr. Kory has testified twice in Senate Homeland Security hearings on COVID treatments, and is recognized for his work innovating COVID standard of care. He, along with his colleagues at the FLCCC, and many of the most respected doctor groups around the world have been presenting overwhelming evidence proving the safety and efficacy of Ivermectin, and well over one million COVID-infected people have been cured with it.

They discuss the strategic targeted censorship of effective non-patented treatments and doctors worldwide, and the absurdly corrupted Emergency Use Authorization process - including the long-term risks of the experimental mRNA injections, the obscene medical malpractice of insisting everyone take the shot, and how Ivermectin is significantly safer and more effective in preventing the spread.

Dr. Kory also discusses the recent success they are having in treating COVID long-haul syndromes and post-vaccine syndromes and side effects.

HELP SAVE LIVES, watch it & share it on Facebook here and Bitchute here.

Apologies, I can’t post it to YouTube, they have deleted all my videos on Ivermectin, which is also discussed in the interview.

The suppression and censorship of Ivermectin has been a Crime Against Humanity. Millions of people will continue to unnecessarily suffer and die. We must urgently spread the word to help save lives.

Here is a transcript from the edited clips featuring critical quotes:

Bret Weinstein (BW): You have the credentials. You have the evidence. You have a history of saving lives, of innovating and pioneering techniques. Not only that, but you have a history of improving the standard of care for this very disease [COVID]….

You are an ICU doctor with experience with this drug [Ivermectin], thoroughly versed in the data that has been amassed in many different contexts, of many different types.

And you believe, in your heart of hearts, that Ivermectin alone, and it is not the only tool at our disposal here, but Ivermectin alone is sufficient to end the pandemic if we deployed it widely enough and well enough.

Dr. Pierre Kory (PK): There is not even a question. If it became part of systematic global public health policy, you could decimate the incidents, the mortality, morbidity and the cases….

A tremendous group from the UK, headed by a woman named Tess Lawrie, she is an expert consultant to the WHO and the Cochrane Library.  For a living she does systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which informs treatment guidelines for all of the major agencies. She has done that, her and her group, did this for Ivermectin. You can’t come up with a more credible source than her.

Her group brought together a guideline committee of 65 people from all around the world all advocating Ivermectin. Satoshi Omura’s group, [Nobel Laureate] from the Kitasato Institute in Japan, they published a review paper also calling for Ivermectin.

A group of Italian researchers, and Spain, so you have independent panels from Spain, Italy, U.K., U.S., and Japan. None of us with conflicts of interest.  None of us who stand to gain anything, and we are all saying the science says [Ivermectin] has to be systematically deployed.

The fact that, even with those credible voices from all of those countries, we are getting drowned out. We are getting suppressed and distorted.

BW: There is no amount of credential that breaks through this wall of silence.

PK: I just want to take a second to talk about how massive of a problem that is, the fact that our public health agencies are limiting the choices and treatments that they champion, and they literally excluding this one [Ivermectin].

They have failed their goal of protecting the global health of citizens.  I think it is a colossal and historic injustice to the world.  

I cannot believe that this is occurring.

Literally, people are dying because they don’t know about this medicine. 

Providers are being told to not use the medicine.

BW: They feel their licenses are jeopardized if they do what is in the best interests of their patients. 

PK: I have never studied a medicine that has more evidence than this. There are dozens of randomized controlled trials conducted by interested and committed clinicians, and there are no conflicts of interest. None of them are going to make a million dollars by finding out Ivermectin works on COVID.

I’ve never been in an argument where you literally have a stack of two dozen randomized controlled trials…. It’s crazy.

BW: It’s obviously obstructionist. The point is Ivermectin is not going to be allowed to be an effective treatment. It is not about whether it is an effective treatment or whether you can establish that based on the available evidence.  It’s whether or not that will be formally allowed into the effective medical court.

PK: I thought this was a data argument in the beginning… but there is another reason why Ivermectin, there is a much more sinister one….

I kept trying to argue the data….  I would say, ‘but you know meta-analyses are stronger than any big trial.’… So I would have these data arguments, but it’s not about the data.

There is something else, there is that thing that we can feel out there that is squashing, distorting, suppressing the efficacy of Ivermectin.  It’s egregious.

BW: And it is not difficult to prove it. For one thing, you can see it on the social media platforms. In fact, it’s in YouTube’s community guidelines: thou shalt not mention [Ivermectin]….

PK: There are forces that are seeking to make sure that Ivermectin is not accepted widely as an effective therapy.

BW: Despite the fact that millions are dying.

PK: It still leaves me speechless.

BW: In order to understand an impossible to understand story like this you need a way in somewhere. This is a couple of facts that I understand.

The cost for a treatment of Ivermectin is negligible.  I’ve seen the range from $3 to $12.  For Remdesivir, a new drug still paying the bills for its development, is $3000 a treatment.

That might begin to point in the direction of that object with immense gravity that is acting against the distribution of simple information about the effectiveness of Ivermectin, right?

PK: No question.  Again, going back to the problem, when you look at what is being recommended to treat this disease, it is deplorable.

There is not a lot of consistency on how they made recommendations.  

The evidence on Remdesivir is completely suspect and it’s very weak.

It’s not even consistent, the WHO doesn’t recommend it, the NIH does.

And, they are giving an anti-viral, in the hospital, days and days and days into an illness. The one thing we know about anti-virals is that they are only effective when you give them upon first symptoms.

So, we are spending $3000 a dose on a drug day 8 or 9 into an illness.  The return on that is abysmal.  It is not a very effective drug, but, yet, that is our standard of care in this country. 

So that problem is, they are artificially limiting, and how they arrive at these treatment recommendations are absurd. 

It’s clear it is because we are vulnerable, our system is vulnerable.  

It is a system where the voices that get heard are those with lots of money behind them; those shiny trials that they put forth; those are the ones that get listened to, and those are the ones that get recommended.

We are in a system where we are completely beholden to those with financial interests.

A little drug like Ivermectin, it is off-patent, it’s manufactured throughout the world and no one is making money off it. That doesn’t get heard. There is no force that is in the halls of the NIH that can put forth that.

That’s the kindest description of what I think is going on with Ivermectin.  Certainly it doesn’t have a proponent.  It has opponents.  A lack of a proponent, and it is up against the deepest and most powerful opponents that you could imagine.

BW: All of them. 

You can’t go up against the officialdom of the WHO and CDC with the backing of every social media platform. If Silicon Valley lines up with the halls of government against a treatment, the battle is so Herculean it’s almost unimaginable.

PK: The censorship is their weapon…. It’s how they are fighting against Ivermectin.

The opponents, again, I don’t like talking about it.  I wrote a white paper that is on our website that is getting a lot of attention. I list the opposition, those that would lose financially by Ivermectin becoming the standard of care.

Number one, is the entire global vaccination policy would be kneecapped.  The EUA’s would probably be revoked….

BW: If the rules by which they [the EUAs] were granted were enforced... they would never have been granted in the first place, and they would have to be revoked now, and for very good reason.

PK: If the rules that they laid out were enforced….

BW: The rules say that you cannot grant this unusual authorization, because of the hazard that it carries with it, if there is a safe and effective treatment available. If there are two things about the Ivermectin treatment, it is safe and effective.  Not only safe and effective, but a prophylactic.

It does the job that the vaccines do, so there is no basis to grant the Emergency Use Authorization.

What is so bizarre… the EUA effectively allows vaccines a very low standard that they have to meet, because this is an emergency and we have to get them out immediately.  The bar was set very low.

PK: The bar was set low so they could leap over and become massively used and distributed throughout the world.

BW: At the same time that you are setting the bar for them exceedingly low, because this is an emergency, in the very same emergency, setting the bar very high, in fact, impossibly high for a drug that is already well-known to be safe. Therefore, the risks are very small.

It is inconsistent, at the very least, to apply the low standard to one and the high standard to the other. And if you were going to have a double standard, it should go the other way, because Ivermectin, the risk of harming a patient with it is so low. Whereas, we don’t know on the long-term level, we do not know what happens with the vaccines, we cannot know.

PK: Who is setting that system? That is the question.

BW: I’m always cautious in this place in the conversation, because we can detect that there is a gargantuan, something that is exerting gargantuan force in this space.  And we can infer that it has something to do with the financial incentives surrounding Remdesivir for example, and the vaccine campaign.

There is some way that people who are doing harm great enough, I have called it the Crime of the Century. I realize the century is young, but this is going to be hard to top, it’s going to be hard to top.

So, there is someway that people who are engaged in something worthy of a claim like the Crime of the Century are comfortable with what they are doing, or worse, are convinced that it is the right thing….

PK: I do think that there are some sociopaths that are exerting this….

Here’s the most magnanimous that I can be: I definitely see intellectual laziness is driving this, some of this is benign neglect, much of it occurring across the profession of medicine. A lot of doctors are just parroting what they are told… nobody is critically looking at it.

Even public health agencies are also guilty of that, of not exerting and spending the resources.  They should be critically examining this. That’s the kindest I can be, but I also think there are forces…. 

For instance, what I believe happened at the WHO, I believe that committee was told, [the committee] that had to do the most recent review of Ivermectin, they were basically told that they can’t come out of that room with a recommendation for Ivermectin….

BW: They are doing it without logic. Clearly….

The goal, to the extent that one is a believer in the vaccines, believes that they are very, very safe, that they will not cause long-term harm, that the key is to get so many people vaccinated that COVID goes extinct. I believe people really think that, and I don’t think they are worried enough about what we don’t know about the long-term, and frankly, I don’t think they are worried enough about what shows up with respect to short-term stuff. Let’s just say that is their perspective.  If it is, they are not thinking well.

What one needs to defeat COVID is lots and lots of people who are not susceptible to it, and there are 3 categories to people who are not susceptible to it. There are people who have taken the vaccine… though not from variants, for now.  There are people who have had COVID… and people who are on Ivermectin.  

All you need is for those three groups to add up to herd immunity in order for COVID to go extinct. Clearly.

So, to the extent that people are having this sense that they are the good people because they are pushing the vaccine thing so hard that everyone will have to get it, and they will strong arm us if they must. Those people, are not understanding that the goal, which is laudable, which is herd immunity, can be achieved with a composite of types of immunity.

I will also say, there are two facts about the way we deal with COVID that to me that stand out like a sore thumb, they tell me that this is not about good medical advice - that there is something more important than good medical advice.

One of them is that they are insisting that people who have had COVID get the vaccine. I know very well that we cannot know anything about the long-term consequences. I know the human immune system is a complex one, and interfacing with it potentially has consequences that will surprise us, and we will not know for decades what the effect of this thing is, and these technologies have only existed for less than a year.  So, we cannot possibly imagine ourselves experts in terms of the long-term impact of these vaccines.

PK: That is very disturbing!

I just want to emphasize that point that you just made.  The fact that they are insisting that everyone get vaccinated, whether you have had it or not, is extremely disturbing.

Because it is all downside, you are only exposing them to the risks of the vaccine without the benefits.

How can you credibly do that?

The doctors that I know and trust … in fact, one of the doctors… he doesn’t allow his patients to get vaccinated unless they get tested for anti-bodies. If they have anti-bodies, he tells them not to get vaccinated.

BW: It makes no sense!

You have to imagine that the long-term downsides are inherently zero in order to even justify the stupidity of vaccinating everyone….

You don’t even have enough vaccine if your idea is to vaccinate everybody, you should at least economize on the vaccine, even if the long-term risks were zero.  

PK: We could go all day on all of those areas where things just don’t, just on the face of it, just on paper make very little sense.  

And then, we all know about anti-body enhancements, and that’s been known for coronavirus vaccine attempts in history.  If you give it to those who have had it [coronavirus] before, they get the sickest.

I think people are getting harmed without a more sensible approach to this.

BW: A medical system that claims to be analyzing the evidence and figuring out what is best, and acting in an authoritarian fashion and telling doctors what to do, when… I can even figure out they are screwing this up.

That tells you that this is about something else.

The other thing that tells you that this is about something else is this policy that you don’t treat until you are in dire straits.

The idea of sending people with COVID home, and then seeing if they get sick enough, until they turn blue... but if your point is to end the pandemic at any reasonable cost, if that’s the point, sending people home is propagating the pandemic. 

And treating them late when you have a drug [Ivermectin] that would fix them early is malpractice.

PK: If you gave them Ivermectin, you could send them home safely… and studies where the household family members were given a preventative dose of Ivermectin, it shows you can protect the household….

BW: But what we are doing now, just sending people home to get their relatives sick, and then treating them only when it becomes an emergency, and they aren’t making much virus at that point anyway, this is preposterous and insane.   

Those two things together stand out. 

We are obviously willing to have many, many people die in order to accomplished some goal that has not been shared with us publicly.

PK: It’s an obsessive focus with the vaccines.

Knowing what we know about this disease, in that it has a viral replicator phase and a severe unchecked inflammation later on. If you were going to design a drug to treat COVID, you would want something that works as an anti-viral and an anti-inflammatory.  Like I mentioned before, [Ivermectin] has multiple mechanisms that we think it is acting as an anti-viral, also there are a body of studies showing that it really works at controlling and modulating inflammation.

So, it works in all phases of the disease.

The other thing that you want, you want it to be safe. A recent review was done by a world-famous toxicologist who looked at over 350 studies on Ivermectin, to get the most accurate safety profile. In his executive summary of the paper he wrote that severe adverse events are unequivocally and exceedingly rare. It is an extremely safe medicine….

So if you wanted a drug, you would want anti-viral and anti-inflammatory, and then as a bonus, you might want something that prevents the virus from getting in the cell, you would want it to be a preventative… [which Ivermectin also does, laughs].

BW: This particular drug happens to bind to the spike protein to prevent the virus from getting into the cell.

PK: It really is a gift to us. It really does give me sort of tingles. To think that we have this medicine that does exactly what we need to do to get us out of this hell, for the world to get out of hell.

And we are not deploying it. 

It is a crime!

BW: We’ve talked about the medical consequences; we have not talked about the crashing of the normal functioning of planet earth.

The idea that we wouldn’t deploy this is absolutely maddening.  

If it is true that something in the neighborhood of what we have suggested about the financial incentives surrounding Remdesivir and vaccines and the campaign to deploy them, if something like that is the object exerting this gravity, making this story not add up, and result in massive amounts of death and misery and damage to humans that will be manifest for decades….

We are talking about trillions of dollars of loss.

It might be hundreds of billions of dollars in profits. It is trillions of dollars of loss to planet earth, and the amount of human suffering is incalculable.

PK: I can’t bring up that war metaphor enough. We’ve said it since the beginning. We are literally acting as if we are at war. The FLCCC, we are a rapidly deployed force….

We have done the work that the agencies should have done. We have reviewed all the evidenced. We’ve compiled all of it.

We did the work that the army and public health agencies should have done.

Again, the reasons why they didn’t, I can go from the benign to the sinister, but I want to call attention to the arguments that we make for our treatments are that we are at war…

BW: They are having us behave as if we are at war, while they are playing business as usual.

This is driving me crazy because the point is that they actually have us at each other’s throats about whether or not we are wearing our masks outside, and whether or not we are vaccinated or not, and that is the dictator of whether or not we are good people, and this is bullshit, right? I’m as protected with Ivermectin as you are with your vaccine… there’s no basis on which you can wag your finger at me. I’m not putting people at more risk than you are.

So why do they have us at each other’s throats, if they are going to continue to play this game about profit, which appears to be the only explanation that could possibly tell us.

How do they not respond to an overwhelming quantity of data, a gift, a drug that is actually a gift… to turn down that drug on the basis of other things, which don’t have the safety profile, don’t have the effectiveness.

PK: It is indefensible!

BW:  It is indefensible, so they are clearly playing a business game while they have us in a war posture, and it is preposterous.

PK: We, as a group of committed clinicians who are really just acting on our oath, and we are trying to just advocate for good sound medicine and effective treatment.  We haven’t been given a voice.  We definitely have a lot of followers. We have had tremendous success around the world.

But in the United States, no one has heard of Ivermectin in a credible way. So coming on your show, we hope is a march to having it in the wider-consciousness…

BW: You said, in the rest of the world, people are beginning to understand the Ivermectin story, but in the US effectively no one has heard of it.

PK: I am demoralized.

What I’ve had to do to preserve myself, in what I do, because I’m getting killed here.  When I’m being written about, my advocacy, it’s crazy, so I don’t pay attention to it.

I am immensely saddened that all of the health systems, and I have collogues and trainees who work in multiple systems, you can’t prescribe Ivermectin, one of the safest drugs known to man… you can’t even prescribe it to a patient in many hospitals in this country.

The pharmacist will not give it to you because from on high, they are saying not to.

BW: I find that as maddening as you do, but I also find it maddening that we, as Americans, botched the COVID crisis early on.

Many people died who didn’t need to because of the way we reacted, clearly, we are doing it again.

Why should we be lagging the world in the understanding of the utility of this drug?

Why would we allow that to happen to ourselves?

This is absolutely unpatriotic!

And it has to do with the corruption that we have is in many ways more pronounced.  It is more effective, more deeply entrenched, and it has access to more tools here than elsewhere. 

So, somehow, we Americans have to recognize that this story, as crazy as it is, is actually telling us something about an entirely different disease that has to do with the authoritarian control over thought, about what is true, and that manifested here in a medical context that is absolutely ghastly, but that is not its fundamental nature.

Its fundamental nature is about controlling what people think, for purposes that have something to do with profit.

The last 15 minutes of the video still need to be transcribed…

They primarily discuss how Ivermectin is safer and more effective than the vaccines. They also discuss the origins of COVID and how it doesn’t act like other viruses.  They discuss Ivermectin’s recent more widespread use and the millions of people worldwide who have now been cured by it. They end by discussing the various FLCCC protocols designed to treat people at different stages of the disease.

Here are a few more critical quotes from the end that cover long-haul syndromes and post-vaccine syndromes:

PK: Ivermectin is proving immensely helpful with long-haul syndrome… It is doing phenomenally... We have testimonials from patients suffering from disabling symptoms, literally can’t go back to work, because a myriad of syndromes.  They take Ivermectin, and some feel better after one day….  We are doing phenomenally against long-haul COVID….

We are gaining increasing experience with post-vaccine syndromes that are really responding to Ivermectin…. Some patients were coming… with terribly prolonged inflammatory syndromes after the vaccine, like myalgias, pains, really felt terrible, headaches, fatigue, and they responded tremendously to Ivermectin...

With Ivermectin, one of the main mechanisms is that it binds to the spike protein. What do the vaccines do? They make spike proteins, and with some people the spike proteins make them sick. Ivermectin neutralizes the spike protein.

BW: This has been a spectacularly interesting conversation.  I am very hopeful that this message is unmistakable, and that we will do the right thing from here.  We will end the pandemic with the tools at our disposal, of which, Ivermectin should be at the top of the list….  

PK: If we can get this out and recognized, it is going to help so many people.

The reckoning is going to be extremely ugly.  When this history and this story is told accurately, it is going to be very unpleasant.

BW: The amount of unnecessary suffering, harm and loss that has already resulted from our myopia here is incalculable.

We are going to cut up clips of this interview and make quote memes. If you want to create anything or suggest quotes to feature, please leave a comment.

If you read all the way to this point, you know how vital our work is, please consider donating here.

Every dollar seriously helps. The battle against targeted censorship and strategic suppression tactics have been brutal, to say the least.

Much Gratitude & Love to All,

~ David DeGraw

|| Support David’s Investigative Journalism ||