Dr. Haruo Ozaki of the Tokyo Medical Association on Ivermectin: “It looks like we’re blocking supply because we believe it’s going to work.”

Why would a drug be blocked if it’s believed to cure an illness?

After researching some information on Japan’s recall of over 1.6 million doses of the Moderna vaccine due to possible metal contamination, I went investigating further and found some conflicting information involving Chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Dr. Haruo Ozaki, and the Ivermectin situation.

Many websites are reporting that Dr. Haruo Ozaki came out in a press conference this month (August 2021) suggesting the use of Ivermectin in a now widely shared video.

However, this is incorrect. In actuality, Dr. Haruo Ozaki made this announcement in February 2021.

Here is the video with provided transcript thanks to the subtitles that were added:

If this video no longer exists, please let me know and I will find an alternative. Thank you.

“In Africa, if we compare countries distributing ivermectin once a year with countries which do not give ivermectin, I mean, they don’t give ivermectin to prevent COVID, but to prevent parasitic diseases. But anyway, if we look at COVID numbers in countries that give ivermectin, the number of cases is 134.4 per 100,000 and the number of death is 2.2 per 100,000. 

Now African countries which do not distribute Ivermectin: 950.6 cases per 100,000 and 29.3 deaths per 100,000.

I believe the difference is clear.

Of course, one cannot conclude that ivermectin is effective only on the basis of these figures, but when we have all these elements, we cannot say that ivermectin is absolutely not effective, at least not me.

We can do other studies to confirm its efficacy, but we are in a crisis situation. With regard to the use of ivermectin, it is obviously necessary to obtain the informed consent of the patients, and I think we’re in a situation where we can afford to give them this treatment.” – Dr. Haruo Ozaki

Now with that cleared up, I want to bring attention to a more recent report that did come out in August 2021 (allegedly), from a Japanese website: yomiuri.co.jp

The following will be a translated version using this service: translate.com
I have provided a copy/pasted format for search capabilities. Viewing would be easier in desktop/tablet mode. For those on mobile, the Japanese text will be shown first, followed by the translation in English. Please keep in mind that since this is using a translation website, there may be inaccuracies and missing context.

Lastly, I want to point out that I personally do not agree with every assessment made in the following account; such as, “there is a potent delta strain going around”, or so forth. I think these notions are embellished news stories to give the illusion that the virus is deadlier and harder to contain, just to push for a worldwide vaccine effort. However, there are still many intelligent/educated individuals who are not yet fully aware of this agenda, but are waking up to the realization that something is not right with the vaccine push and the suppression of actual treatments that are working against several known illnesses. If Ivermectin is acknowledged to be beneficial in combatting respiratory viruses, then it concludes that it could be helpful in treating coronaviruses that would also involve the common cold/flu/influenza/pneumonia/COVID/SARS, etc.

It therefore goes without saying, that a cheap, effective wonder drug capable of treating such illnesses and other known diseases would be a pharmaceutical’s worst nightmare that would ultimately hurt their own pockets as well as that of the medical/health industry, and any stakeholders who share in their profits.

So with that out of the way, here is a current, updated account of what the President of the Tokyo Medical Association has to say about Ivermectin. All quotes in italics are by Dr. Haruo Ozaki.

The below image is a screenshot of the first page of the Japanese website:

Screenshot taken from: yomiuri.co.jp
Some embellishment has been added for emphasis:

「今こそイベルメクチンを使え」東京都医師会の尾崎治夫会長が語ったその効能

POINT
■イベルメクチンが新型コロナの予防にも治療にも効果があるという論文が相次いで発表されているが、すでに「使用国」とされている日本では使用が進んでいない。

■感染爆発が進む今こそ使用すべきだが、使おうにもイベルメクチンがない、政府の副作用被害救済制度の対象になっていないなどの課題がある。

■日本版EUAを早く整備して、現場の医師が使用できる体制になれば、自宅待機や療養の患者にも投与できる。政府は積極的に使用促進に取り組むべきだ。

“Use ivermectin now,” said Haruo Ozaki, president of the Tokyo Medical Association

POINT
A series of papers have been published that ivermectin is effective in preventing and treating the new corona, but its use has not progressed in Japan, which is already considered a “country of use”.

■ It should be used only now when the infection explosion progresses, but there are issues such as the absence of ivermectin even if it is used, and the fact that it is not subject to the government’s side effect damage relief system.

■ If the Japanese version of EUA is developed as soon as possible so that doctors in the field can use it, it can be administered to patients who are staying at home or recuperating. The government should actively promote its use.

東京オリンピックの開催中にインドを起源とするデルタ株が猛威を振るい、感染者の拡大が続いている。副作用の報告がほとんどなく、諸外国の臨床試験で効果が報告されているイベルメクチンを日本はなぜ使おうとしないのか。早くからイベルメクチンの有効な使用法を提言してきた東京都医師会の尾崎会長に8月5日、緊急インタビューした。
聞き手・構成 認定NPO法人・21世紀構想研究会理事長
科学ジャーナリスト 馬場錬成

During the Tokyo Olympics, delta strains originating in India are raging and the spread of infected people continues. Why does Japan not try to use ivermectin, which has been reported to be effective in clinical trials in other countries with few reports of side effects?

On August 5, I interviewed Mr. Ozaki, president of the Tokyo Metropolitan Medical Association, who had been proposing effective use of ivermectin from an early age.

Listening and Composition President, 21st Century Conception Society, Certified NPO Science Journalist Rensei Baba

まだ見えない感染拡大のピーク

――第5波ともいわれる今回の爆発的な感染拡大は、まだ右肩上がりが続いているようです。自宅待機・療養者が急増していますが、東京都医師会はどのように対応していますか。

「1月の第3波で自宅待機、療養の人が急増したとき、これではダメだということになって、24時間支援を目標に東京都と東京都医師会が一緒になって体制構築に取り組み、47地区医師会のうち37まで対応できるまでになりました。ところが、毎日1000人を超える自宅療養者が積みあがる今の状況は、限界を超えています。診療所の医師は、一般診療、ワクチン接種、健康診断、往診などで手が回らない。いま、保健所が入院調整をしています。東京都には入院調整センターもありますが、急変したコロナ患者を迅速に受け入れて治療できる体制が確立されるところまではいっていません」

The peak of the spread of infection that has not yet been seen

―― This explosive spread, also known as the fifth wave, seems to be still rising. The number of people staying at home and recuperating is increasing rapidly, but how is the Tokyo Medical Association responding?

“When the number of people staying at home and recuperating increased rapidly in the third wave in January, this was not enough, and the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and the Tokyo Medical Association worked together to build a system with the goal of 24-hour support, and we were able to respond to up to 37 of the 47 district medical associations. However, the current situation where more than 1,000 home care persons are accumulated every day is over the limit. Doctors at clinics are available for general medical care, vaccinations, medical examinations, house contacts, etc. The public health center is adjusting hospitalization now. There is also an inpatient coordination center in Tokyo, but we are not well into establishing a system that can quickly accept and treat corona patients who have suddenly changed.”

多くの臨床試験結果は「予防にも治療にも効果」

――これまで世界で発表されているイベルメクチンの臨床試験の論文を読むと、予防にも治療にも効いている例が多数出ています。

「中南米、アジアなどを中心にイベルメクチンがコロナの予防・治療に効いているという論文が多数出ていることは承知しています。次々と発症する患者の対応に迫られるが有効な治療薬もない。ワクチンは間に合わない。そういう差し迫ったときに、イベルメクチンがコロナに効いているという論文が出ているのだから、これを使ってみようと思うのは臨床医としては当たり前の対応です。医師主導の臨床試験論文が多数出てきたのは、そういう事情があったからです」

Many clinical trial results are “effective for prevention and treatment”

―― Reading the papers of ivermectin clinical trials published around the world, there are many cases that are effective in prevention and treatment.

I am aware that there are many papers that ivermectin is effective in preventing and treating corona, mainly in Latin America and Asia. There is no effective treatment which is pressed for the correspondence of the patient who develops one after another either. The vaccine will not be in time. It is a natural correspondence as a clinician to think that this is used because the thesis that ivermectin works for the corona has come out at such an imminent time. That’s why so many doctor-led clinical trial papers came out.”

――普通は製薬企業が大がかりな臨床試験をして効果を見るのですが、イベルメクチンはオンコセルカ症(河川盲目症)、リンパ系フィラリア症などの熱帯病の特効薬として、世界保健機関(WHO)をはじめ世界中の国々が20年以上前に承認した薬剤です。新型コロナにも効果があるなら適応外だがパンデミックの中で使用しよう、ということになったのはやむを得ないということですね。

 「そうです。パンデミックの医療現場は戦場です。野戦病院と同じです。患者が運び込まれ次々と容態が悪化して亡くなっていく。そのとき副作用もほとんどなく、コロナにも効くという論文が多数出てきたので、これにすがりつくようにして投与する医師の気持ちはよく分かります」

――Usually, pharmaceutical companies conduct large-sized clinical trials to see its effects, but ivermectin is a drug approved more than 20 years ago by the World Health Organization (WHO) and other countries around the world as a special effect of tropical diseases such as oncocelacia (river blindness) and lymphatic filariasis. If the new corona is also effective, it is not adaptable, but it is no use in a pandemic.

“That’s right. The medical field of the pandemic is a battlefield. It is the same as the field hospital. The patient is carried in, and the condition deteriorates one after another and it dies. At that time, there were few side effects, and many papers came out that it works for corona, so I understand the feelings of the doctor who administers it by following this.”

「つい先日、インドでコロナ感染症の治療ガイドラインを決めている全インド医科大学(All India Institute of Medical Sciences/AIIMS)の研究グループが、イベルメクチンの予防効果を調べた論文を発表しています。それによると、約3900人の医療従事者(職員及び学生)を対象に、イベルメクチン体重1キロ当たり0.3ミリ・グラムを3日間隔で2回投与した群、1回のみ投与した群、そして投与しなかった群の三つの群に分けて臨床試験を行った結果、イベルメクチンを2回投与された人は、新型コロナ感染が83%減少したというのです。論文を発表したのは世界でも第一級の研究グループですから、非常に信頼性が高いものです」

“Just recently, a research group from the All Institute of Medical Sciences/AIIMS, which has set guidelines for treating coronal infections in India, published a paper examining the preventive effects of ivermectin. According to the study, about 3,900 healthcare professionals (staff and students) were given 0.3 milligrams per kilo of ivermectin weight twice every three days, administered only once, and in three groups that did not, and those who were given ivermectin twice had an 83% reduction in new corona infections. It’s a very reliable research group because it’s one of the first-class research groups in the world to publish a paper.”

日本はすでに使用国に区分け

――日本では2020年5月18日に通達した「新型コロナウイルス感染症(COVID-19)診療の手引き第2版」から、イベルメクチンをCOVID-19治療に使用することを認めています。世界でも、日本はイベルメクチンの使用国に区分けされています。

「日本では以前から皮膚病の 疥癬 などに、『ストロメクトール』という商品名でイベルメクチンが適応薬として承認されており、改定手引きでは、『適応外』として新型コロナの治療にも承認する通達を出しています。適応外とは、医師と患者の判断で使用してもいいということです。通達を出したころまでに、世界では27か国、36件の臨床試験が行われており、イベルメクチンが予防・治療に効果が出ていると報告されていました。だから厚生労働省も適応外を認めたのです。効果がないと出ていたら通達は出さないでしょう」

Japan has already been classified as a country of use

―― Japan has admitted to using ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment from the “New Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19) Medical Care Guidelines 2nd Edition” announced on May 18, 2020. In the world, Japan is classified as a country where ivermectin is used.

“In Japan, ivermectin has been approved as an indication drug under the product name ‘stromectol’ for scabies for skin diseases, etc., and in the revised guidelines, we have issued a public order to approve the treatment of the new corona as ‘not adapted’.

It is not indication and can be used at the judgment of the doctor and the patient. By the time of the report, 36 clinical trials had been conducted in 27 countries around the world, and it was reported that ivermectin was effective in prevention and treatment. Therefore, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare also admitted the outside adaptation. If it was ineffective, I wouldn’t get a good by it.”

政府は使用に前向きな国会答弁、しかし…

――国会でも政府はイベルメクチンの使用を進めるような答弁をしています。

「さる2月17日の衆議院予算委員会で、立憲民主党の中島克仁議員がイベルメクチンについて、『国として早期にコロナの治療薬として承認できるように治験に最大限のバックアップをすべきである』との提案を行いました。田村厚生労働大臣は『適応外使用では今でも使用できる。医療機関で服用して自宅待機するという使用法もある』と答弁しています。菅首相は『日本にとって極めて重要な医薬品であると思っているので、最大限努力する』と答弁し、積極的な取り組みを示すような発言でした。しかし現実には(取り組みは)できていません」

The government has responded positively to the use of the Diet, but…

――the government has also responded to the Diet to advance the use of ivermectin.

“At the House of Representatives Budget Committee meeting on February 17, Katsuhito Nakajima, a member of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, proposed that Ivermectin should be backed up to the clinical trial to be approved as a treatment for corona at an early date. Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare Tamura said, “It can still be used for use outside of adaptation. There is also a usage of taking it at a medical institution and staying at home.”

Prime Minister Kan responded, “I believe it is an extremely important drug for Japan, so I will do my utmost,” and made a statement that indicated his proactive efforts. But in reality, we’re not working on it.”

――なぜ、できないのでしょうか?

「私たちも、日本の承認薬を供給する企業とその先にあるアメリカのメルク社がどういう供給体制にあるのか調べました。メルク社は治療薬を開発中であるせいか、イベルメクチンは新型コロナの治療・予防には効かないという見解で、疥癬などの皮膚病以外に使わせないとの意向が働いている。つまり、新型コロナに使うといっても、実際にはメルクが出さなければ国内のイベルメクチン供給には結びつかない。医師がイベルメクチンの処方を書いても、薬局には薬剤がない。これでは事実上使えないことになります」

「しかし、(メルクは)イベルメクチンは効かないと言っているのだから、何も供給を制限する必要はないはずです。効かないなら需要がないのですから。効くと信じているから供給をブロックしているように見えてしまいます」

――Why can’t you do it?

“We also looked at the supply structure of japanese companies that supply approved drugs and merck in the U.S. beyond. Perhaps because Merck is developing therapeutic drugs, the company believes that ivermectin is not effective in treating and preventing the new corona, and the intention is not to use it for anything other than skin diseases such as scabies. In other words, even if it is used for the new corona, it will not actually lead to the supply of ivermectin in Japan if Merck does not put it out. Even if the doctor writes a prescription for ivermectin, the pharmacy does not have the drug. This makes it virtually inable.”

“But [Merck] says ivermectin doesn’t work, so there shouldn’t be any need to limit the supply. If it doesn’t work, there’s no demand. It looks like we’re blocking supply because we believe it’s going to work.”

ジェネリックも普及しない理由は

――イベルメクチンのジェネリック薬品は中国、インドなどでも大量に製造されています。メルクが出さないなら、それを輸入して供給する手段もあるはずです。

「そうです。医師でもある中島議員が中心になって衆議院に提出した『新型インフルエンザ等治療用特定医薬品の指定及び使用に関する特別措置法案』(日本版EUA*整備法案)が成立すれば、ジェネリック製剤も使用できるようになります。しかし、現時点では政府は全く動いていないのではないでしょうか」

Why are generics not popular?

――Ivermectin’s generics are manufactured in large quantities in China, India, and other countries. If Merck doesn’t, there should also be a way to import and supply it.

“Yes, if the “Special Measures Bill on the Designation and Use of Specified Drugs for Treatment of New Influenza” (Japanese version of the EUA* Maintenance Bill) submitted to the House of Representatives, mainly by Mr. Nakajima, who is also a doctor, is enacted, generic formulations will also be available. But at the moment, the government is not moving at all.

「もう一つの問題は、イベルメクチンがすでに世界の多くの国で使われ、用法や用量、安全性・有効性などが確認されているのに、日本ではまだ臨床試験段階でそうはなっていない、ということです。このため、イベルメクチンは医薬品副作用の被害救済制度の対象になっていません。これでは医師は使いにくい。しかし、そういう不安と不利な状況の中でも、イベルメクチンの効果を確信している医師たちの中には、自らの責任でイベルメクチンを処方している医師が出てきています。私は日本版EUA整備法を早く成立させてほしいと願っています」

*EUA(Emergency Use Authorization)緊急時に未承認薬などの使用を許可したり、既承認薬の適応を拡大したりする米食品医薬品局(FDA)の制度。FDAが<1>生命を脅かす疾患である<2>疾患の治療などで一定の有効性が認められる<3>使用した際のメリットが、製品の潜在的なリスクを上回る<4>ほかに疾患を診断、予防、または治療する適当な代替品がない――という条件を満たすと判断した場合に使用が認められる。

“Another problem is that ivermectin has already been used in many countries around the world, and although usage, dosage, safety and efficacy have been confirmed, it has not yet been done in Japan during the clinical trial phase. For this reason, ivermectin is not subject to the drug side effect damage relief system. This makes it difficult for doctors to use it. However, even in such anxiety and adverse situations, some doctors who are convinced of the effect of ivermectin are prescribing ivermectin at their own responsibility. I hope that the Japanese version of the EUA Development Act will be enacted as soon as possible.”

*Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) system that allows the use of unappreciated drugs in emergencies and expands the indication of approved drugs. It is found to be used when the FDA determines that <1> the benefits of using <3>, which have certain efficacy in treating life-threatening diseases< <2> diseases, etc., outweigh the potential risks of the product <4> and are found to meet the condition that there is no suitable alternative to diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease.

[NOTE FROM E.A.R.: Not sure why when translating that the numbers 2 and 3 got reversed…]

筆者のインタビューに応じる尾崎会長(右) / Chairman Ozaki (right) who responds to an interview with the author
使用国なのに現実には使えない

――適応外を認めたので、世界では日本は「イベルメクチン使用国」に区分けされていますが、現実には使えない体制になっているということですね。

「その通りです。要するに政府はイベルメクチンを供給できる体制も構築せずにいるわけで、推進体制にはなっていない。日本版EUAを早く整備して、現場の医師が使用できる体制になれば、田村厚労大臣が国会で答弁したように、現実的に自宅待機、療養の患者さんにも投与できるわけですが、いまの体制では事実上何もできません。よく『国民の安全のため』と言いますが、このような有事の際にも慎重姿勢を崩さないのでは、国民の安全を犠牲にしているとしか理解のしようがありません」

Even if it is a country of use, it cannot be used in reality.

―― Because it admitted not to adapt, Japan is classified as a “country using ivermectin” in the world, but it is a system that can not be used in reality.

“That’s it. In short, the government does not build a system that can supply ivermectin, so it has not been promoted. If the Japanese version of EUA is developed early and becomes a system that doctors on site can use, it can be administered to patients who are practically staying at home and recuperating, as Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare Tamura answered in the Diet, but virtually nothing can be done with the current system. I often say ‘for the safety of the people’, but if you don’t lose your cautious attitude in the event of such an event, you can only understand that it is at the expense of the safety of the people.”

自ら手を出さない学術現場や研究者

――日本の問題点はほかにもないでしょうか。

「イベルメクチンは大村智博士が発見してノーベル賞までいただいた薬剤です。コロナに本当に効いているかどうか日本が世界に先駆けて取り組む実行力があるべきです。WHOやアメリカの国立衛生研究所(NIH)がコロナへの効果が未確定だとの見解を取り続けていますが、パンデミックの中でこれだけ世界中でイベルメクチンが使われているのですから、科学的なエビデンス(証拠)を得られる臨床試験を国が主導して行い、客観的で納得できるような結論を示せば、日本の研究水準のアップにもつながります」

Academic sites and researchers who do not take their own hands

―― Are there any other problems in Japan?

“Ivermectin is a drug discovered by Dr. Satoshi Omura and received the Nobel Prize. Japan should be the first in the world to be effective in whether corona is really working or not. WHO and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) continue to take the view that the effect on corona is indeterminate, but since ivermectin is used all over the world during the pandemic, if the government conducts clinical trials that can obtain scientific evidence and present objective and convincing conclusions, it will lead to an increase in the level of research in Japan.”

「南米、アジアなどでイベルメクチンがコロナに効いているという結果をアメリカの臨床医師たちのグループ(FLCCC)が発表し、イギリスのイベルメクチン推奨団体(BIRD)などの医師グループは、多くの論文を総合的に分析したメタ解析から『効果あり』を確信し、世界中の医療現場にイベルメクチンを推奨しています。日本オリンピック委員会にも、東京オリンピックの開催にあたってイベルメクチンの有効使用をすべきだと伝えてきましたが、政府は何も対応しませんでした」

 「学術現場の研究者や大学の先生にも問題があります。自らは何もやらないで、WHOのような国際機関や欧米の大きな保健機関が出した『イベルメクチンはコロナに効くかどうかは未確定』という見解を自分たちの見解にしている人が多い。主体的にやらないで、人の意見だけで動いています。どうしてイベルメクチンが効くか効かないか、自分たちで確かめてやろうという気にならないのか。やりもしないで批判ばかりしている評論家や研究者・学者がいるのは嘆かわしいことです。日本のアカデミアはもっと積極的に貢献してほしいと思います」

“A group of Clinical Physicians in the United States (FLCCC) has published the results of ivermectin’s effects on corona in South America, Asia, and other countries, and physician groups such as the Ivermectin Recommended Organization (BIRD) in the United Kingdom are convinced that it is ‘effective’ from a meta-analysis that comprehensively analyzes many papers, and recommends ivermectin to medical settings around the world. The Japanese Olympic Committee has also told us that ivermectin should be used effectively to host the Tokyo Olympics, but the government has not responded to anything.

“There are also problems with academic researchers and university teachers. Many people do not do anything, but take their own view of the view that “whether ivermectin works for corona is indeterminate” issued by international organizations such as WHO and large health organizations in Europe and the United States. Don’t be proactive, we’re moving only on people’s opinions. Why doesn’t we feel like we’re going to see if ivermectin works or not? It is deplorable that there are critics, researchers, and scholars who are criticizing without doing anything. I hope academia in Japan will contribute more actively.”

都医師会は「使用に取り組みたい」

――日本でもようやく、製薬企業大手の興和(コーワ)が主体になった臨床試験が予定されています。どのように対応しますか。

「東京都も医師会もこの臨床試験を積極的に支援・協力する方針です。協力する医療機関などを積極的に探して提供することにしました。外国が開発したワクチンや治療薬に頼っている国ではどうしようもない。自分たちでイベルメクチンのデータをきちんと出し、日本発として重症化や死亡の減少につながる貢献を目指すことがわれわれのやるべきことです」

The Tokyo Medical Association wants to work on its use

— Clinical trials are finally scheduled in Japan led by Kowa, a leading pharmaceutical company. How do you respond?

“The Tokyo Metropolitan Government and the Medical Association will actively support and cooperate in this clinical trial. We have actively searched for and provided medical institutions to cooperate with. We can’t help it in countries that rely on vaccines and therapeutics developed by foreign countries. We need to properly provide ivermectin data ourselves and aim to contribute to the reduction of serious diseases and deaths from Japan.”

――コロナ・パンデミックの体験から日本の医療制度が学ぶべきことは。

「日本の国民皆保険制度のもとで、今回のようなパンデミック有事のときの対応は厳しいことがはっきりしました。民間医療施設は稼働率を精いっぱい高めて効率を上げることで経営しています。そういう中では、今回のように『急激に感染者が増えたから対応せよ』と言われても極めて難しいのです」

「対応策の一例をあげれば、公的医療機関・病院などで1000床くらいの空きベッドを持つ病院を建て、ふだんは研究施設や医師、看護師、検査技師らの研修や訓練機関として運用し、パンデミックが発生した際には医療機関として活用する、という方法があります。スキルを磨いて人材を養成し、パンデミック発生時には育成した人材も投入できる体制にするのです。運用方法を具体化するには課題もあると思いますが、今後、検討・研究すべきだと思います」

――What should the Japanese health care system learn from the corona pandemic experience?

“Under Japan’s national health insurance system, it has become clear that the response in the event of such a pandemic is severe. Private medical facilities are run by increasing the utilization rate to the maximum and increasing efficiency. In such a situation, it is extremely difficult to say that “respond because the number of infected people has increased rapidly” as this time.”

“If you give an example of countermeasures, we will build a hospital with about 1,000 vacant beds in public medical institutions and hospitals, usually operate it as a training and training organization for research facilities, doctors, nurses, laboratory technicians, etc., and use it as a medical institution in the event of a pandemic.  There is a method. We will develop human resources by honing our skills, and in the event of a pandemic, we will be able to bring in the human resources we have developed. I think there are issues to materialize the operation method, but I think we should consider and research it in the future.”

インタビューを終えて

使用に慎重なWHOへの反発も

デルタ株(インド変異株)が、日本の感染者のほぼすべてに置き換わろうとしている状況下で、新型コロナの新規感染者数が日々、過去最高を更新している。

都内の自宅療養者は2万人を超え、全国では7万人を超えている。医師でもある中島克仁衆議院議員は「抗体カクテル療法は有効だが、確保量と体制整備に課題がある。コロナ患者の重症化を防ぐため、早期治療の選択肢を広げることが必要だ」と強調する。その選択肢のひとつがイベルメクチンの投与――というのが尾崎会長を強く動かしていると感じた。

After the interview

There is also a backlash against WHO is cautious about its use.

With Delta (India Mutant) about to replace nearly all of Japan’s infected people, the number of new corona infections is hitting a record high every day.

There are more than 20,000 home recuperators in Tokyo and more than 70,000 nationwide. Katsuhito Nakajima, a member of the House of Representatives who is also a doctor, said, “Antibody cocktail therapy is effective, but there are issues in securing the amount and the system. In order to prevent corona patients from becoming more severe, we need to expand our options for early treatment.” I felt that one of the options was the administration of ivermectin, which strongly moved Chairman Ozaki.

コロナ治療・予防へのイベルメクチンの評価はまだ固まっていない。WHOやNIHなど、世界のメジャーな保健機関は、「世界中の科学者を納得させるだけのエビデンスを示した臨床試験結果は出ていない」という見解を維持している。しかし、「これらの主張は根拠が薄い」と反論する医師グループが米英に多数出てきているのも事実だ。

 重症化して死に至る人も出る中で、世界中の医療現場では日夜、医師たちが懸命に治療に取り組んでいる。感染急拡大期のインドの医療現場は、まさに戦場だった。治療薬も治療機器類も十分でない医療現場では、新型コロナに効いているとの多数の論文を頼りにイベルメクチンが投与され、大きな効果を上げる例が多数出た。

The evaluation of ivermectin for coronal treatment and prevention has not yet been solidified. The world’s major health organizations, such as the WHO and NIH, maintain the view that “no clinical trial results have shown enough evidence to convince scientists around the world.” However, it is also true that a large number of doctor groups have come out in the United States and Britain to counter that “these claims are unfounded”.

Doctors are working hard day and night in medical situations around the world as some people die from serious each other. India’s medical scene during the rapid spread of infection was truly a battleground. In medical sites where there are not enough therapeutic agents and treatment equipment, ivermectin was administered relying on a number of papers that said it was effective for the new corona, and there were many cases that raised a large effect.

インド弁護士会は、WHOがイベルメクチンを治療使用に推奨しないとしているのは「患者を見殺しにする殺人罪に等しい」と激しく批判した文書を作り、テドロス事務局長や主任サイエンティストに送り、その文書を世界に向けて公表している。

イベルメクチンの効果ありとする医師団体がアメリカのFLCCCとイギリスのBIRDである。FLCCCは、世界の613人の科学者(医師・研究者)が2万6398人を対象に行った63件の臨床試験のメタ分析(8月15日現在)の結果をまとめ、以下のように判定している。

▽14件の予防試験において86%の予防効果
▽27件の初期症状治療試験において73%の改善効果
▽22件の重症治療試験において40%の改善効果
▽25件の臨床試験において61%の死亡率低下

 メタ解析した約半数の31件が、世界の臨床試験標準とされ、エビデンスを重視するランダム化比較試験(RCT)であり、ここで60%の改善効果が出ている。尾崎会長は、これを信じて治療にイベルメクチンを使おうとする臨床医がいてもおかしくない、との見解を示している。

The Indian Bar Association has made a document that sharply criticized the WHO’s [indemnity] in its insumping ivermectin for therapeutic use, “equal to murder charges that kill patients,” and sent it to Director-General Tedros and its chief scientist, who published the document to the world.

The doctors’ organizations that have the effect of ivermectin are FLCCC in the United States and BIRD in The United Kingdom.The FLCCC compiled the results of a meta-analysis (as of August 15) of 63 clinical trials conducted by 613 scientists (physicians and researchers) around the world in 26,398 people, and determined as follows:

86% preventive effect in 14 preventive trials , 73% improvement in 27 initial symptom treatment trials , 40% improvement in 22 severe treatment trials – 61% mortality rate decrease in 25 clinical trials

About half of the 31 meta-analyses are global clinical trial standards, and evidence-focused randomized trials (RCTs) have a 60% improvement. Chairman Ozaki shows the opinion that there is a clinician who believes this and tries to use Ivermectin for treatment.

イベルメクチンを否定する主張も根強い

 一方で、コロナ治療・予防にイベルメクチンを使うことに疑問を呈したり、反対する声が根強くあることは事実だ。筆者はイベルメクチン効果なしとする論文を3本読んだが、うち2本は研究者から臨床試験の方法に間違いがあると指摘されたものだ。それ以外に効果なしとする論文はないのではないか。

 確かに、「効果あり」としたエジプトの医師グループの論文が、データが 捏造 された疑いがあると指摘されて撤回されるといった事例もあった。しかし、前述の通り、イベルメクチンが新型コロナに効果ありとする論文の方が圧倒的に多い事実は揺るがない。イベルメクチンには副作用もほとんどなく、ジェネリックが行き渡っていて価格も安い。使ってみようという考えは無謀とはいえない。使用を否定することは、パンデミックへの対応策をつぶすことになりかねないのではないか。

While there are persistent claims that ivermectin is denied, it is true that there are persistent voices questioning or opposing the use of ivermectin for coronal treatment and prevention. I have read three papers that have no ivermectin effect, two of which were pointed out by researchers as erring in the way clinical trials are conducted. There might be no thesis which does not have the effect other than that. 

Indeed, there were cases where papers by egyptian doctors who said they were “effective” were withdrawn because they were pointed out that the data was suspected to have been fabricated. However, as mentioned above, the fact that there are overwhelmingly more papers that Ivermectin is effective for the new corona is unwavering. Ivermectin has few side effects, generics are all over the place, and the price is low. The idea of using it is not reckless. Denying its use could crush responses to pandemics.

日本版EUA法案成立に期待

田村厚生労働大臣は、国会で「適応外使用では今でも使用できる。医療機関で(イベルメクチンを)服用して自宅待機するという使用法もある」と答弁している。これが簡単にできるなら、東京都医師会はわざわざ「イベルメクチンを使用すべきだ」と主張する必要はないはずだ。

尾崎会長は「適応外使用では、副作用などで健康被害があっても救済制度の対象にはならないし、第一、処方してもモノがない」と語っている。ジェネリック製剤が使えるようにならない限り、イベルメクチンは現実的には「いつまでも使えない薬」であり続けてしまう。

その壁を越えるのが、医師でもある立憲民主党の中島克仁衆議院議員らが国会に提出した「日本版EUA整備法案」の成立だ。しかしいま、国会の休会で棚ざらしになったままだ。

Japan’s eua bill is expected to be enacted, and Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare Tamura told the Diet, “It can still be used for use outside of adaptation. There is also a use to take (ivermectin) at a medical institution and stay at home. “If this is easy to do, the Tokyo Medical Association should not have to insist that Ivermectin should be used. 

Chairman Ozaki says, “In non-adaptive use, even if there is a health hazard due to side effects, etc., it is not subject to the relief system, and first, there is no thing even if it prescribes it”. Unless generic formulations become possible, ivermectin will realistically continue to be a “drug that cannot be used forever.” 

Beyond that barrier is the enactment of the “Japanese version of the EUA Development Bill”, which was submitted to the Diet by Katsuhito Nakajima, a member of the House of Representatives of the Constitutional Democratic Party, who is also a doctor. However, it remains shelved by the holiday of the Diet now.

筆頭提案者の中島議員は「この法案を成立させれば、すべて解決します」と言う。疥癬治療薬のイベルメクチンがコロナ治療に使えるようになり、ジェネリック製剤の使用にも道が開け、副作用などの健康被害は救済できるようになる。これなら医師は積極的に処方するようになるだろう、と考えているのだ。

 日本国民全体に対するワクチン接種率は、1回目が約50%、2回目はまだ40%にも届いていない。国内で最大の地域人口を抱える東京都医師会の尾崎会長の最大の懸念は、重症患者を受け入れる医療施設の 逼迫 と、自宅療養者らが重症化して病態が急変することへの対応策だ。尾崎会長の言葉には、緊急にイベルメクチンを使えるようにするしかないという危機感がこもっていた。

 日本で発見されたイベルメクチンは、コロナ・パンデミックの「救世主」となる可能性を秘めている。これまでの世界の臨床試験報告を見ても、全く効かないということはあり得ない。インドをはじめ多くの国が、緊急的にイベルメクチンを投与して感染拡大を抑え込んだ実績がある。緊急時のいま、コロナ感染に使用することに 躊躇 する理由は見当たらない。私はイベルメクチンの活用は、決して「賭け」ではないと確信している。

Mr. Nakajima, the lead proponent, said, “If we pass this bill, we will solve everything.” Ivermectin, a scabies drug, can now be used to treat corona, opening up a path to the use of generic formulations and relief of side effects and other health hazards. They think this will make doctors more aggressive in prescribing it. 

The vaccination rate for the japanese people as a whole has not reached about 50% for the first time and 40% for the second time yet. The biggest concern of Ozaki, president of the Tokyo Medical Association, which has the largest regional population in Japan, is the tightness of medical facilities that accept critically ill patients and measures to prevent home recuperators from becoming more severe and their conditions suddenly changing. Chairman Ozaki’s words expressed a sense of urgency that he had no choice but to be able to use ivermectin urgently. 

Ivermectin found in Japan has the potential to be the “savior” of the coronal pandemic. Looking at the world’s clinical trial reports so far, it is unlikely that it will not work at all. Many countries, including India, have an urgent experience of administering ivermectin to suppress the spread of infection. In an emergency, I see no reason to hesitate to use it for coronal infection. I’m sure the use of ivermectin is never a “bet”.

Credit goes to Haruo Ozaki and Rensei Baba for this interview/report.

プロフィル
尾崎 治夫氏( おざき・はるお )
 おざき内科循環器科クリニック院長。疾病予防に有効なたばこ対策と要介護を未然に防ぐためのフレイル対策に特に力を入れてきた。東京都医師会長として政府や東京都、医療機関などに新型コロナ対策の要望や提言を続けている。順天堂大学卒、69歳。

Profile Haruo Ozaki Director, Ozaki Internal Medicine Cardiology Clinic. We have been particularly focusing on tobacco control effective for disease prevention and frail measures to prevent nursing care before they are required. As chairman of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, he continues to make requests and proposals for new corona countermeasures to the government, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, and medical institutions.Graduated from Juntendo University, aged 69.

プロフィル
馬場 錬成氏( ばば・れんせい )
 1940年生まれ。読売新聞社社会部、科学部、解説部を経て論説委員。退社後は東京理科大学知財専門職大学院教授、早稲田大学客員教授、文部科学省科学技術・学術政策研究所客員研究官、内閣府総合科学技術会議委員などを歴任。現在、認定NPO法人・21世紀構想研究会理事長。「大丈夫か 日本のもの作り」(プレジデント社)、「大丈夫か 日本の特許戦略」(同)、「ノーベル賞の100年」(中公新書)、「大村智 2億人を病魔から守った化学者」(中央公論新社)、「知財立国が危ない」(共著:日本経済新聞出版社)ほか著書多数。

Profile Mr. Rensei Baba Was born in 1940. After studying at the Yomiuri Shimbun’s Social, Science, and Commentary Departments, he became an editorial board member. After leaving the company, he served as a professor at the Graduate School of Intellectual Property Professionals at Tokyo University of Science, a visiting professor at Waseda University, a visiting researcher at the Institute for Science and Technology Policy of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, and a member of the Council for Science and Technology Policy of the Cabinet Office. Currently, he is the president of the 21st Century Conception Society, a certified NPO.

He has written many books, including “All Right or Japanese Making” (President), “Is It Okay or Japan’s Patent Strategy” (Same), “100 Years of the Nobel Prize” (Nakako Shin book), “Satoshi Omura, chemist who protected 200 million people from disease” (ChuoKoron Shinsha), and “Intellectual Property State Is Dangerous” (co-author: Nihon Keizai Shimbun Publishing Co., Ltd.).

Again, while I do not agree with everything stated in the above interview, I do agree with the consensus that there is a worldwide suppression of this treatment.

It is interesting getting the perspective from those in other countries, especially in contrast (comparison) to that of the United States, for one. The similarities of Dr. Ozaki’s concerns echoing that of several frontline doctors/healthcare workers and virologists with their struggles in getting an already approved medicine in the hands of patients that might need them, is a huge testament to the strange conflict we see between several health organizations recommending and showing benefits of this treatment, to that of the “powerhouse” industries [WHO, NIH, FDA, CDC, etc.] and the various governments that are refusing to acknowledge the ivermectin studies.

As Dr. Ozaki states: “But [Merck] says ivermectin doesn’t work, so there shouldn’t be any need to limit the supply. If it doesn’t work, there’s no demand. It looks like we’re blocking supply because we believe it’s going to work.”

This is rather chilling. It is implying, in not so subtle terms, that the supply of Ivermectin is being blocked ON PURPOSE because “they” think it will work in treating COVID. …This is a speculation that many are having, because to continue to deny the efficacy and safety of a drug that has been used for decades, yet suddenly make the drug harder and harder to access, ESPECIALLY after it was shown to be effective against COVID… Something tells me that it has NOTHING to do with our health.

Please continue to stay informed and keep doing research. Thank you for reading, and thank you to those who are speaking up and voicing your concerns instead of just following along with the establishments. God bless.

Dr. Peter McCullough / John Leake – Vaccine is a “Horrendous Bioweapon” | [Full Interview Transcript]

Renowned doctor exposes worldwide covid treatment suppression and corruption of the medical and governmental agencies.

Thank you to John Leake and Dr. Peter McCullough. The full video below has been transcribed, and while all of the information is incredibly helpful and insightful, I did highlight some pertinent topics that were discussed. I may try and provide an index as well, but at the moment using the ctrl-F function should help in order to find particular words that may be of interest.

 

Also thank you to all the doctors/scientists/researchers, etc. who have been brave enough to stand up for their patients and for humanity in general. Your bravery and integrity speaks volumes of your character and exemplifies what it means to be a strong, compassionate individual, especially in the midst of adversity and vitriol.

Dr. Peter McCullough interview with John Leake: [Full Transcript]

On May 19, 2021 Dr. Peter McCullough was interviewed by author John Leake in Dallas, Texas on the subject of Dr. McCullough’s treatment and research of Covid-19.

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FCRSA, FCCP, FNFK, FNLA
Professor of Medicine, Texas A & M College of Medicine
Board Certified Internist and Cardiologist
President of Cardiorenal Society of America
Editor-in-Chief, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine
Editor-in-Chief, Cardiorenal Medicine
Senior Associate Editor, American Journal of Cardiology

@00:11: “I’m Dr. Peter McCullough, and I’m an Internist and Cardiologist and Academic Physician Professor of Medicine at Texas A & M College of Medicine on the Baylor Dallas Campus.

And, in February of 2020, like many physicians, I was really taken by storm with the news that a tremendously contagious virus was emanating out of Wuhan, China. And it looks like the United States was in the crosshairs.

When you heard the first reports of this novel respiratory illness headed our way, what were your initial thoughts about how to prepare for it?

@00:46: In the beginning, in my clinical practice, I really didn’t have any viewpoint about prior viral pandemics. And some had mentioned a prior influenza pandemics – if we go back to the 1300’s – there was, you know, plagues that occurred across Europe. But point in fact, we were largely, and very quickly, thrown into emergency mode. And so what happened was a whole series of communications within health systems that really dealt with protection of the doctors and nurses. And Americans were introduced to a term called PPE, or Personal Protective Equipment, and most of our taskforce meetings and calls really didn’t have to do with sick patients. It had to do with protection of the healthcare workers and doctors.

So, I got a sense early on that fear, group fear, was a major driver in behavioral response to the pandemic.

@01:45: My research endeavors and my research life before covid-19 centered on the interface between heart and kidney disease. I’m the President of the Cardiorenal Society of America. I’m considered the most published person on this topic in the world in history. I chair many FDA approved clinical trial data safety monitoring board – in fact I’ve probably seen and examined more drug safety trial data than any doctor in current American medicine. So I’m well-grounded in chronic disease epidemiology and randomized trials.

But for covid-19, our major viewpoint that we had early on, or at least for me with my prior cardiorenal collaborations were, was with Italian doctors. And so we were starting to email each other in terms of what is going on in the metro Milan area. In Milan, and then down to Sienna, in Tuscany, and we quickly started to get an understanding that this illness was like a[n] upper respiratory infection, like a common cold. And for a majority of individuals it was like the common cold.

However, in some individuals, it could progress to what we call the adult respiratory distress syndrome. Where there’s an overwhelming attack against the lungs; patients lost their ability to breathe and exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide, and then required mechanical intubation. So this was unlike any common cold and it appeared to be very different than influenza. Influenza in elderly people can also cause the adult respiratory distress syndrome, but it’s almost always because of a secondary bacterial infection – like staphylococcal infection.

So SARS CoV-2, the virus, and covid-19 appear to have these special features, and then within a few weeks we understood pretty clearly that the illness had 3 major biological features to it.

One was early viral replication, where the virus replicates exponentially as other viral infections do. And that it has a second phase where the immune system is tipped off into a very abnormal maladaptive pattern. So instead of the immune system defending the body, the immune system sends out signals that begin to damage organs, including the heart, the lungs, the kidneys, the brain… the blood system.

And then very importantly, the virus itself, through the spike protein, or the dangerous spicule on the surface of the ball of the virus, the spike protein itself caused coagulation or blood clotting. And a unique type of coagulation. It caused the red blood cells to stick together at the same time the platelet stick together. So this is a very different type of blood clotting that we would see with major blood clots in the arteries and veins – for instance, blood clots involved in stroke and heart attack, blood clots involved in major blood vessels in the legs – this was a different type of clotting.

And in fact the Italians courageously did some autopsies and found micro blood clots in the lungs, and so we understood in the end, the reason why the lungs fail, is not because the virus is there, it’s because micro blood clots are there.

What were you seeing in the initial reports about Covid-19?

@05:11: The waves of reports in published medical literature originally emanated out of China, the early ones, and the public should understand that the typical publication cycle for an academic paper that’s peer-reviewed and published, can be anywhere from 9 months to 2 years.

So, what happened was the publication cycles were too long to get any rapid information out. So immediately our system collapsed and it’s what’s called preprints. So publications would be submitted, papers would be submitted for publication, but the preprint would come out basically telling the world that the paper had not yet undergone peer-review, but we need to get this information out now because people need to understand what’s going on.

So we had a wave from China originally, which was difficult to interpret, because of English writing, because the Chinese population is just so different in terms of its structure, and it was hard to make much out of what was coming out of China outside of it, and in some cases it could be fatal.

Italy was much more like the United States. That was the next big wave and we just collaborate more freely with the Italians. And what I had done is I reached out to what’s called the Coracle Network in Italy as an American doctor and I freely said, “Listen, I am not a virologist, or an immunologist, but I can tell you every infectious disease doctor in America is completely subscribed to inpatient care of patients with covid-19. And there’s nobody able to kind of think their way through what’s going on in the pandemic.”

And so what we learned relatively early is that this illness was clearly and strongly amenable to restratification or that baseline risks was very, very strong determinants, even more so than the virus itself for mortality. So what that meant is, the strongest determinant of mortality is age. And age itself is an underlying determinant or cause of death, if you will, in the general population. Then we start adding on the typical things that put people at risk for death of other causes. Heart disease, lung disease, kidney disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes.

The interesting thing is that obesity appeared to be a super loaded factor. And so the virus seemed to really prey upon patients particularly who are obese. And there are some reasons for this, in terms of how the cytokines and immune factors are generated in response to the virus that could explain it.

@07:48: But we understood quickly, that individuals under age 50, for example, with no major medical problems, could ride through this illness very easily. And in fact, the Swedes figured this out very quickly and said, “You know what? We’re not going to shutdown. We can just, this is sufficiently understood, that we can simply protect the individuals at risk the best we can, the best that any protection measure can, and then we’ll just have our economy and our schools move along in a usual fashion.”

With the pandemic, what happened is there was a global shutdown on travel, and a global shutdown on academic meetings. So for the first time in my career we could no longer meet with our colleagues – in the United States, or overseas. And academic medicine, its lifeblood is meeting and interchange of ideas. And so for the first time we could not freely interchange ideas as a group.

In fact I recall a teleconference early on held by the National Institutes of Health, strictly actually by the Division of insulin- Diabetes and Kidney Disease, it was that institute that I’m aligned with in terms of clinical trials, and it was led by Dr. Robert Star, a terrific scientist, and as I recall there were hundreds of people on that call to just learn about what was going on in other centers.

And people were asking each other, “Well what have you seen out at UCLA?” / “What have you seen at Baylor?” / “What have you seen at Harvard?” And so we were literally just communicating to try to understand what in the world is going on with this virus. “Who needs to be hospitalized?” / “What happens when they’re hospitalized?” / “Who needs mechanical ventilation?”

@09:33: All of these interactions had us settle on the idea that this was enormously amenable to restratification. People under age 50 without any medical problems, unless they presented with severe symptoms, they were going to be fine. Honestly. It was going to be like a head cold.

But over age 50, there became a real risk of hospitalization and death. And the two important endpoints, the two important endpoints, were hospitalization and death. You ask Americans, “What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of getting a cold and being at home for a few days or a few weeks?” / “Nah. I’m afraid, I’m deathly afraid of being hospitalized and obviously afraid of dying.”

@10:09: Why was the hospitalization so, so frightening? Because for the first time, patients would be hospitalized, they were put into isolation, they could never see their loved ones again. Those who died actually never did see their loved ones again.

The workers were terrified. They were wearing personal protective equipment, they had very reduced visitation to patients in rooms, they started using telemedicine services where the poor patients were in, glass rooms, no one was coming in and seeing them. And the care that was offered was modest. Honestly it was supportive care until patients needed to go on respirators. So to sit in the hospital on oxygen, terrified, day by day by day – no one being able to come in the room, not being able to see their family, these messages got out to other family members and it put America on watch, with extraordinary fear.

Now over the last year, I’ve published, and I’ve managed to get this out despite the, our incredibly difficult publication cycles, I’ve published 40 peer-reviewed papers on covid-19. That may be more than anybody in America. One of my very first papers, the title of it, and the paper dealt with ‘what are the important outcomes?‘ That’s hospitalization and death. And when I started to see that scoreboard come up on the major media channels, where it listed positive cases and death, and all the Americans remember this, this was up there almost instantaneously, it came from Johns Hopkins, instantaneously, it was cases and deaths.

And I kind of wondered, how did they get that information so quickly? That was, amazing. We don’t have death certifications and other things that are very rapid at all on who can be determining this. But at any rate, it was up there. And what I said was, I said, “What really what we need to know is who’s being hospitalized?” Because if we can’t figure out who’s being hospitalized, and we can’t figure out where the hospitalizations are occurring, we don’t know where to allocate resources.

So I published a paper on this in the journal that I edit, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, I immediately wanted to reach the American public; I published an op-ed in The Hill, which is a newsletter out of Washington, and I said, “Listen. There’s an emergent need, we need the hospitalizations.” And I screamed as loud as I could to the administration to say, “Listen. Get an Executive Order to get the U.S. hospital census everyday so we can see what was going on.”

It never happened. We got an Executive Order to get the positive test results to come in from all the major laboratories, and through the hospital laboratories, because all the tests for the virus were under the emergency use authorization. So it was linked to an Executive Order. So the positive tests were just coming in to the Johns Hopkins Center, so we knew who was testing positive;

@13:00: There was no control over duplicates, by the way, so if a patient had one or two or three tests, unless the system had a way of actually filtering out these duplicates, those piled on, and it really didn’t take into consideration who was sick and who wasn’t sick.

So we just had test positive, and then we had the deaths, which started to take on a cadence of trailing by about 4 weeks after the positive test cases. But that whole death ascertainment was a real mystery to Americans. And what I said, I think was around March or April, I basically made this statement relatively publicly. I said, “Listen, there are two bad outcomes. Hospitalization and death. I’m going to put together a team of doctors, and figure out how to stop these hospitalizations and death.”

@13:50: I felt compelled, as an academic leader in medicine, if no one in the White House can say that, no one in the White House task force can say that, if no one in the FDA can say that, or the NIH or the CDC, and Americans were pouring into hospitals and dying, no one can make that courageous statement uniquely, and individually, and alone – I made that statement.

How did you conceptualize the problem of Covid-19 and how to deal with it?

@14:20: We had… as our country’s leadership, an inability to frame the problem. The problem was, there was a virus, it was popping up in clusters in the United States. And in most people it was causing a cold, and they got through it just fine. And other people it was leading to hospitalization and death. But we couldn’t frame the problem that the virus in some people causes hospitalization and death. Let’s stop it! Let’s stop the hospitalizations and death. Let’s treat the virus.

We could not frame that problem. Our leaders couldn’t frame the problem. I personally didn’t have any problem framing the problem. It’s a bad thing. If there was another form of pneumonia out there, I would’ve said the same thing. Another form of newly acquired asthma, another form of urogenital infection or gastrointestinal infection.

@15:17: Ebola had just been actually in Dallas, a few years earlier, and I think ebola hurt us in terms of our thinking. Because ebola was so terribly contagious and so quickly fatal, that the fear that ebola created in Dallas was extraordinary. I’ll never forget it. Our medical center, one time I tried to get in one of the usual doors that I go into and there was a police officer there. I said, “What’s going on?” He goes, “We’re here to block anybody with ebola from coming in our hospital. We’re going to shunt them to Presbyterian Hospital north of us.” When do we “shunt” patients away from one hospital?… – The fear that ebola created because of this idea was terribly contagious and fatal quickly – I think set us on edge.

And with SARS CoV-2 virus, what we learned is, the average person sits at home for two weeks! There’s no immediate lethality to the virus. In fact we’ve got a long window of time to make a diagnosis, organize treatment, and prevent hospitalization and death. So SARS CoV-2 was very different from ebola.

But we look at other conditions where we readily accept the fact that somebody can fall ill at home, but if we start treatment early, with an infection, we can save the patient. That exists for community acquired pneumonias. It occurs for various forms of staph infection, including Staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome. It occurs for Diverticulitis and abdominal conditions. It occurs for skin infections, various forms of cellulitis, it occurs for meningitis.

@17:03: And for instance, if someone had a form of meningitis, we wouldn’t say, “Listen, sit at home for two weeks. And then if you’re really really bad, and you’re having seizures, and you can’t even breathe anymore, then come in the hospital and we’ll start treatment.”

So the different, unique aspect of the medical response to SARS CoV-2 and covid-19 was for the first time we had an infectious disease, where the medical community settled into a groupthink – and this was supported, by the NIH, the CDC, the FDA, the American Medical Association, all the medical societies, it was supported by these societies – (long pause) …to tell doctors, “Don’t touch this virus. Let patients stay at home. Let them get as sick as humanly possible, and then when they can’t breathe anymore, then go to the hospital.”

In fact, it was shocking, October 8th (2020), when the National Institutes of Health came out with their first set of treatment guidelines, because prior to that, none of the societies had any treatment guidelines! They actually didn’t tell doctors how to treat the illness. Now there was suggestions about what should be done in the hospital, but Americans cared about what was going on when they got sick at home.

And the first set of guidelines said, “You get sick at home, don’t do anything. Don’t do anything. Come into the hospital when you really can’t breathe.” / Still don’t do anything, until a patient needs oxygen. Then start doing something.” Like then actually give the first anti-viral drug, which was Remdesivir.

Well that’s 14 days after the virus had already started replicating! By that time the virus is long gone. When people can’t breathe the problem is micro blood clotting in the lungs.

So the federal agencies – the CDC, the NIH and the FDA – were enormously inept in terms of perceiving what this problem was. Incredibly inept in applying any type of judgement or direction to doctors. And what had happened among the doctors was, “We’re so terribly frightened, we’re not going to do anything unless we have the intellectual support from our associations, from our federal agencies, from our medical societies.”

And it was just the opposite of what medicine had always been. Medicine had always been, early innovation by doctors, empiric treatment, small studies, randomized trials and then sponsored large randomized trials, in that order. And then after large randomized trials, then guidelines bodies would then look at all those large randomized trials, make determinations of what should be done, and then those guidelines bodies would issue guidelines and then the federal agencies would file the guidelines.

That’s exactly what we do for mammography, colonoscopy, treatment of myocardial infarction, treatment of pneumonia, it always started out with early empiricism, then getting to guidelines and agency’s statements years later.

Why was there an assumption that nothing could be done to treat people in the early stages of Covid-19 infection?

@20:00: It was a dangerous assumption. To assume there’s nothing that one can do for a fatal infection, is enormous blunder. It’s a blunder by citizens. It’s a blunder by health responders. And it’s a massive blunder by agencies. Can you imagine, let’s make an assumption. And could our assumption lead to the absolute worst possible outcome, which would be hospitalization and death. Or we could make another assumption. And say, “You know what? It’s treatable. We’re going to try to treat it.”

Which dangerous – which assumption is more dangerous? Absolutely the dangerous assumption is to do nothing. The dangerous – you can take any example. Let’s make an assumption on… traffic safety. You can assume that traffic safety rules and lines and stop signs and seat belts do something. Or you can assume they don’t. Let’s try. And let’s have a free-for-all out on the streets right now and see what happens versus paying attention to some rules.

@21:00: We never make assumptions that are dangerous to people. And the thing that really worried me about this whole thing is this series of extraordinarily dangerous assumptions. Can you imagine a senior citizen who has heart and lung disease, recovered from cancer, has some kidney disease, is handed a diagnostic test result and says, “Here. You have covid-19. Now you have your fatal diagnosis. Our recommendations, based on the assumption we can’t do anything, is: go home, and wait it out. – And when that panic, and that fear, and that breathlessness, and fever, is SO overwhelming, when you can’t bear it anymore! – then, go to the hospital.”

And how do people go to the hospital? They call family members. They contaminate all their family members. They call EMS. Uber drivers. Taxi drivers. Every hospitalization in America was a super spreader event.

So this “assumption” that there’s nothing we could do, and giving somebody a fatal diagnosis, with no instructions, led to a massive amplification of cases. So what we could have assumed, and what I did assume, was that there are some principles we could adopt from other precedents.

For example, every form of pneumonia known to man does better if treated early. Even influenza. And that’s the reason why, Tamiflu, as an example, and there’s an analogous product, are FDA approved for the treatment of influenza. They have some partial effect. Now do we ever use Tamiflu alone? No! We typically combine it with other drugs to get patients through the illness. There are supportive respiratory drugs. There are forms of inhalers. What’s called beta agonist inhalers and steroid inhalers. We use those liberally in forms of emphysema, pneumonia, asthma, allergic pneumonitis.

There’s other things that we can do to help patients get through the syndrome. The inflammatory nature of this syndrome became very interesting. We understand that antihistamines, as an example, Montelukast, aspirin, steroids, corticosteroids, play an important role.

@23:17: If I had an asthmatic at home, I wouldn’t say, “Listen. Sit at home for two weeks until you can’t breathe anymore and then go into the hospital.” Are you kidding me? I’d put that asthmatic on inhalers, I probably would use some empiric antibiotics in that patient and then some steroids, and I’d prevent the hospitalization to the best I could.

So I approached covid-19, respiratory illness, like any other with the following thought. And we pretty quickly put together our approach based on other precedents including influenza, including asthma, including bacterial pneumonia, as follows: that this was going to be amenable to restratification, those under age 50 who had no pulmonary symptoms, they could simply ride through the illness.

@23:59: We had data suggesting that nutritional deficiencies seemed to increase the risk for hospitalization and death. And so that’s where the nutraceuticals came in early on, that there was supportive data – not curative – but supportive data for zinc, for vitamin D, vitamin C, and interestingly a polyphenol substance called quercetin. There was some others that were considered, including lysine, and N-acetyl cysteine, they became what we call the nutraceutical bundle.

So is it kind of reasonable to do that in patients? I would say yeah, if it’s linked to mortality, we don’t know anything else, there’s no harm in these supplements, they’re readily available, people can buy them. So we recommended the nutraceutical bundle for those under age 50, and really no medical treatment. That amounted to roughly of people getting ill at the time, probably 2/3 to 3/4 of patients really needing no treatment.

However, if someone below age 50 have medical problems, presented with severe symptoms, or over age 50 with medical problems, it became clear that the rates of hospitalization or death were greater than 1%, that was enough, greater than 1% – it’s kind of the magic number in this whole equation, that’s enough to do something. That’s enough to do something.

We knew somebody at age 60, for instance, would face about an 18% chance of hospitalization and death. 18% chance, that’s too high. In my field, cardiology, our guidelines say anything more than 5% is high risk. 1 to 5% is moderate, less than 1% is low risk. In general, for anything less than 1%, we don’t go after it. So in this low risk group, we didn’t go after it. But age over 50, young people presenting with severe symptoms, we went after it. So it was nutraceutical bundle.

What did we know next? The timeline was very interesting. We knew from SARS CoV-1, SARS 1, that’s 80% similar to SARS CoV-2. We knew from studies dating back to 2006 that hydroxychloroquine, a drug that’s used for lupus, used for rheumatoid arthritis, it’s used for other rheumatologic conditions, including dry eyes, as well as malaria: safe, was effective in reducing the viral replication in SARS CoV-1, we knew that. And so the United States knew that.

@26:17: In fact, that drug was stock-piled by the United States government, Australian governments, some European governments, the hydroxychloroquine was on boarded appropriately, and ready to rock and roll. In fact, many countries front-lined hydroxychloroquine for high risk patients and still do so today. People go to Athens, Greece, Rome, Italy, across all of eastern Europe, central and South America; hydroxychloroquine is the lead drug. India and East Asia, hydroxychloroquine is the lead drug. So hydroxychloroquine played a role.

We also knew that by the summer, we knew that ivermectin played a role. This is an anti-parasitic drug used for scabies and other illnesses. Safe and effective.

So these drugs – how – the reason why they work against the virus is they get inside cells. A lot of antibiotics like penicillin doesn’t get inside the cell. But these, what’s called intracellular anti-infectives do. Japan, had an influenza drug that had the exact same activity as remdesivir – their first U.S. approved inpatient IV drug; that drug’s called favipiravir. And the Japanese had data to suggest that favipiravir, like oral remdesivir, would play a role early on. And it was readily approved by 5 countries, FDA approved – FDA equivalent approved in those countries to treat covid-19.

So we had hydroxychloroquine, we had ivermectin, we have favipiravir, we combine it with either doxycycline or azithromycin, and those are antibiotics Americans know about. They get inside of cells, they’re also intracellular anti-infectives, and they were slightly assistive in a couple ways. They cut down on some of the bacterial super infection that would occur in the sinuses or respiratory tract.

And we knew from some studies that there was about a 3% overlap between covid-19 and what’s called atypical pneumonias. Which would be mycoplasma, chlamydia pneumoniae, and these would also be responsive to these. So quickly, hydroxyzine, azithro, ivermectin and doxy – these were common – favipiravir and doxy outside of the United States, became common intracellular anti-infectives.

But those alone didn’t carry the day. Because what happened is the viral replication tipped off what’s called cytokine storm, or the immune system going haywire. And so doctors early on in the hospitals started using steroids. And we had some confusing literature – are they hurting, are they helping? And the British helped out a lot with the study and inpatient study called ‘the recovery trial’. And the recovery trial picked an odd corticosteroid, which was dexamethasone, in an odd dose, 6 milligrams a day. We typically use like 10 milligrams, 4 times a day. So an odd dose, but did show a small reduction in mortality.

And there was a meta-analysis published, looking at hydrocortisone, prednisone, it turned out any steroid worked, in some reasonable dose. So in the United States we quickly adopt using prednisone, which we use in asthma frequently. And then another trial in the UK was done called the ‘stoic trial’ using inhaled budesonide.

@29:13: Now that was a very interesting development, because there was a maverick doctor, former military doctor, Richard Bartlett from west Texas. He even made the national news by saying, “You know what? I think inhaled budesonide works.” And he said this early in the spring. And he was on national news, he says, “I’m trying it. I’m a doctor, I’m trying to help my patients, I am using empiric treatment. I know there’s no randomized trials.” But he was doing the right thing. That’s what American doctors ALL should have been doing, is trying to help their patients by taking empiric choices on drugs that make clinical sense, and he tried it! And indeed it worked. The British did the stoic trial, and sure enough, there was over an 80% reduction in hospitalization if we just used inhaled budesonide in outpatients with covid-19. So that made it on board.

Montreal Heart Institute, one of the leading overall randomized control trial centers in the world, got funding from the National Institutes of Health, Gates Foundation, Canadian authorities, and tested a gout drug which works against the immune system, particularly works against the white blood cells and their ability to proliferate toxic granules and assemble microtubules, that drug is called colchicine. And so Americans would recognize this as a gout drug. They carried out and conducted a prospector randomized trial, double blind for 30 days, the best quality trial done in all of covid-19, and they demonstrated that there was a marked reduction in hospitalization and deaths. So colchicine came on board.

And so the last thing that we really had to look at was blood clotting. And to this day there has not been a single outpatient study of drugs to impair platelet aggregation or antithrombotics, however we can learn from inpatient studies and there’s been very good analyses, they all agree, the use of full dose aspirin in the hospital is associated with reductions in mortality, and the use of full dose anticoagulation, whether that be injectable low molecular heparin, full heparinization, or we could even use oral anticoagulents as an outpatient, is associated with reductions in mortality.

So what I had been doing is I was working with the Italians, looking at how these concepts were coming together, and I published a paper in the American Journal of Medicine on August of 2020. And I have to tell you, when I looked at the literature through the spring, working with the Italians… (long pause)… there had been, by the time I submitted the paper on July 1st, there were 55,000 papers in the peer-review literature. Not a single one taught doctors how to put drugs in combination and treat the virus.

And it seems so odd to me. We knew this was a fatal viral infection; in fatal viral infections single drugs never work! We knew this in HIV. We knew that we needed multiple drugs in HIV. We knew this for hepatitis C. We knew this for all the other fatal viral infections. We use drug combinations. Never single drugs. And the only thing we can do at that time is look at studies of single drugs, and find signals of benefit, acceptable safety, and then assemble them into regiments.

The clinical trials testing a 4 to 6 drug regiment… those haven’t even been planned yet. I mean, the mortality rate would have been astronomical if somebody didn’t step forward and have the courage to publish the concepts. And I guess that’s what my role is in world’s history for this.

@32:44: I published a paper called the “Pathophysiologic Rationale for Early Ambulatory Treatment of Covid-19”. And it was published in the August issue of 2020 of the American Journal of Medicine. To this day, that’s the most widely downloaded paper from that journal of all topics. And, it went viral. And… literally. It went viral because the world was thirsting for an approach to covid-19.

Now, quickly after that was published I was managing all different types of communications regarding the paper; scientific and then also media related, and we have supportive data now coming in strong for ivermectin, for colchicine, for inhaled steroids, and Operation Warp Speed had delivered monoclonal antibodies directed against the spike protein, the pathogenic part of the virus. And they included a product from Lilly and another one from Regeneron.

So I needed to update the algorithm, and I put that together and published that in the journal that I edit “Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine”, but with a separate issue and a separate unbiased editor that I didn’t have influence on to make sure that was fully peer-reviewed and vetted, which it was, and that was published in “Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine” in August of 2020.

@34:00: By that time there was a 100,000 papers in the literature, and outside of my first paper, there wasn’t a single other paper that actually proposed a regiment or protocol to treat patients with covid-19. It was almost extraordinary, that we were over 9 months into a fatal pandemic influencing the world, and no one could come up with an original idea? Of how to put drugs in combination to treat the virus?

We didn’t have the Harvard protocol, we didn’t have the Johns Hopkins protocol, we didn’t have UCLA, we didn’t have a World Health protocol… So this was extraordinary, that all the firepower we had in academic medicine, couldn’t – they just drew a blank. Matter of fact, if you look at these centers across the United States and across the world, they never opened up covid treatment centers. They didn’t have outpatient covid treatment centers. They didn’t attempt to study or help a single outpatient with covid-19.

Why were there not more doctors speaking out or offering solutions for early treatment of Covid-19?

@35:05: My contribution was… I think the ability to publish the ideas. [off camera: “OK.”] This is very important. Others had the ideas. In fact, Vladimir Zelenko in New York City, an Orthodox Jew, stepped out of the box, he said, “Listen. We need to treat this. We can use some drugs in combination… hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, steroids, other drugs”, and he started putting drugs in combination.

Richard Bartlett in west Texas, Brian Tyson and George Fareed, former NIH scientist George Fareed came out of retirement: they went to really the crucible of covid-19 down in California / Mexico border, and just opened up a clinic and had opened up a tent; people started walking up and they started treating them.

Didier Raoult in southern France said, “Listen. We can treat this.” Him and a group of courageous French doctors opened up a large clinic in southern France and started treating patients.

We had Ivette [Yvette] Lozano in Dallas. She took her general practice building, on, by White Rock Lake, and turned it into a covid treatment center. She converted all her rooms to treating patients with covid. Oxygen concentrators and all the drugs – there’s pictures of patients lining up on the side walk to receive treatment.

So it’s interesting how the innovators were all independent, courageous doctors, and the academic medical centers drew a blank. They couldn’t even pitch a tent to help people. And to me it was stunning that the academic medical centers, or even the large community centers, couldn’t help a single outpatient. They couldn’t even provide a patient brochure of what should be done. The CDC offered guidance like, “Take some tylenol and if you get really sick go to the hospital.”

The response to a treatable outpatient problem, they gave us two weeks, of opportunity to do something; the lack of that anemic, the lack of that response was stunning. And it had to do, in my view, because of a whole timeline of events that put a chill on the attempts to treat covid-19. The doctors and health systems and others, I think, in a relatively short order became actively discouraged, from treating covid-19.

I can tell you, I never got an encouraging email or phone call saying, “You know what? Do the best you can for your patients. Try to help them. These hospitalizations are terrible. Please. We support you in using your best judgement.” Or, “Here’s a few suggested things you can do.” I never got any of those emails from medical societies, from others –

In fact, there was only one medical organization – just like there’s, you know, a few courageous medical doctors – there was one courageous medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, that saw what was going on. And interestingly that organization is an organization that represents independent doctors. Not those employed by hospitals, or big medical groups, or medical schools, but independent doctors. And they saw what was going on, and the first thing that they attacked was the stockpile of hydroxychloroquine.

So what happened was, the U.S. had an ample supply of hydroxychloroquine. And the only issue was, start using it – and start putting it into combination with the other drugs to treat covid-19. It seemed terrific. And the first event in the timeline was the FDA emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine.

@38:34: So the listener should understand that an emergency use authorization would be for a brand new drug or product, where there is a great unmet need, there’s not enough time to do all the testing, and that we would do an EUA for that. There’s a government mechanism for that; it’s under emergency circumstances. That wouldn’t apply to hydroxychloroquine. It was already fully FDA approved, it was out for 65 years, it was safe, we had used it in pregnancy, we knew all of its safety profile, doctors knew how to use hydroxychloroquine; I used it in my practice, it was just not a big deal. It didn’t need a EUA.

But so the EUA went out on hydroxychloroquine and said, you know, this EUA, with language, and it says “restricting hydroxychloroquine to inpatient use”. Okay. And so, one of the first big studies out of the block was done in thousands of patients out of Henry Ford. And it was great news! That hydroxychloroquine was associated with a large reduction in mortality, if applied early. But the later it was applied in the hospital stay, it didn’t look like – patients were too far gone.

I wrote the response to that in several publications across the, across the United States. And one was an op-ed in The Hill. Cause as I saw this, I basically made the case that emergency use authorization was an effective restriction. It should be lifted and we should use hydroxychloroquine wide open. And then something really terrible happened. Keep in mind that the Henry Ford data was very positive, we had the EUA, the U.S. had stockpiled it…

The National Institutes of Health, the Allergy and Immunology branch, had commissioned a several thousand prospective, double blind randomized placebo controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin in outpatients with covid-19. They had funded the trial. They got the drug supply. They got the placebos. They set up all the studies centers in the United States. We were all ready to go. That was in the spring. Terrific! Everything is coming together.

@40:40: And then what happened was a fake paper was published in Lancet. A fake paper. Now Lancet, the listeners should understand that Lancet is like the New England Journal of Medicine. It’s one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. And when a paper is submitted, there are so many checks on validity: “Where is the paper coming from? Where are the data coming from? Validating the data?” Then it’s sent out to peer reviewers who are independent. They check everything in the paper, they give comments about: “Was this reported? Was that reported?” What have you. So many checks on papers and then it comes back and then there’s an editorial decision made on a paper, and then it’s published. That’s called peer-review. That ensures to the public that papers are not fake. It’s very important. It ensures to the public that things are not falsified.

Well this paper had authors from Harvard, it came from a company called Surgisphere that no one really understood what this company was about. And the data was a large data set of inpatients with covid-19 from all over the world that had in depth drug exposure data. We didn’t have that back then. You know, that was from December, January, February, this was just emergent. We didn’t have this. The average age in that paper was 49 years old. And the paper implied that use of hydroxychloroquine was dangerous. And Lancet published this falsified paper.

Somehow it fell through all the other peer-review, and how can they possibly publish it? And as soon as it came out, I knew in 2 seconds that it had to be wrong. We don’t hospitalize people in their 40’s. And hydroxychloroquine, in fact, is associated with benefit, not harm.

@42:24: This paper in Lancet, frightened the entire world. It was like a shockwave. And there was a whole series of reactions. People started publishing papers, “Oh, hydroxychloroquine could be dangerous.” All these academic doctors, “Case closed. Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work. Stop using it.” Hospitals started pulling it off the formularies. It was extraordinary what happened with hydroxychloroquine. In fact, the USFDA put out language, that said, “Hydroxychloroquine shouldn’t be used, period! We’re canceling the EUA for inpatient use, and it shouldn’t be used, period!”

So that FDA language then went to the AMA. And the AMA says, “Well don’t use hydroxychloroquine, period. Inpatient, or outpatient.” That went to the pharmacy boards. Pharmacy boards said, “Oh, doctors shouldn’t be using this.” So as doctors were treating patients in the community, prescribing hydroxychloroquine, next thing you know, patients would show up to the pharmacy and the pharmacist said, “Sorry, I can’t dispense it. My board says that I can’t.” And then doctors licenses started to become threatened. And then, you know, then all of a sudden there was a cascade of events, hydroxychloroquine being the lead, that put a chilling effect on anybody’s attempt to treat covid-19 as an outpatient.

Why did the regulatory authorities and mainstream media tell the public that Hydroxychloroquine was dangerous and ineffective?

@43:40: Hydroxychloroquine, I think the fair statements are, it’s the most studied and utilized therapeutic in the world for covid-19 to date. There are hundreds and hundreds of studies. And hydroxychloroquine was appropriately acquired and stockpiled by the U.S. government. President Trump, who I personally think was very weak in the response, he could not articulate that hospitalizations and deaths were a serious problem. He could not assemble a team of doctors who were learning how to treat covid-19. Neither could the NIH, or the CDC, or FDA. We had gross failures from U.S. presidents and the major agencies.

Can you imagine to this day, we still have not had a doctor in any position of authority in the United States, who’s actually ever seen a patient with covid-19 and treated them. None! It is extraordinary what’s happened. So how, President Trump mentioned hydroxychloroquine, let’s try to give it a shot. And then immediately he was bashed down by his detractors. I thought it was a very weak statement to begin with. But he was bashed down. And people have always held him up as, oh, it was Trump. If he hadn’t mentioned hydroxychloroquine none of this would’ve happened.

I disagree. I think, that there was an enormous effort to suppress early treatment, and hydroxychloroquine was initial lightning rod. Remember I mentioned that NIH trial? You know what they did after 20 patients? Disingenuously, they said they couldn’t find covid-19 patients, and they shut down several thousand patient trial. They shut it down after 20 patients. That never happens! They purchased the placebo. They found the study centers. They had the binders. They had the nurses hired. They had everybody ready to treat Americans with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin and they gave up after 20 patients. That was extraordinary.

@45:30: The false paper published in Lancet was extraordinary. We started to have an array of incredibly flawed papers publishing exaggerating cardiac effects of hydroxychloroquine. “Oh, it could cause dangerous arrhythmias.” There was one that I mentioned in my U.S. Senate testimony, it came from the Mayo clinic, it said hydroxychloroquine could cause a scar in the heart. They actually, they had a heart, and they showed a huge white scar. In fact, I ultimately hunted down that paper, hunted down the authors, and the publisher, and I demanded a retraction. Ultimately I got a conciliatory letter published saying, “You know what? We’re sorry. It doesn’t really cause a scar in the heart.” So people started to intentionally try to damage hydroxychloroquine so it would not be used in covid-19.

Yet, other countries held with it steadfast. I mentioned all the countries to this day that use hydroxychloroquine. And now we have studies, for instance, a study from Iran, in 30,000 patients! A massive study. And they treat about 25% of people appropriately of hydroxychloroquine in combination with other drugs. And it has a massive reduction in mortality. So hydroxychloroquine was a mainstay, the prospective randomized trials, we just isolate on them, pre-hospital studies are all positive, now is it a game changer? No. I’d say it’s about a 25% reduction in endpoints. But it’s a very useful drug, to get started early. It’s not a single drug, it wouldn’t rely on it alone, but hydroxychloroquine itself, I think is a poster child for what happened.

You know, early on in this, I became of national attention. I received calls from the White House. I was contacted by the U.S. Senate. I became known on social media which I was never on social media before. I’m not an immunologist, I’m not a virologist, I’m not an infectious disease doctor. But I’m a good clinical doctor and I understand drugs. And I understand drug safety very well.

@47:24: Hydroxychloroquine had a signal benefit, acceptable safety. I was contacted by doctors in Africa, that anonymously told me, “Dr. McCullough, there are some bad guys raiding the pharmacies at night, and they’re coming in and burning the hydroxychloroquine.” I said, “Who are these bad guys?” They said, “We don’t know. But they look like they’re some type of mercenaries or operatives.” Mysteriously, the second largest hydroxychloroquine producing plant outside of Taipei burned to the ground.

So… hydroxychloroquine, as a simple, safe and effective drug, to this day seems to be a poster child for worldwide comprehensive efforts to suppress early treatment.

And of interest, as the data came on with ivermectin, ivermectin became the next drug. Now of interest with ivermectin, there was an associated group that formed, called the Front – the Frontline Critical Care Consortium, the FLCCC – it was led by Pierre Kory; I identified him, and Dr. Paul Marik, I communicated with him, we had teleconferences, and I recommended Dr. Kory testify at the second U.S. Senate hearings in December. Also Dr. J.J. Rajter from Florida. Dr. Rajter had tried ivermectin in all of his sick patients in Florida hospitals and was enormously successful in reducing mortality, published his paper in CHEST, one of the best pulmonary journals, so I give him tremendous credit for that.

And so Dr. Kory and Dr. Rajter presented what became a very compelling case for ivermectin. If people were sufficiently turned off by hydroxychloroquine, we could focus on ivermectin. Dr. Tess Lawrie, who’s considered one of the world’s most prominent analysts in the UK, published – and Dr. Andrew Hill as well, published incredible analyses demonstrating that ivermectin reduced mortality inpatient and outpatient. So a little different than hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine takes a little time to work, and probably doesn’t work at the very end of the illness, but ivermectin miraculously worked through the range of illness.

And so the data started coming on for ivermectin and there was enough push power for emphasis on the National Institutes of Health guidelines where they made a specific statement regarding ivermectin. They said, “You know what? We understand the data with ivermectin, we can’t be for it, and we can’t be against it.” It’s the same statement that they made for the emergency use Regeneron and Lilly antibodies. The NIH said, “We understand the data. We can’t be for it or against it.” But at least we got a neutral statement out of them.

@50:07: Hydroxychloroquine still to this day has a series of negative statements on this, and doctors have literally had to fight for their medical licenses in order to prescribe hydroxychloroquine. One by one by one, all of those licenses have been restored. All of those state rulings have been overturned. All the medical societies have been overturned. And hydroxychloroquine is used today. Ivermectin is widely used today.

Both drugs, can not only treat the infection early, but they can prevent the – there’s prophylactic studies – they can prevent, if patients take these drugs periodically, typically once a week or so, they can prevent covid-19 from becoming an illness. They are preventive. In fact, I led one of the very early studies of hydroxychloroquine here in Dallas to protect our health care workers, that these drugs are about 90% effective. They are about as effective as the vaccines in preventing/acquiring covid-19.

When someone’s ill, I never prescribe these drugs alone, but I prescribe them in what I call sequence multi-drug therapy. But that is the approach that independent doctors have taken in the United States. And uniquely not a single academic medical center today, or community medical center today treats covid-19 patients as an outpatient with the goal of reducing hospitalizations and deaths. Why would these centers not want to help their patients?

Why didn’t more doctors resist the directives against providing early outpatient care for their patients?

@51:43: You know, doctors clearly have a groupthink, and doctors want intellectual support for what they do. That’s the reason why we meet all the time, that’s the reason why we go on rounds together, that’s the reason why we have conferences every day. We want to intellectually support each other for making decisions on patients for the assurances we’re making the right decisions.

And what happened was with the pandemic, all of our meetings were dissolved, we could not meet with each other anymore, there wasn’t a chance to have much intellectual support. And each doctor, one by one, had to make a decision. When the next patient called and said, “Listen. I’m sick with covid-19. Can you help me?” There was a binary choice. The choice was, “Nope. I’m not going to help you. Nothing works. There’s nothing I can do. Just wait until you get hospitalized.” or the answer could be, “You know what? Let me try.”

And what we found is that binary choice was the biopsy of who really had courage and who really had excellent clinical judgement. And doctors who were not confident in their clinical judgement quickly said, “You know what? There’s nothing you can do.” And they got into that groupthink. And that could’ve been 90%+ of doctors had a.) a lack of clinical judgement, and a lack of courage. And what I found in this whole thing is those two things are rare. And for me, it was just very natural. It was very natural.

My, my father was one of the first nursing home covid-19 patients in Dallas. He was the very first one at Presbyterian Village. He got covid-19, had pelvic fracture, he’s flat on his back, a scared PA says, “Your dad’s got covid. He’s in a unit. We don’t know what’s going to happen.” His mortality being completely bedridden, with dementia, and now covid, I can tell you, he was facing an 80% mortality of just having covid just ravage him.

So what did I do? Did I make that binary decision of doing nothing? Of course not! Of course not! If I could ever message any American doctor, or any doctor in the world right now, “Have some courage, and trust your clinical judgement.” I did. And that’s what real doctors do. And I will never apologize for that.

Of course my dad was treated with hydroxychloroquine. He was treated with azithromycin. He was treated with aspirin. We put him on lovenox, is a blood thinner. The full nutraceutical bundle. Zinc, vitamin C, vitamin D, quercetin, open the windows, get that virus aired out there. And he got really sick, as expected. He had dementia, his wishes were to not go to the hospital. Not go on a mechanical ventilator, we treated him right there. It took 60 days, and it was a long illness. But he survived. And that was early.

@54:44: And that taught me that if I’m willing to do that for my father, I have a Hippocratic Oath, and I have a fiduciary responsibility to my patients. And I refuse to let my patients die of this illness. And when I testified at the U.S. Senate, I told the American people, I have always treated my high-risk patients. Always. And at the end of my opening statement, I held up the protocol, and I told the American people, “I’m not asking for permission to do this. I’m not. But I’m asking for your help.”

That’s a very, very important statement. Because my patients were appropriately treated to the best of my ability. And we have 600,000 dead Americans, that were not treated appropriately, and not treated to the best of the ability of their doctors. And that will go down in historical shame for our country. I think it is a travesty that we have 600,000 dead Americans, not – vast majority of them didn’t get an ounce of treatment – in fact there were medical groups that adopted policies that they weren’t even going to answer the calls of covid-19 patients, and they were millions of patients needlessly hospitalized.

We had data that came in later from Dr. Zelenko in New York City, Dr. Proctor here in Dallas, who did the same exact thing, showing that our methods could reduce hospitalization and death by 85%. And I’m sorry, there are no prospective randomized trials of 4-6 drugs; there are none planned, so therefore, without any large trials, there are not going to be any guideline statements, and without any guideline statements, we’ll never have any agency’s support for this.

@56:33: But this is about courageous doctors saving Americans, and I would go farther than this. This is about courageous doctors saving the world. So now we have the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. We have FLCC in the United States. We have 250 treating doctors. We have 4 national telemedicine services, 15 regional telemedicine services. We’re treating 10-15 thousand patients a day.

Forget the U.S. government. Forget what anybody says about this. Americans are getting treatment. That once our message on early treatment came with two U.S. Senate hearings, headed by Senator Ron Johnson, the hospitals started clearing out in the end of December / early January, because early treatment markedly reduces spread and dramatically reduces hospitalization and death. It’s the only thing that does that. The hospital doesn’t save all the patients. I’d say the hospital honestly has a very modest impact on anything with covid-19. It’s all about early treatment. The hospitals started clearing out, the curves came way down in the United States. That’s before anybody was fully vaccinated.

And I testified in the Texas Senate on March 10th [2021], I said, “Listen. we’re at by standard CDC equations, we’re at herd immunity!” By March 10th! No vaccine effect. That’s actually just treating patients. In Texas, we had 35 treatment centers, out protocols and methods work, and I have learned over time there are so many ways to treat the virus.

I’ve had a seminar with Dr. Shankara Chetty in South Africa, he said that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, just like in the United States, had become so politically charged, doctors were losing their license, in fact, some doctors were jailed in trying to help patients with covid-19. He gave up on them!

He’s treated 4,000 patients, fewer than 10% got hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, he treats them, he times the illness. He waits to day 8 and then he starts inhaled and oral steroids, he starts aspirin, other anti-inflammatories, Montelukast, and the high-risk patients he uses anticoagulants on the back-end. And he saved virtually everyone outside of a handful of patients. Out of 4,000. Sick patients in South Africa.

@58:34: So what I’ve learned about this virus is if doctors do anything, to try to help patients, they can reduce hospitalizations and death. And the only reason why this is such a horrible thing in American history is because doctors failed to act.

Why, when it came to Covid-19, did so many doctors agree to depart from longstanding medical practice in terms of seeking and formulating early outpatient treatments for their patients?

@58:56: The USFDA puts out thousands of drug warnings per year. In fact, Americans know this, cause they see a drug advertised on TV and it says, “Warning: may cause death. And may cause – what have you.” So we get thousands of warnings per year. FDA recalls drugs, put black box warnings on drugs. Doctors still use these drugs. They understand the warnings. About 40% of drugs are used off the advertising labels. So once a drug is older it’s original advertising label doesn’t really apply, so we use drugs quote “off-label” all the time. That’s common.

But what happened in covid-19, is because of the tremendous fear that settled in over our country. Whatever statements came out by the USFDA, the NIH, the CDC, started to take more weight than they ever would in the past. So if those agencies said something, like, “Don’t use hydroxychloroquine”, that emanated down through the AMA and each of the pharmacy boards where they actually denied patients hydroxychloroquine.

In fact, there are probably patients who died, because the pharmacy did not dispense the hydroxychloroquine to patients. Or the ivermectin. There are doctors who started getting warning letters, stating – Dr. Richard Urso from Houston, and another doctor stepped out of his role like I did to treat the virus, got warning letters from the Texas Medical Board: “We’re going to examine your license. We understand you’re prescribing hydroxychloroquine, trying to help covid patients.” Okay?

These doctors, like Dr. Robin Armstrong, Dr. Robin Armstrong, in Texas, saved dozens of nursing home patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin and steroids and blood thinners. The families think he’s a hero; the Texas Medical Board tried to take away his license. And so he had to go through hearings and reviews and ultimately he was restored, although he was, his practice was just damaged, if not destroyed.

@1:00:50: Emails started coming down through big medical organizations, “Don’t use hydroxychloroquine.” They later on came down and said, “Don’t use ivermectin.” In fact, there was, you know, flat out, “Don’t do it!” We were getting official messages that basically said, “Don’t take care of covid-19.” These are codified in policies and emails by major medical organizations. And it went counter – can you imagine getting an email saying, “Don’t treat pneumococcal pneumonia! Just let them die. Don’t treat meningitis. Let them die.”

Can you ever – we’ve never seen this, this – the term that applies to what’s going on is wrongdoing by those in positions of authority. It’s called malfeasance. We don’t put down a chilling negative message that’s going to result in harm. We don’t do that. We don’t do that in a civil society. It happened from the NIH, the CDC, the FDA, major medical groups, these chilling messages.

@1:01:45: But at the same time you had AAPS saying, “No, this is wrong. Treat patients.” You had FLCC, a group that became very strong, saying, “No. Treat patients.” In the UK, we had the BIRD group, that said, “You know what? Treat patients. Use ivermectin based protocols.” We had PANDA developed in South Africa. We had the Covid Medical Network developed in Australia. We had Treatment Domiciliary developed in Italy.

So listen, the counter argument to this, of “no, we should treat the virus”, that counter weight was there. And it’s one of the reasons why you’re talking to me today. You’re not talking to some FDA official who basically wanted to throw cold or hot water at these, you’re talking to me today because you’re getting a sense of truth! You’re getting a sense of reality. That this virus is treatable.

Everything that’s we’ve done for this virus we’ve made it far worse. By not treating it, keeping patients in fear, isolation. We’ve done multiple things that have promoted hospitalization, and we’ve done multiple things that have actually promoted excess mortality. And it’s a shameful time in America and in the world.

Where was the policy instructing doctors to NOT treat their patients coming from? Who was giving these orders?

@1:03:00: Under the dark cloud of fear, the medical administrations deferred to the FDA, the NIH and the CDC. Our three governmental agencies. They deferred to them. In fact, they will state, “We’re following the policy.”

So let’s pick something less charged. Like wearing masks. How, you know, what sets the mask wearing policy? What the CDC says. Well they say this, let’s follow it. Same thing is true. If the agencies say, “Don’t use hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin.”in fact, that’s what they say – that quickly gets down to medical administration, and they’ll float out an email saying, “Don’t do it.”

In fact, in a country, we can pick on it, Australia, they had the TGA. That’s the equivalent of the FDA. They have a guidelines where they literally have dozens and dozens of negative statements. “Don’t do this.” / “Don’t do that.” / “Don’t do this.” / “Don’t do that.” Interestingly, none of these groups actually say what to do. So if you’re to take any major hospital and ask them, “What email, or what policy came down that told doctors what to do? You gave warnings on what not to do, but what did you tell them to do to take care of clinic patients with covid-19?” Most of them would say, “Nothing. We don’t have -“

In fact, I testified in the Texas Senate on this topic and within, on March 10th, and within 48 hours there was a draft legislation to at least give patients some information. Say, “Listen, if the hospitals and doctors aren’t going to do anything, we’re going to give you some information. Here’s some – when you get your positive test result, here is some information on what you can do. Here are the treatment protocols. Here are the EUA monoclonal antibodies.”

@1:04:42: And again, if the hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin is controversial, okay. But what about the monoclonal antibodies? We haven’t talked about these. These are high tech, they’re produced by big pharma, it’s big money, it was all NIH funded, they’re emergency use authorized by the USFDA… How come America has no window to that? How come there’s no updates on how we’re doing with that? How come there’s no 1-800 numbers? How sick patients can find out where these antibodies are?

So it is a global suppression of early treatment, whether they’re generic drugs or newly approved drugs. There is a global suppression on early treatment. Americans will know, they watch the TV every night, the initial dialogue was, “We’re scared. Wear a mask, go in lockdown, hand sanitizer…” Okay? Then there was some reports about terrible things going in the hospital, then the reports later on were, “Wait for a vaccine”.

There were never regular reports or updates from any local or national TV source that gave regular updates – “This is what you should do when you get covid-19 at home. Here are the drugs that work. Here are the protocols. Here are the hotlines so you can get an antibody infusion.” Which is approved by the FDA! “Here are the hotlines so you can get in research.” Research is important! There’s still no hotline for Americans to get in covid-19 research. At a state or a federal level. Stunning! There’s been no updates.

@1:06:11: When I’ve dealt with multiple congressional and senate offices I said, “Listen. Weekly updates to the American people, so that they know what to do so they’re not so in fear when they’re getting these results. Weekly updates! Through all public channels. Weekly updates on treatment. And then monthly updates to the guidelines.” We have none of that! We are over a year of this, and the Americans have been absolutely let down by the government agencies, by the media! The media – why wouldn’t it come in to any local broadcasters thought process to give their listeners an update on early treatment? It’s a stunning oblivion.

Given that most medications are advertised as having possibly dangerous side effects, why did regulators categorically dismiss early outpatient therapies for Covid-19, including FDA-approved Hydroxychloroquine, on the grounds of having possible dangerous side effects?

@1:07:06: For products to actually be officially advertised, they have to have somebody who’s going to pay for the ad, which is a drug company, and they have to be FDA-approved. And they actually have to have an FDA advertising label. And because of the monoclonal antibodies, as an example, don’t have an advertising label, they can’t be – Lilly and Regeneron – can’t go out and advertise for them. But because they’re EUA, from a public health messaging perspective, they should be equally featured as vaccines.

Now vaccines are emergency use authorized; all we hear about is vaccines, morning, noon and night. Why do we hear – why do we hear a massive messaging about vaccines? Americans ought to think about this. Why are vaccines featured, by, the CDC, the NIH, and FDA, morning, noon and night, by the media, morning, noon and night? By every medical center, morning, noon and night?

I can tell you as a doctor in a medical center, all our emails are about vaccination. Why are they featured in every single public health communication? Needles in all the arms? In fact, shockingly, in the Dallas area, in October, this is long before the vaccine trials were ever completed, if you were to call CVS or Walgreens, the answering machine would say, “We’re proud to offer the covid-19 vaccine when it comes available.”

@1:08:32: We have never advertised for a product before it comes available. In fact, it’s against U.S. laws regarding drugs and biological products. So things started to go off the rails very early on, and it seems like there was a playbook. The playbook was to suppress any hope of treatment; a complete oblivion to treatment, through all the entities we’ve mentioned and at the same time prepare the population for mass vaccination. These two are very tightly linked.

And now with mass vaccination, we have seen things we have never seen. Advertising the vaccine before it’s even available. Massive messaging for the vaccine, far out of proportion to treatment. You have two EUA products, one you never hear about, Americans would – are starved of these monoclonal antibodies – in fact, they’re grossly underused. They could’ve saved probably tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives. And they’re being squashed. The Lilly and Regeneron products have been squashed. But the Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J products are being massively promoted and advertised.

Americans ought to be… kind of… wondering, why is that happening? Why are we de-focusing on the sick patient and focusing on well people? All the messaging about contagion control and vaccines are about well people. Why can we not focus on the sick covid patient? That was my message to the Department and Health Human Services in Texas.

But it goes further than that. It goes further than that. The vaccine registrational trials strictly excluded pregnant women, women of child-bearing potential, covid recovered patients, patients who had prior covid antibodies. Strictly excluded them. By regulatory science, if all the registrational trials excluded a group of patients, we would never use that product in that group once it gets on the market. Never! Never! We never violate that. Why? Cause we don’t know if it’s going to work, and we don’t know if it’s going to be safe. We never do that. There’s another level.

@1:10:42: With pregnant women are a special group in research and medicinal products. It’s very important for Americans to know this. In pregnant women, for vaccination, we only vaccinate with safe, inactive products. Inactive flu, tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis. That’s it. We would never inject a biologically active substance in a pregnant woman’s body. That could be dangerous. Never! And with the vaccines, as soon as they came out, the CDC, FDA, media, everybody said, “Vaccinate them. Vaccinate them.”

Given our longstanding acceptance of vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, polio and measles, how is the development and deployment of Covid vaccines a departure from previous vaccine development and safety review?

@1:11:30: Well, the USA – the USFDA regulatory guidance on vaccines, and their have been modern vaccines. You don’t have to pick the old ones. I mean, we have modern vaccines, shingles vaccines, hepatitis-B, meningococcal vaccines, demand a minimum of 2 years of safety data. 2 years. By regulatory – in fact, they said it kind of written in, codified into the regulatory rules for the manufacturers.

That was all thrown out. And said, “Two months. For covid, two months.” So two months of observational data. This idea, that we can vaccinate people that were not even tested, in the trials, that has never been done before. We have never just thrown a vaccine at somebody without having any data. None.

So the very first pregnant woman that was vaccinated here in the United States, it was done with no knowledge of safety, and no knowledge of efficacy. And the argument that we’ve heard, the argument that we’ve heard, is, “Well, covid-19 is a bad illness. 600,000 people have died. The vaccine could help them. We should give it a shot. Come on. We should just give it a shot.”

Well that 600,000 died, I’ve already told you 85% of that was preventable with early treatment, which was actively suppressed and squashed. And not only that, is if this vaccine can help them, the vaccine better be safe. It better be safe. And my comments on the vaccine are safety, safety, safety. Let’s see it. Let’s see it. And Americans ought to – just like the Americans should have been getting weekly updates on treatment innovations, Americans should have been getting weekly updates on vaccine safety. Very important. Weekly updates from our federal officials on safety. Super important.

@1:13:22: Those two things are probably the two largest acts of malfeasance in all of medical regulatory history. It’ll go down in history of malfeasance. Wrongdoing by those of authority. How come there was no updates on treatment and no promotion of early treatment to reduce hospitalization and death? And now when we release the vaccine, why are there no safety updates? Why are there no attempts for risk mitigation in terms of making the vaccine program safer? How do we have all these vaccines? How do we know that we can vaccinate pregnant women?

We know because of years and years and years of safety data. Before a vaccine is ever been injected into a pregnant woman, it’s probably been tested for decades before we try it in a pregnant woman. We would never out of the box take a brand new technology that’s never been tested before, ever – and we know that the vaccine technology produces the dangerous spike protein, it produces the Wuhan spike protein, the spicule on the ball of the virus itself, which damages blood vessels and causes blood clotting. And all of them do. We would never unleash that into a pregnant woman’s body.

@1:14:31: Americans have to understand, something is very wrong, what’s going on. What’s going on now in the world, these are examples, are clear cut examples, of wrongdoing that is at such a high level. The groupthink is in the wrong direction in such a consistence and overwhelming way, that people are being harmed in, in extraordinary fashion.

How did you go public with your findings about early outpatient therapies for preventing hospitalization and death? How was it received?

@1:15:05: Well when I published the first paper in the American Journal of Medicine and taught doctors how to treat covid-19, and that could’ve been somebody else – if Dr. Zelenko had the publication power, he could’ve done it. Or Dr. Proctor could have done it. Or Dr. Didier Raoult could have done it. Or Brian Fareed – er – Brian Tyson or George Fareed. It turned out that I was the person who had sufficient academic authority to do this. Okay. And I have authority. I take complete responsibility for doing this. I did it uniquely, the only person in the world to do this.

Others actually may have been trying. And those papers may have been suppressed by editors. They probably were. Because we found suppression of early treatment literature all over. It became impossible to publish papers, it was really hard. I may have just been the strongest and the most courageous doctor in the world to do that. But I did it, and the feedback I was getting was tremendous. It was like, “Of course. This makes sense. I’m so glad this, this got into the literature.” It came out in the electronic print in August, and then it came into hard print in January. When it hit January it landed in all the medical libraries in the world, that’s when things really heated up.

And, I do have to tell you, that I got letters to the editor that came into the American Journal of Medicine and Joe – Dr. Joe Alpert, out of Arizona is the editor, Joe has let every one of those letters come to me for a response. The tenor of the letters is quite interesting. And they’ve come from Duke University, they’ve come from McGill, from the Nash University in Australia, they’ve come from Brazil.

@1:16:44: The tenor of the letters is, “Dr. McCullough, you can’t do this. You can’t treat covid-19 patients.” … (long pause) And it’s the most interesting – my response is, “Doctor. Please have courage. Let’s, let’s do away with therapeutic nihilism. Let’s join together and treat covid-19 patients compassionately to reduce hospitalization and death. And we can do this, and I can do it, and we even have some more supportive data.” So every time they say, “Oh, this drug doesn’t work!” And I’ll say, “Well here’s 5 more studies that do.”

Hydroxychloroquine – and we’re up to hundreds of studies that shows that it works. Ivermectin – hundreds of studies. Steroids – dozens of studies. Anticoagulants – at least a dozen studies. We are so well supported in the concepts of treating covid-19 that every time one of these letters comes in, I have a little fun with it, because the position of strength is enormous. My thoughts, and my positions, and my statements over time are becoming progressively stronger, and progressively more powerful.

@1:17:50: And the detractors sense that. This – the feeling of fear, intellectual fear, from my adversaries, is palpable. I feel it everyday. And when that first paper came out in the American Journal of Medicine, my daughter said, “Daddy, why don’t you make a youtube video?” I said, “No, I don’t want to do social media. That’s for kids. I just, I don’t have time for this.”

She taught me how to do it, it was powerpoint. I literally just recorded my face down in the lower corner, I wore a tie, 4 slides, saying, “Listen. It’s Americans. It’s Italians. We looked at safety. We looked at efficacy. We looked at all the available data. We think this is the best way to put together the drugs.” We had 4 slides on this. It got up on youtube. It went absolutely viral. Went absolutely viral.

And… then I got a message. It said, “You violated terms of the community.” and it was struck down. Then I got a call from the U.S. Senate. So I told you, I knew something was going on. Because, you know, I’ve never been called by the White House before. I’ve never been called by the Senate before. People in Washington were following this. They were stakeholders, in Washington who, in a sense, knew that something was going wrong here. That this, this viral infection could be treated.

But they were kind of waiting for someone in the academic community to step forward and literally say, “It can be treated!” I was the first one to say, “We can treat this! We can do this!” It’s very important to be able to make this statement, “We can do it.” Based on what? Based on my judgement. Based on my judgement. Supported by the available science, but more importantly, based on my judgement.

And so, I ended up contracting covid-19 myself. In October. My wife came home with it. She got sick. Before I knew it, I got sick. It got into my lungs. I was in approved protocols. I quickly got into a protocol; it’s hard, but I was able to find a protocol. I was on hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, nutraceutical bundle, per the protocol; I later on needed steroids cause of lung involvement. But I wanted to show America that you could get covid-19 and have some medical problems, which I do, and be able to get through it without being hospitalized.

@1:19:56: So on treatment day 6, illness day 8, beautiful sunny day in Dallas, Texas, I went out, far away from anybody else, and I went jogging. And I was really short of breath. And I tell you, I’m a pretty strong runner. I was short of breath cause of the covid involvement in my lungs. But I ran all the way to a park. I made a video in the park, and then I made it all the way home. And I had fun with it. I, in fact I played that Eminem music that said, the recovery video. If any of you watch Eminem, and it said, “I’m not afraid.” and I just, you know, video of myself, I said, “I’m not afraid of covid-19.” I had that video. That video was struck down. And then ultimately had to get restored.

Now wait a minute. Youtube is playing a role here. In addition to all the other stakeholders in suppressing any early treatment. In fact, the early treatment doctors started to become scrubbed from twitter, from youtube, from social media, and then ultimately youtube came out with a very clear message. They said, “Listen. We are only going to have information that is in line with the CDC, NIH, and FDA. Which say, do nothing. And everything else is going to be considered misleading. And we’re making the judgement. It’s our call, on what’s misleading and what’s not.”

But if it’s – it’s pretty easy to be in line with the CDC, NIH and FDA because they say to do nothing! So if the social media platform is to just do nothing for early treatment and suppress early treatment, which it is, the major media is to suppress early treatment.

@1:21:32: So I still go back and say, “Who’s responsible?” I’d say the government agencies. In this period of crisis, if we’re going to revert to our government agencies, and our task force, and if our presidents can’t be wise enough to even choose doctors who have ever even seen a patient and know how to treat it, if they’re not wise enough to pick doctors who can treat covid-19, we’ll never have agencies that say we can treat covid-19, and if we don’t have agencies to do that, then nothing else is going to follow.

If the doctors and people we pick, have never seen covid-19, they’re scared of it, they don’t know how to treat it, and the only thing they can comment on is wearing masks and social distancing and vaccination – that’s all that America’s going to have. So America’s response to covid-19, the official response, has basically been to well people. “Wear a mask.” “Get vaccinated.” And America has offered nothing to the sick person. And when they get in the hospital, we haven’t seen much feature on that. The drugs are pretty weak. Remdesivir, convalescent plasma, tocilizumab, steroids, anticoagulants, you don’t hear much about it. And it’s, it’s honestly too late.

Recently a Harvard group, the stop covid group, had published those sick enough to get in the ICU, the 28 day mortality is 38%. Unacceptably high. Going into hospital’s a nightmare. I get desperate calls all over the United States. Thank goodness for the major telemedicine and regional telemedicine networks. They’ve basically have taken over. They’re the real heroes of the covid-19 pandemic. Hospitals are empty now. Hospitals here in Dallas used to have 200, 300 patients at a time. Now they’ve got… 10? 5? The other day in Texas we hit 0 deaths. Zero?

So, early treatment is going to be one of the great, great stories that historians… and they’ll reach out to Ben Marble who started myfreedoctor.com. Ben Marble, that, that whole telemedicine is run strictly by charity. People donate money, and they get patients their drugs. And they prescribe hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, steroids and other drugs. Put them into combination, they follow protocols. Terrific. They’re seeing thousands of patients by telemedicine everyday.

@1:23:44: So Americans are getting treated. And so word is out! People talk to each other. Americans, it’s interesting. They understand that the media and the agencies are not leveling with them. They understand that.

I did a seminar early on because I had treated a very prominent African-American minister here in Dallas. And him and his wife were sick. He didn’t tell me about his wife. And she was testing negative. She wasn’t a patient of mine. He got what’s called sequence multi-drug therapy, he got really sick, he’s got heart failure, diabetes, emphysema, obesity, kidney disease – survives at home, sick for about 10 days – I’m not saying the drug therapy is perfect, but I saved him from being hospitalized or dying.

His wife, no treatment, hospitalized, diagnosed late, was in the hospital for 5 weeks. Came home on oxygen; that virus ravaged her lung. It was awful. They had the same illness. And so he became activated; he said, “Dr. McCullough, can you do a webinar for African-American churches nationwide?” I did a webinar, and I presented my approach. And you know what the comments were? They said, “Dr. McCullough, we knew, we knew the government was lying to us. We knew this was treatable. We knew it all along.” People know this.

Are more doctors finally learning to overcome the regulatory and institutional suppression of outpatient Covid-19 therapies?

@1:25:06: It’s the individual finding its way. There are practices that have come on. I’ve gotten calls in Dallas, “Dr. McCullough, can you share your protocols? We want to do this.” The treating doctors really have interdigitated. And we informally called, formed a group called C19, where we get about 4-5 email updates a day, of really critical updates on treatment. It is international. We have former heads of state involved in C19, we have Nobel Prize winners involved in C19, hundreds and hundreds of American doctors.

There now is a published list of treating doctors in the United States; 250 across all 50 states. Texas has 35 of them. So Americans are finding their way despite suppression of early treatment. It’s one of the great stories.

@1:25:56: And I’ll never forget when I testified in the Texas senate, on March 10th, myself and Dr. Richard Urso, another leading early treating doctor in Houston, the chairwoman of the committee at one of the side conversations said, “Yeah, my husband got covid-19, and he got really sick. And I’m so glad he got early treatment. We found a doctor that was willing to prescribe ivermectin and other drugs.”

And I didn’t throw out the zinger in front of the Texas media, but I felt like saying, “You know, do you have to be a chairperson of the Department of Health and Human Services to get some treatment? What about these poor people in south Dallas, San Antonio and Houston, what about people who are not so privileged?”

Do you know that 85% of some of our patients hospitalized here are black or Hispanic? Who’s helping them out? We should be having early treatment centers; they’ve been denied treatment. It’s heartbreaking. Hispanics and African-Americans have double the – have double the mortality that of caucasians.

As a doctor confronted with sick people who need treatment NOW, how do you evaluate what therapies are effective in order to help your patients NOW instead of waiting for the publication of largescale studies?

@1:27:07: We have actually a law in America. It’s called the 21st Century Cures Act. And what this says, is that the FDA and doctors and others trying to do decide on treatment, evaluate the totality of information, including that little anecdote about your mom and the caretaker, as well as case series, large prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, hospital studies, outpatient studies, and then large prospective randomized double-blind placebo controlled trials.

But in a virus, single drugs themselves are very difficult to prove. Like, if we require that for HIV we’d have no treatment. HIV we quickly realized we need 3 or 4 or 5 drugs. Everyone understands this. With covid-19, I never thought a single drug was going to work. Hydroxychloroquine. No, not alone. But in combination.

And it was that thinking, it takes kind of superior thinking, that somehow doctors just lost their ability to think. Think a cancer doctor would say, “Oh, there’s one pill that cures cancer.” Never. It’s always combination cancer therapy. So, with this, with hydroxychloroquine, we’re now at the stage obviously, we have hundreds and hundreds trials. We even have large randomized trials. I’ve published a doctorate with Joe Ladapo, only prospective randomized control trials show benefit.

So at every level we meet the evidence grade to use hydroxychloroquine. At every level, we meet the evidence grade to use ivermectin. Not so much evidence, but good enough, and the monoclonal antibodies. We have the same for steroids.

@1:28:38: The biggest and best trial in all of covid-19 is ColCorona. I mentioned it with colchicine. Shockingly, ColCorona, the best trial, 4,000 patients, double-blind randomized placebo control trial. The best quality that exists, rejected by New England Journal of Medicine, rejected by JAMA, rejected by Lancet.

There is a global suppression on any early treatment. I want the listeners to understand how global this is. If we were to go north into Canada, doctors are threatened that their licenses will be examined or taken away if they attempt to treat an outpatient with covid-19. They are told this, in Canada. In northern EU, the same is true. Dr. Didier Raoult, who is trying to innovate with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in France, in periods of time has been under degrees of threat of arrest or partial arrest or house arrest.

Okay? Almost as if we’re back in the Dark Ages. In Australia, in April, they put on the books in Queensland, Australia, a doctor who tries to help a patient with hydroxychloroquine could be penalized up and to the point of going into jail for 6 months for helping. In South Africa they put some doctors in jail for trying to help patients with ivermectin!

Listen! The powers that are out there that want to suppress early treatment, and cause as much fear, suffering, and hospitalization and death, are not by happenstance. These are powerful forces that have created such fear among doctors; people are fearful they’re going to lose their careers, their livelihood, their medical license, people are afraid of going to jail. In just helping their fellow man get through covid-19.

This is extraordinary. Historians should go look through the course of time. You know the very first doctor, who tried to help a polio patient, survived polio? With the iron lung machine? Which became really a staple ICU device? Was thrown off medical staff. Throw him off staff!

Can you offer any investigative leads to researchers trying to discover WHY early outpatient therapies for Covid-19 have been suppressed?

@1:30:57: I’d look very carefully at the work, building upon other investigative reporters. So Dr. Peter Breggin has a book called “Covid-19 and The Global Predators: We are the Prey”. And it has a living document, he’s already pre-released the manuscript, and he’s releasing updates. Now he’s older and he’s kind of worried the story won’t get out, at his age. But I believe he’s up to 900 documents. The whole story is not put together. But it is substantial and shows the interconnections of the stakeholders involved.

Dr. Nicholas Wade, who is featured on a recent Tucker Carlson is an investigative reporter, he has assembled quite a story. And then Whitney Webb, who is a young investigative reporter, has published some striking things.

All three of these, and as well as many more are linking to important concepts. The suppression of early treatment, and even probably the soft attenuation of in-hospital treatment, to make the problem worse than what it is. Many methods to make the case count look higher than what it is, make the mortality numbers look worse than what they are, many methods to create the reaction out of proportion to the realities. So lockdowns, fears, economic suffering, what have you. All of these things making the pandemic way worse than what it is.

Okay? To, to have that occur. More fear, suffering, hospitalization and death, loneliness, lockdown… in order to promote mass vaccination. These two are tightly linked. “Now mass vaccination AT ALL COSTS! The world must be mass vaccinated.”

@1:33:00: And human beings on Earth ought to understand, at this point in time, what we’re seeing is unprecedented.

It became known, the virus was going to be amenable to a vaccine, somewhere around April or May. At that point in time, therapy was suppressed, everything – nothing can be published. Everything, the fake Lancet paper, squashed treatment, and then prepared the population for vaccination. Once the vaccines come out, they’re short-tracked, there’s all kinds of enthusiasm regarding it, you know, needles in all the arms, trucks rolling, Americans cheering. And then the mass vaccination program starts off.

And then before we know it, you know, we’re vaccinating pregnant women. Why are we doing that? That can’t be safe. Now we’re going to vaccinate covid recovered patients. Wait a minute! They have complete and robust permanent immunity. No one’s ever challenged the immunity of a covid recovered patient. Why are we vaccinating them? And then it keeps going and going.

At first we vaccinated high-risk people. I didn’t really understand vaccinating young health care workers, because they weren’t at risk. There were never any hospital outbreaks in the United States. The only thing that was clear, nursing home workers gave it to nursing home patients. We knew that. So nursing home workers should have been vaccinated. And then maybe high-risk people and we should call it a day.

@1:34:16: I always estimated maybe 20 million people need to be vaccinated. But that didn’t seem to satisfy the vaccine stakeholders. Which are: Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, AstraZeneca, and any others that come forward, the CDC, the FDA and the NIH. And the White House. Massive vaccine stakeholders. You can throw in Gates Foundation. World Health Organization. You can throw those in as well. Massive stakeholders. And they wanted every body to be vaccinated. Without exception! No one will escape the needle.

We’ve actually never had this before. And the vaccine process is extraordinary. There’s a consent form. It says this is investigational. “We don’t know if it’s going to work. There’s only 2 months of data. The side effects could be a sore arm all the way to death. And we don’t know. Sign here. We need your identifying information. We need a barcode on the vial. We need you identified. And now you’re in the database. You’re vaccinated.”

And so this mass vaccination is extraordinarily concerning. We never vaccinate into the middle of a pandemic. Never. We’ve never had an effective vaccine for respiratory virus, including influenza – it’s only modestly effective. We knew from the published data that the attack rates in placebo and the vaccine arms were less than 1%. So we know that the vaccine can have a less than 1% effect in the population.

Why would it be any different than the clinical trials? We knew from the clinical trials that it didn’t stop covid-19, so people can get covid-19 anyway. What would be this incredible drive to vaccinate everybody?

And now, oh my Lord, now the vaccine within a few months has been completely weaponized. Now there’s travel is related to the vaccine. People can’t go to school without the vaccine. People are losing their jobs without the vaccine.

@1:36:02: Believe me, there is something very, very potent in this vaccine. It should be disturbing to everybody. The word “vaccine” ought to be the most disturbing word that they have seen.

Now we have 12 year old children who are told they can decide on their own, whether or not they can take a vaccine.

So, you know, about 70% of my patients are vaccinated. I’m very pro-vaccine, I’ve taken all the vaccines myself – about 70%, and they’re all vaccinated in December, January and February. But as we sit here today, in May, we have over 4,000 vaccine related deaths, and over 10,000 hospitalizations.

The limit! To shut down a program! Is about 25-50 deaths. Swine flu, 1976, 25 deaths, they shut down the programs. It’s not safe. The whole – all the vaccines in the United States per year, would [dialogue unclear] gets reported in the database, is about 200. And we’re talking about vaccinating probably, probably, you know, 500 million injections.

@1:37:03: Here, in the United States, at a 100 million people vaccinated, this is far and away the most lethal, toxic, biologic agent ever injected into a human body in American history. And it’s going strong. With no mention of safety by our officials. With wild enthusiasm by our hospitals and hospital administrators. With doctors supporting it. Doctors are saying now, they won’t see patients in their waiting room without the vaccine.

This problem, covid-19, was actually from the very beginning, that’s what Whitney Webb said, she goes “Covid-19 is actually about the vaccine. It’s not about the virus. It’s about the vaccine.”

Why has there been such a relentless focus on mass vaccination as the ONLY way back to normalcy?

@1:37:50: I think it’s about what the vaccine means. And Whitney Webb gets credit for this, back in April she said, “Ah ha! I figured this out. This is what globalists have been waiting for. They’ve been waiting for a way of marking people.” That you get a vaccine, you’re marked in the database. And this can be used for trade, for commerce, for behavior modification, all different purposes.

And you see it right here in Dallas. They have announced, you know, you can’t go to a Dallas Maverick’s game unless you’re vaccinated. You’ve had people say, listen, you have passports. You had colleges today announce that they’re not going to give any credit to natural immunity.

Every scientist in the world knows that the natural immunity is way better than the vaccine immunity.

If it’s about covid, why don’t we have covid recovered go to the Maverick’s game? Why don’t we have covid recovered people freely go to college? Why do we have to have faulty vaccine immunity be the priority? And have natural immunity not count?

See, these types of things make me think that Whitney Webb is correct. This is actually about marking. The vaccine is a way of marking people; it’s a way of starting to assert efforts to create compliance, behavior control – don’t forget the vaccine is just the starter. Now there’s going to be updates, there’s going to be boosters, they’re already prepping people for this. There’s going to be more – the vaccine manufacturers are all linked. They’re all uniquely indemnified.

What medical product is there indemnification, where if something happens to you, you don’t have any recourse? You know, woman gets vaccinated, pregnant woman, she has no maternal fetal rights. Something happens to her or her baby, she’s out of luck. This is extraordinary what Americans are doing. It’s absolutely extraordinary what’s being thrust upon us now.

Are we entering a Brave New World in which a person who elects NOT to get vaccinated will be punished through nonjudicial means by being forbidden to work, travel, and attend important public events?

@1:39:45: I think this whole pandemic, from the beginning, was about the vaccine. So I think all roads lead to the vaccine. And what it means.

There are already places in southeast Asia and Europe, they are laying the groundwork for compulsory vaccination. I mean, compulsory. That means somebody pins you down to the ground and puts a needle in you. That’s how bad stakeholders want vaccination.

Listen. It’s not of cost. You don’t have to pay for it. It’s all provided. There are people, or stakeholders, they do want a needle in every arm. This “needle in every arm” is a very important moniker. Why? Why do you want a needle in arm?

Let’s take covid recovered. Can’t get the virus. Can’t receive it. It has nothing – Why would they ever want a needle in the arm of a covid recovered patient? Why? Three studies show higher safety events.

See, the tension that Americans are feeling right now, as they’re trying to keep their jobs and go to work, is they know they can die of the vaccine! That’s the problem. If the vaccine was like water, and you just got it and no side effects, who wouldn’t take it? Say, hey, I’ll comply. They got my social security number anyway in a database. I’m already marked. I’ll just get marked.

@1:40:56: But no, there’s something very unique about this vaccine. It’s something about injecting something into a body, that is so important to stakeholders, that it doesn’t matter.

Kids 12 years old told they can make their own decision on this?! And it could be their fatal decision? Think about that! North Carolina just passed that. Oh, kids 12 years old can make, can decide on their own.

There are 4, over 4,000 dead Americans, there’s over 10,000 dead people in Europe, that die on days 1, 2 and 3 after the vaccine. Why, are we pushing this in a way where people’s jobs and their education, and their livelihood decide on a decision that’s potentially fatal? The tension – you can cut it with a knife!

There are parents who say, “Listen. I want my kid to go to college this year but I don’t want to lose him to the vaccine.” They know what’s going on. The internet is full of these cases. Blood clots, strokes, immediate death.

Now I’m fortunate. I have not directly lost a patient to the vaccine. I told you. Most got vaccinated in January – December, January and February. Based on the safety data now, I can no longer recommend it. I can’t recommend it. It’s past all the thresholds to being a safe product. It’s not a safe product. None of them are. It’s not just Johnson & Johnson. In fact, more of the safety events in the United States have occurred with Moderna and Pfizer.

There are now papers, written by prominent scientists, calling for a worldwide halt in the program. There are prominent virologists, many of them, including Nobel Prize Winners, who have said, listen. If we vaccinate people and we create a very narrow, incomplete library of immunity – which what the vaccine is. The vaccines are all targeted to the original Wuhan spike protein. Which is long gone. That’s extinct. Patients are getting vaccinated to something that doesn’t even exist anymore. That Wuhan spike protein is gone.

We’re hoping the immunity covers the other variants. But that narrow immunity is a setup. It’s just like giving everybody a narrow spectrum antibiotic. If you did that, what would happen? We’d grow up superbugs.

There are warnings out there saying, “Don’t do this! Don’t vaccinate the entire world. All we’re going to do is set ourselves up for a superbug that’s going to really wipe out populations.”

So for many reasons, the vaccine, indiscriminate vaccination, is a horrendous idea, it’s a horrendous bioweapon that’s been thrust onto the public. And it’s going to cause great personal harm, which it already has. Thousands of people have lost their lives. I’ve never lost a direct patient, but I’ve had my patients lose their family members – lots of them!

I’ve filled out a safety report on a patient who developed blood clots after one of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, and I’m telling you, it took half an hour to do it, there was many pages, and each page said: “Warning. Federal offense. Punishable by severe fines and penalties if I falsified a report.” All those thousands of Americans that have died with the vaccine and hospitalizations in the database, I think are real. And they are far beyond anything we’ve ever seen. And as a doctor, and as a public citizen, I am extraordinarily concerned about the vaccine.

The vaccine center right down the street here is empty. I drive past it everyday. Americans know, they’re talking to each other, the vaccine’s not safe. And now the effort is, the vaccine stakeholders want kids without parental guidance, and now they want to be in the church. Americans, and people worldwide, should be extraordinarily alarmed.

Has any agency or individual tried to silence you through threats or other forms of intimidation?

@1:44:24: My personal situation, professional situation, is a position of strength. And those who have attempted in any way to pressure, coerce, or threaten me with reprisal have paid an extraordinary price.

And I think that’s an important message, to get out there. There is a position of strength, of based on principles of compassionate care, and of the Hippocratic Oath, and of the fiduciary relationship that a doctor has to a patient, and a prominent doctor has to a population, that supercedes all of those other ill intents. And what I say is, “Bring ’em on.”

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FCRSA, FCCP, FNFK, FNLA
Professor of Medicine, Texas A & M College of Medicine
Board Certified Internist and Cardiologist
President of Cardiorenal Society of America
Editor-in-Chief, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine
Editor-in-Chief, Cardiorenal Medicine
Senior Associate Editor, American Journal of Cardiology

Dr. McCullough is an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and Professor of Medicine at Texas A & M College of Medicine, Dallas, TX USA. Since the outset of the pandemic, Dr. McCullough has been a leader in the medical response to the COVID-19 disaster and has published “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection” the first synthesis of sequenced multidrug treatment of ambulatory patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the American Journal of Medicine and subsequently updated in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. He has 40 peer-reviewed publications  on the infection and has commented extensively on the medical response to the COVID-19 crisis in TheHill and on FOX NEWS Channel. On November 19, 2020, Dr. McCullough testified in the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and throughout 2021 in the Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, Colorado General Assembly, and New Hampshire Senate concerning many aspects of the pandemic response.