"We Need a Manhattan Project for Cancer," Pierre Kory MD Reacts to Mel Gibson on Ivermectin
43:38 Share

So I'm back with a friend of the show that we've always enjoyed over the years. He's someone who's a fearless truth teller in the world of medicine. He's a decorated medical doctor.

And he is also someone who I've always enjoyed understanding and kind of dissecting the corruption of science in general with, Dr. Pierre Corey. How you doing, sir? David, good to see you again. Good to be back. Yeah, it's great having you. I like seeing you here in Florida. We love having Dr. Corey here in Florida, just in case something goes off.

Again, we got you down the road this time, right? Good to hook up with you at the Ocala conference. That was great. Yeah, that's wonderful. Florida COVID summit and everything. But, you know, I wanted to have you on and you can go anywhere you want to go with, you know, the general things that you're talking about in your circles, but

First of all, for those who are not familiar with you, you've got this book, War on Ivermectin, and that's been a big debate and discourse, the war on Ivermectin. We talked about this in the past, but kind of give people a background into how you became such a figure in this topic and conversation and alternative solutions for the past pandemic we went through.

Yeah, it was an interesting sort of set of circumstances. But basically, when COVID came, me and my colleagues, a group of us, we took it head on. We just tried to learn everything we could about it. And early on, it suggested us to form a group and put out protocols. Because remember, the government wasn't putting out any treatment guidance, right? They were saying, stay home until your lips turn blue, which is ridiculous. Because like my partner says, Paul Merrick,

There is no disease you cannot treat, right? And there's always stuff you can do. And so we started researching everything. And we came out with a hospital protocol in the spring of 2020. We called for the use of corticosteroids when all organizations around the world were saying don't use it. We were later validated with that. That's now standard of care worldwide. And then we were following early treatments. And when we saw the data start to accumulate around ivermectin, I mean, it was overwhelming.

And that's when things started to go sideways because we put out a protocol for early treatment. And I got asked to testify in the Senate by Ron Johnson. And that testimony went viral. Suddenly, Ivermectin was on the lips of many people around the world. And that's when the attacks started coming. And, you know, I was so bewildered in the beginning, David, I didn't know what was going on. I couldn't figure out why.

everything was happening the way it was. The hit jobs in the media, incessant lies about ivermectin, misrepresentation, distortions. And, you know, I finally, what changed my life is I read the article called the disinformation playbook, which outlines the tactics that industries deploy when science emerges that's inconvenient to their interests. Once I read that article, I made the decision I was going to write a book because I knew that ivermectin was a

overwhelmingly powerful case example of a disinformation war. And we lived through that war, right? The whole horse dewormer PR campaign, you know, the constant attacks on it. And I had a front row seat and I fought on the front lines of that. And I wrote a book about it. And I think it's a really informative book. I think it really tells the story of what happened in COVID using ivermectin as one example of

Remember, one of my colleagues could have written the book, The War on Hydroxychloroquine. It's the same war, same tactics, same results. So it's not like what happened to ivermectin is new. And it's not like these disinformation campaigns are new. And so, in fact, I'll bring one up when we talk about what we're going to talk about today. But yeah, that was kind of my ivermectin story. And

Through that war that I fought, a lot of stuff happened to me, David. I lost jobs. I had my board certifications revoked for being a misinformationist. They've weaponized everything. They put in the call to the American Board of Internal Medicine, and they came up with a new misinformation policy. They took my board certifications. They took Paul Marek's. They took Peter McCullough's. And they only did it for one reason. It wasn't about me.

It was a send a message to other doctors. If you want to come up with your dissenting opinions and be public about it, this is what happens. Now, did you ever get that back and restored or no?

No, no, no. We fought it. You know, I had a lawyer. We went through appeal. You know, I was we were doing like 67 page rebuttals with 250 references to support everything I've ever said or written publicly. And they would just like dismiss it. They would literally you know what they would cite back at me that my argument goes against what the WHO says, which is like, for instance, my statements on vaccines. They would literally dispel my argument by saying it goes against the WHO because the WHO says that they're safe and effective.

I mean, it was absolutely absurd. I would say comical if it wasn't so horrible. But now with this new administration and what could be there, I would hope that they would immediately restore or give you a pathway to get that whatever they took from you restored because, you know, Trump has signaled pulling out of WHO.

And Kennedy has signaled some of the same things that you've said about ivermectin and other things. So I think they can be a fly in the ointment, but that is a well-oiled machine, man. That thing is massive and powerful. You can sense it. You can feel it, but I don't know how to type. It's so entrenched in the system. I mean, pharma runs the whole game. They run the journals, they run the agencies, you know, they run the media. Yeah. They run the media. And so like when you're up against that, Holy Trinity, uh,

a new administration. I do believe, I do believe the media is going to be a little like you saw that nonsense of Zuckerberg or going on Rogan last week. Like literally the guy's been censoring truths for eight years on behest of the government. And then he comes out conveniently right before Trump. And he says, says, yeah, we, we were, you know, we couldn't believe they were asking us to censor truths and we don't want to do that anymore. It's like,

it's a bit of a game. I don't know. I do think things would be different. I just wonder how different. Yeah. I always say, keep your expectations about government sub-zero and you'll be not disappointed. So I like that. Yeah. I, you know, I saw, I don't know if you saw, I did that article in Robert Malone's sub stack about seed oils being the main driver of obesity. Yeah. And that has its own, you know, entrenched industry interests misleading thing on the food thing. So yeah,

There's a lot of wicked, evil, stupid, and psychopathic people that run the food and medicine industry. And they're cutthroat, ruthless people who are as dirty as a dirty arm cellar to some creepy dictator. Well, I got to tell you, I think it's important, right? And I know you're so smart about this, but like...

And what I'm going to say, I don't think it's been used to you, but that word psychopath is really important because we typically think of psychopaths, right, as being violent, repeated criminals, right, or wanting to kill people. But that's not true. There are plenty of psychopaths that don't commit direct acts of violence or theft or thievery, but they're kind of like

No empathy. And that ability to have no empathy allows you to succeed in corporate structures. You make money. Remember like all the mafia movies? Is that guy an earner? Like if you earn, you get rewarded. You become a captain. You become this. You become a boss. And so when you look at these huge organizations, corporations, I'm not saying that everyone who sits on top is a psychopath, but

you get some really disturbing people who are capable of reprehensible things with immense amount of power. And you're absolutely right. What they, what they can do to society and what they are doing. I mean, these corporations are literally killing us and in many different ways, not only through healthcare, it's nutrition, air, you know, agriculture, all of it. And it's, it's really a sad state we're in. And I hope that, you know,

And this is just me speaking, but I just hope that, you know, Trump, one of his weaknesses is he likes being flattered and he likes to be the guy that gets the good press. And we're hoping that, you know, that he can withstand the pressure because they're going to smear him left and right.

a thousand times more vicious you know than they did to the doctors if he does anything to stop the media i don't think that works as well anymore it worked really well for a while but if you look at like trusted media yeah it's plummeting and by the way it's plummeting the most rapid this is the most encouraging data that i can talk about is i was just looking at it this morning but

The trust in media is plummeting the farthest and the fastest amongst the youngest sectors of society. The old folks, the boomers, they're still watching the news. I mean, it's dropping there too, but it's a cliff in the young people, which I think really bodes well for a future more healthy society. If they don't kill us all before they get out of the way, that's the problem with the boomers. They don't like to get rid of the power that they hold and they strangle us into...

sickness and catastrophic collapse. So it's no question. Really bratty little hippies ruining everything for us right now. So no question. There's some great boomers, but good Lord have mercy. No, I'm with you, but I have one more thought on the, on the psychopath thing, which is an interesting, because I was reading this article about psychopaths and how, you know,

It's purported that 15 to 20% of inmates in prisons are psychopaths. But that same proportion are in C-suites of corporations. But then there's this other little thing that this guy was writing about, apparently like an Eskimo culture.

There's a name for a psychopath, and I think it was like Koolangetti or something like that. But the way in which Eskimo clans or tribes took care of psychopaths, apparently they would push them off the ice flow and let them drown. Like if there was one of their tribe who was like raping, pillaging, thieving, and like, you know, really had disregard for the rest, they got rid of them. Whereas here we put them in positions of power. Right. One of the reasons why society is so

at rooting these wicked people out, besides the fact that it's controlled by the institutions, is because they have criminalized every nonviolent regulatory thing they could come up with. So there's a host of victimless crimes, which really corrupts the moral fabric of a society when you have all of these endless ways to put someone in a cage where they can be assaulted for a nonviolent crime. And when you do that, it

delegitimizes the moral fabric of what prison or the law is actually for, which should be for taking out actual vicious, violent acts like lying to people and defrauding people about what is effective or safe or whatever the words they use.

These are things that should be the real use of the prison system. But it's like when you when you scramble the moral fabric so bad like that, where drinking raw milk or all these regulatory violations can get you in a cage. But if you, you know, if you defraud the public and harm hundreds of thousands or millions of people, you get a promotion that can't last. It will not last. I hope not.

Because, you know, no society can maintain life in that environment. That's, you know, other things when everybody's just allowed to poison everybody at will and get away with it. I believe what you're saying. I think that's a really good point. And I also think that, you know, we go in cycles. I hope we can get out of this cycle because we're at a really low point in the history of the United States. We've been heading here over decades. But if there's anything good that came out of COVID-19,

Like I consider you someone who's been awake for a long time. You know, we use this vague term awake, but we all know, which is we're awake to like what's, you know, or at least we have different levels of being awake, but the understanding of what's really controlling society and, and how much we're dupes of that, that woke me up in COVID. I had very little awareness of what, you know, the world that I thought I lived in before COVID,

Doesn't exist. I'm glad to have folks like you because credentialed, highly qualified medical doctors, when they start hanging out with the uncool crowd like us,

it helps the normies wake up faster because they take whatever, you know, they have such a, such a deep reverence for the medical doctor, institutional role in society, the medical doctor, the judge, the police officer, these are sacred institutions for the, especially boomers. So when people like you come and hang out with people like me, you know, I'm, I'm the guy, you know, I wasn't doing the MD thing, you know? And so, you know, it doesn't, you know, when I say things,

I don't stick, I don't do conspiracy and sensationalism. That would have gotten me a lot more success faster. But I also don't play the game of just holding back and just, well, you know, I hope we can pass a bill. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm not going to do that, man. That's what a lot of these conservative media outlets, they lie to their audience by just saying, well, once Congress is in there or once Trump's in there, it'll clean it all out. And it's this false hope that creates learned helplessness.

Yes. No one wants to really do, you know, I hit the seed oil thing so hard and starting in 2017, 2018 on the news radio, nobody talked about seed oils. I was the only guy. And that's why I didn't have 300 stations like other people who don't talk about seed oils. Right. They get picked up by big syndicators. And so, you know, it doesn't matter when you, when you have a moral obligation to tell the truth in media, it will counter your ability to make a living off of it.

because the institutions are captured by people who are predatorial oligarchs. So, you know, when I, when I did the CETO, but now look, Steak and Shake is saying they're going to do beef tallow fries. They're getting rid of CETOs. You know, that's, that's, that's a win. And I'm going to take it. And we're all going to take that win. And I'm already, you know, going to other restaurants. We need Chick-fil-A or other people to get on board. So,

You know, we just go and we try to heal people at the root level so that when you don't have, you know, because that's a good doctor that, you know, your kind of ethical doctor role is that you don't want people to be sick since they were a child because they eat seed oil nuggies all the time. You want them to say, I don't need Corey for this. I'm fine. You know?

But that was my job, right, is to help my patients be as healthy as they can. Yeah. Well, I want to talk to you. This raises a big thing, the big story that's been going around ever since Rogan had Mel Gibson. He talked about he knew four friends that had stage four cancer, and then he had this – he kind of didn't want to say what it was, but then Joe Rogan was like, what was it, ivermectin? It was cute, yes. It's funny how he said it, yeah. Yeah.

He's a little more expressive than Corey was when he was on Capitol Hill. You know, you were... Yeah. It was almost... I think if I listen to it again, I think Joe had to put the words in his mouth because he didn't want to say. He was just like, they took, you know, and Joe's like, Ivermectin? And he's like, yeah, yeah, yeah, those things. Yeah.

You got one guy with a really established podcast empire and another guy who's trying to get, get, get things going in a different direction in his career. And there's a difference in how they approach the word, but you know, they, he also mentioned Finn Bendis all, which has been one of those folk folk things that have circulate. And I don't mean that in a derogatory way, whether you like it or not, but,

then what is it fambenazole has been yeah it's like it's it's well known on social media but you don't see it in the sciences right they don't talk about it's a folk it's a folk thing you hear it online yeah that's shoot and stuff but here's the thing that's not really true it's just ignored science so you know if i could say a few words about let me give the context of ivermectin and fambenazole so

First of all, the entire system of oncology is based on what's called the somatic mutation theory, which has been around for about 70 to 100 years, right? In its simplest articulation, it's this belief that carcinogens cause mutations in the nucleus where our chromosomal DNA is, right? And then those mutations cause the cell to behave cancerously, okay? Okay.

It is my opinion, and those of others who've been deeply studied in the subject, is that that theory was disproven about 14 years ago in 2010 with the publication of a paper called The Metabolic Theory of Cancer by a

a really highly respected researcher called Thomas Seyfried. I know him. He's a friend of mine. Yeah. Seyfried is brilliant, right? And Seyfried, the brilliance of Seyfried is he provided the missing pieces of the puzzle of the metabolic theory of cancer, which actually the foundations of which have been put together by different researchers over the last 70 years, starting with Otto Warburg in 1927, you know, who won the Nobel Prize for discovering that

cancer cells are different than normal cells in one respect. They predominantly rely on glucose for energy, whereas normal cells rely on oxygen. And no one could explain why that metabolic difference was. And people kind of inch closer to explaining why a guy named Peterson did a lot of work. And then Seyfried found the missing link. And his paper is just tremendous. And

This metabolic theory of cancer found that actually cancer starts with an injury to the mitochondria, which is the energy-forming unit of the cell. And the mitochondria is a really complex organelle. It's responsible for so many different processes. It also has a lot of signals to the nucleus. And basically...

What the discovery does, it's almost like it changed the chicken from the egg. So whereas everyone thought cancer started the nucleus, what the metabolic theory of cancer just says is that actually what happens in the nucleus is downstream from the attack on the mitochondria. And why is that important? Well, number one,

it kind of dictates some of the therapies that can be helpful in cancer. If you can address therapies that deal with the metabolic defects, you can improve and you can actually attack cancer cells using metabolic treatments. And when I say metabolic, it's a very vague term, but there are many medicines that have multiple mechanisms of action

some of which address the defects that the mitochondria exhibits. And this is where I want to come to the point about my colleague, close friend and colleague, Paul Marik. We started the FLCCC lines. Paul became fascinated when he learned about the metabolic theory of cancer. And his contribution to the literature, I think, is stupendous. Because what Paul did is he spent four months

doing a scoping review of the world's medical literature, looking for all the evidence he could find for repurposed drugs in the treatment of cancer, right? Repurposed drugs are drugs that we use for some indication. Like, for instance, one example is metformin, very, very common diabetes drug. And it has these mechanisms of action which actually treats cancers.

And he decided to compile all this evidence, and he came up with three criteria, strong level of evidence, weak, and then kind of equivocal. And one of the interesting factoids, you're going to like this, David, is that he found that there are 256 repurposed medicines with purported efficacy against cancer and over 2,000 nutraceuticals.

But in his scoping review of the literature, and Paul's pretty conservative, he really requires a high level of evidence. He wants to see in vitro, in vivo, and clinical evidence as well as safety evidence before he's going to give something a strong level of recommendation. And after doing that, you know how many he found met the criteria for a strong level of evidence? About 17. And then in the weaker is another 20.

So out of that huge possibilities, the problem is, and this is probably the cancer on the internet, is so many things are being said to are helpful for cancer, like apricot seeds, dandelion roots. You know, the thing is, they do have mechanisms, but you don't have safety data and you don't have efficacy data. Yeah.

And so his work- You don't know dosage really sometimes. Yeah, and dosage, you don't know the dosages. It's just not enough known. Now, what I like to remind people is that out of that huge possibility, right? 256 patented drugs and 2000 nutraceuticals.

There may be a compound in there that is the most effective treatment for cancer. It's just the level of evidence isn't there. But the evidence we have suggests there are a number of things we can use. And that's where I'm going to come back to. Ivermectin and Mabendazole, Fenben is the animal version, Mabendazole is the human version. Those two are in the strong levels of evidence. If you really look at their mechanisms, their safety, and their efficacy in observational trials,

they can be really effective. And then the amount of anecdotes, and even in my own clinical experience, I've been treating cancer now in my practice. We have a complementary cancer care practice. We use combinations of repurposed drugs. Ivermectin and Mavendazole are just two of them. But we've been having really good success. I can't say that everyone has done well under us, but we've had a lot of success. And one little factoid that I think your audience will like

And this is more hearsay, so it's not something I usually engage in. But fenben, so I know a group of integrative oncologists who've been doing complementary cancer care for years. And what they have told me, at least one of the main pharmacists who service them, who I work with closely, really brilliant guy. He said that in their cancer practice, they found that fenbendazole or fenben as we call it, worked really well and it works really well.

However, they would see later recurrences that were very aggressive. And with Mabendazole, the human version, they didn't see that as much. And so generally, we use Mabendazole, not fenben. Does it have a different structure to the molecule that makes it act differently? There is because there's different impacts. And that's beyond my kind of expertise, but I use Mabendazole.

Um, they're, they're, they're identical enough where it's hard to say there's a big difference, but in, in, in basically in the patterns of use, uh, or efficacy, that's what they said. But, um, I'll tell you that for the, one of the most profound evidence bases is for vitamin D high doses of vitamin D and that, you know, I use a high dose vitamin D protocol where, um,

I put people on the highest doses I can without rendering them toxic. And I follow something called a parathyroid hormone levels and calcium levels. It's not that complicated, but you want to do it safely. But that has really good evidence for cancer. And then other things like

propranolol, which is a beta blocker, has an immense evidence base and a number of other nutraceuticals. And so you put on that therapeutic ketosis like a safe. Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. Yes. I'm glad you brought that up because that's that's the foundation of what we do is we do put people on ketogenic diets with cancer. You know, the concept is to starve the cancer cell, right, because they rely predominantly on glucose for fuel, whereas most cancers cannot use ketone bodies, which is the fuel we use when we're in ketosis. And

And there's a number of studies showing ketogenic diets improve survival, decrease metastases, et cetera. Yeah. Do you use the DON, the glutamine inhibitor that SafeReed uses? No, I don't. I don't because a number of the other compounds in our protocols are also glutamine inhibitors, and we use combinations of them. So, yeah, we have a different approach to glutamine.

That's great. So are you guys coordinating with Safe Read and other people or are you just doing it here alone? We haven't. We probably should. I mean, we haven't talked to him. I would love to see what he thinks of Paul's book because I think Paul's book is a really big contribution to the- What's the name of the book? It's called Cancer Care. It's on Amazon by Paul Marik. There's a subtitle to it. I can't remember what it is. I think it's Metabolic Approaches to Treating Cancer or something like that.

I think it's exciting to see what can happen. Another guy I knew in this field is Dr. Michael Asante. I don't know if you're familiar with him. I've heard the name. He's the chair of translational medicine in Salford University in England, but he's an American citizen. Years ago, he was publishing some insights about how he was using doxycycline and azithromycin, Z-Pak, to take out

metastatic cancer. And he's got a modified doxycycline now that is supposed to be even more effective. And he's been doing some work in breast cancer patients and other things. And, you know, so it's interesting, you know, he's a mainstay. So he's high up in the system. He has a, uh,

and a center, and he's doing work. That's why I like him. He's like my, I can't get anybody else to cover him, but except for a few media outlets. I was going to say good luck to his career. Cause I don't know how long it's going to last, but here's, I want to bring up. He's been doing it for a long time. He's been many years. Yeah. But I don't know. Yeah.

You know, the thing is, though, I'm sure a lot of his research will get ignored. He's got like 36,000 citations in oncology on Google Scholar. You know what? That's the weird thing, David. There's so much science around repurposed drugs. But when you look at standard of care approaches to cancer,

They don't use these repurposed drugs because it's impossible to do what oncology requires. They want placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

It would be, it's considered unethical in oncology to put a cancer patient on a placebo. So how are you going to take someone with cancer, not offer them chemo or radiation, and then treat them with a repurposed drug and leave them on placebo? Can't do that. So then the opposite is put them on standard of care, add the repurposed drugs, and then see, compare their outcomes to someone who hasn't.

Now, that's also difficult ethically for me, but we're actually doing that study in my practice. We're part of a multicenter study where we're following our patients, collecting data and comparing their outcomes. But I want to bring up a really troubling finding I discovered yesterday. As far as I know, there's only one study published in the literature like I just described, and it's called the METRICS study.

And it was a group of clinics in the UK, and they studied only patients with glioblastoma, which is a horrific brain cancer, which has a really reproducible duration of survival from diagnosis, which is about, I think, 14 to 18 months. So about 15 months is the average survival of glioblastoma.

And what they did is they studied patients who got the standard of care plus four repurposed drugs. One of them you just mentioned, doxycycline. The other was mabendazole. The other one was metformin and then atorvastatin. And they compared those who got the repurposed drugs versus those. And then they compared it to the historical standard of care. And it's a really nice model because glioblastoma is so well-defined in terms of the prognosis.

And they literally nearly doubled their survival with the use of these repurposed drugs.

Is that in any guideline or any treatment recommendations anywhere in the world? No. And here's the thing. I saw a patient with glioblastoma yesterday and I was telling them about the trial. And then when I was writing my note, I wanted to include the paper. I wanted to attach the PDF because they were interested in this study. So, and I couldn't find it in my file. So I go on to PubMed, I find the paper and lo and behold, what do I see, David?

I see an expression of concern on the paper. And the editor is saying that they are currently investigating this paper and are considering a retraction. That paper was published in 2019.

And the last time I looked at it, which was six months ago, there was no expression of concern. So that paper has been published and peer reviewed for almost five years. And now, now that we're talking about it's in Paul's book, and now there's more attention to these repurposed drugs. Suddenly that paper is under investigation. Do you think there's any validity to that? I mean, come on, it's a stupid question. I'm not even going to ask it, but that's how bad it gets, David. I hope I wouldn't have.

If Dr. Jay Bhattacharya gets in there at NIH, he could do something to stop this stuff. Well, the best idea is Bobby. I mean, I remember there's one... I heard an interview with Bobby Kennedy once where they said to him... I think they said...

You know, this is when he was running for president. They said, what's one of the first things you're going to do to like clean up the, you know, whatever this health care mess if you were to get in the Oval Office? And he said, one of the first things I would do is I would call all the high impact journal editors into the Oval Office and I would threaten them with RICO prosecution unless they clean up their act. Because I will tell you, the fraud or the biggest leverage of fraud is at the level of the impact, high impact medical journals. They reject

all studies that are inconvenient to pharma, and they selectively promote even the most brazenly manipulated studies conducted by pharma. It is so bad, I don't think people have any inkling of how corrupted our medical literature is, how censored and curated and really false it is. And by the way, editors of these high-impact medical journals are on the record with these phenomenally powerful statements, like Marsha Angel, she was the...

editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, the number one medical journal in the world. 20 years. She resigned in 2001 to write a book about the corruption of the journals. And she said that over half of what is published in those journals should not be believed.

It's bad. It's probably higher than that. Yeah. You know, that's the thing is that, you know, the level of public knowledge seems to always be a little bit outpaced by the level of chicanery and crookedness and manipulation. You know, they use very highly powerful, you know, psychology techniques and advertising and persuasion to

hits you at your animal side of your brain where you don't want to be excluded from the tribe. You know, and I understand this from a mimetic theory standpoint, and it helps me be able to be able to stand in solidarity with people who go against the tribe. But when the tribe says this is sacred,

and you defy that, then you will be excluded or you will be threatened with being socially alienated. That's why they said the word, like we talked about this, the word y'all for trying to make you feel like you're not a legitimate social status person of significance. Hopefully, let's hope, and that's why we have to be on the outside and I'm going to hold Trump and the administration accountable on this outlet if I see them doing nothing

And blocking Kennedy. And you know one of the things that really irritated me the most was Mike Pence coming out and using his Christian faith as a cover to shill for Big Pharma. I found that disgraceful. You know, he came out and said, I'm against Kennedy because he's... No, you're not. You're not doing this for abortion. You're doing this as a cover. You're using your Christian faith

and concern for babies to hit people in the emotional spots that he knows Republicans will be hit by. And then he's just, all he's doing is just shamelessly trying to prevent childhood obesity from being stopped with seed oils and all the other horrible, you know, chronic diseases that are skyrocketing that Kennedy has the only guy that's trying to fight it. So what a disgrace and a shame on people like him for... 100%. That's what it looks like, man. I mean, I know that I'm speaking...

Again, for myself, but that's what sociopathy looks like when you can not blink and say, hey, I'm a Christian. I don't want to make sure kids are still obese and sick. I don't think you're off, David. Hey, David, can I say a couple more things about cancer, which I find are interesting? At least they were interesting to me in my cancer care practice. Here's what I've seen, because I got to tell you, when you look at social media, especially around ivermectin and fenben,

All you see are unending reports of amazing successes, right? I hope people are smart enough to know that's not the case for everybody treated with those drugs. But, you know, you tend to no one's going out there saying, hey, I treated some with ivermectin and mabendazole and nothing happened and they died. No one's saying that on social. You're getting a very one sided view. Here's what I see.

In my practice, we've definitely had remarkable responses. Some are so remarkable because these are patients that we treated that have stopped standard of care. Some have remarkable responses while getting the standard of care. But when my patient's oncologist tells them, wow, you're doing really, really, like the system oncologist is really surprised at how my patient is doing. So those are really nice responses.

Then there are, then there's this other group, which I was fascinated because when I see patients and follow up with cancer, I'm always looking, what is cancer? It's the uncontrolled division of cells, right? So it's a progressive disease, which you're always trying to halt or regress. And for the first kind of six, seven months of my practice, when I would see patients and follow up, and I wouldn't see these amazing successes of like resolutions, remissions, regressions,

I would be instantly disappointed. And then I would like maybe add things or increase dosing or try different strategies. But then I discovered that with some patients, what I was achieving was not remission.

but control of disease. And that was kind of enlightening to me because here I am trying to, you know, swing for the fences with every patient. But yet I was finding like the patients were reporting like, I'm doing really well, no new pains, no new mets. You know, the lesions would either be the same or maybe a little bit smaller. And they were caring about their lives and they weren't doing any worse. And so now I'm realizing that with complementary cancer care, like

maybe cancer can be a chronic disease, like that you can manage and just keep at bay. And then I've also had, unfortunately, I've had patients who just didn't respond for whatever reason or another. I think adherence to the ketogenic diet is one factor in that. It's hard to adhere to, David, I don't know if you've ever done one, but, you know, some even with aggressive cancers, they just can't do it. And I think that's part of it. And then there are some times where,

Like for instance, ivermectin, I've seen patients who respond so well to ivermectin, like literally the cancer disappears where the same cancer, different patient, I'm putting them on ivermectin. It doesn't seem to do anything. And so like, there's still a complexity to this that I don't understand, but at least I think I'm affording patients the best chance for the best outcome. That's something that Dr. Michael Asante told me a lot is that, you know, what his approach when it sounds very similar to what you guys are doing, but his approach has been to stop

metastatic cancer stem cells. Whereas he said the establishment approach is usually just to focus almost

almost solely on shrinking the tumor or removing the tumor. And that's a whole different framework of looking at it, that even the standard of care does not typically, it goes after the, it typically goes after the tumor, you know, as the focus rather than... It doesn't go after the stem cells. Yeah. Yeah. And that's where all the damage is, right? It's the metastatic part of it. And that

So if there's anyone ethical at all in this new administration with any ability to affect change.

That right there should be a Manhattan Project level full court press to say, if there's metastatic, if our standard of care doesn't address the stem cells, then we need everybody all hands on deck to figure out how to take out that stem cell. Let's do it and put it in the kitchen sink and let's see what happens. David, I love that idea you just brought up. Like,

commissioning funds of an independent conflict of interest free group of scientists and researchers, step back, let's go to look at cancer again. Because remember, the predominant theory has been overturned in my, but it's also more complex than that. But just a fresh look, considering everything, looking at the role of repurposed drugs and cancer, and see if we can, you know,

have a novel approach. Because I got to tell you, the treatment of cancer and the outcomes have really not done well. They've been either static or worsened. Targeted therapies, the new mania that's all out there, they've been very good in a small proportion of patients, but have done very poorly in others. And so cancer treatment has not done very well at all over the last 50 years. It's time for a fresh look. Yeah.

And how hard, again, I might be ignorant, how hard is it for somebody to say, well, if our standard of care doesn't address metastatic stem cells, then we need to add at least an addendum to what we're doing already. And let's go find it. Trump could do that right now with one tweet. He has the power to do that. And he needs to do that. And Kennedy needs to do that. And it needs to be everybody on board. So I'll keep pressuring, you know, because when I did in 2018 and I was talking about seed oils, Trump wasn't talking about seed oils. And now he's talking about seed oils.

So we'll keep hitting the, we'll have, we have a bigger platform now than we had back then. And we'll continue. And, you know, it'll take a full court press from media to get the word out.

And one of our first projects or missions is really on advocating for and fostering research and use of repurposed drugs. Cause that has always been the Achilles heel of pharma that they cannot, their business model is literally dependent on you buying the pricey new patented profit, you know, profitable product, right? Like they don't want the older non-profitable patented safe drugs. And,

And I'm hoping that there's an appetite to embrace that research. Well, that's what, you know, that's the thing. And this is where I always start with these guys that think that the status quo is ethical in any way, shape or form. And from scientific inquiry, you have got to be able to start from the first principles of whatever you're

is available to work, not with the principle of only that which is patented can get through the FDA process. That's a dirty little trick that has harmed lots of innocent lives. Agreed. And that's the thing that needs to be stopped. That needs to be repealed somehow, some way. If the FDA is going to continue, it has to repeal. There has to be a repeal of that so that people can use things like what you're doing

And as long, you know, because that's the great thing about these repurposed drugs. Like you've said before, they're already been demonstrated to be safe. Yeah. You know, they've already gone through that FDA clearing process of the safety part. And then some of them have...

Pretty good bodies of evidence of efficacy in cancer. So, I mean, we have enough evidence. I mean, the problem with the evidence that we have, what we call strong, the system will say it's insufficient and weak, right? And that game is the most tired game. Like whatever I say, if it's inconvenient to pharma, what you hear back from the agencies and the journals and the societies is that there's insufficient evidence and it's low quality and dah, dah, dah, dah, dah. And

it's the oldest trick in the book that they pull, but it's just simply not true. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that complimentary cancer care with repurposed drugs should be standard. Yeah. And it's not going to go away. You can't, I've said this before, if they fail to deliver on Maha in this four years, it's not like all the, all the four years, because there are people are already waking up to the media and to alternative things, you know,

Give it another 40 years and they're not delivering, it's going to be even bigger. And it's going to be a huge coalition of progressives,

and conservatives and independents like what Kennedy was trying to and Trump was branding, but if they don't deliver, it's not going to go away. And if they want pitchforks, I'm sorry, when you're deliberately killing people and holding information, that's how you get pitchforks. Now, do we want that? Absolutely not. But there will be a tipping point where people say, I've had enough and I'm not playing this game anymore. You're not going to harm our children. And there's enough people who care about, just like what they did with this, they went too far with,

you know, reassigning children. I saw, you know, I saw a horrific thing of a little, a little young girl who's like 10 or 12 who was given. Yeah. You know what I mean? And it's like, Oh my God, have mercy. They were doing it to a paraplegic who was, who had severe doubt. No, not the, what is it? The, uh,

Cerebral palsy? Yeah, cerebral palsy. She can't even speak for herself and they gave her a double mastectomy or whatever and she can't even speak. She can't even speak and they've got her on video and she's got... We've lost our minds. We've lost our minds. So that's the kind of stuff that's going to happen when they find out the truth about children's cancer.

Okay, there is no MAGA if you if you're going to turn a blind eye to that. And that's my that's my statement right now. There will be no MAGA there will be no MAGA legacy if you know what's true and you don't do what's right. That's the bottom line. There's always ignorance. Right? You didn't know what you know now.

Right. You had a time where you know what you know. There's a kind of grace with that. Right. But once you know the truth and once you're in a position to do something about it, you have an obligation to do so. I love that, David. I try to live by that. And I hope I hope I've shown that I can do that. Dr. Corey, I really appreciate you coming on. It's always great having you on. Any last thoughts?

Yeah, no, well, I mean, I don't want to be like self-promotional, but, you know, I am trying to help. And for those with cancer, just know that we do telehealth. We do it by telehealth and we see patients all over the country and we're happy to help anyone who's looking to do complimentary cancer care. Yeah. Well, it's time for a Manhattan Project for cancer and it needs to happen. I love that. Yep. Thanks, Dave. It's good to see you. Thank you for coming on. Definitely. Thank you.

Bye.