TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @SabinehazanMD

SabinehazanMD
Posted - January 8, 2026 at 4:19 PM
Saved - January 10, 2026 at 7:17 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I warn that if we fail to safeguard science, humanity’s survival is threatened, yet dismissed ideas can lead to breakthroughs. Data from @weldeiry, @Progenabiome, and @Kevin_McKernan show signals across independent experiments linking mRNA vaccines to cancer. plasmid DNA contamination with SV40 promoter, p53 inhibition, and cancer risk; 69 studies show 300+ post-vaccination cancers; spike suppression, IgG4 shifts, PD-L1. Microbiome disruption—Bifidobacterium drop up to 90%—fuels a pro-tumorigenic environment. A multi-hit signal warrants urgent, unbiased investigation.

@SabinehazanMD - sabine hazan md

If we fail to safeguard science, humanity’s survival hangs by a thread. Yet, sometimes what we dismiss as misinformation turns out to be a groundbreaking discovery. The key challenge lies in striking a balance: remaining open to paradigm-shifting ideas while applying rigorous scrutiny to filter out true pseudoscience. The data from @weldeiry, @Progenabiome, and @Kevin_McKernan represents that breakthrough. Without knowing each other, we all observed signals through independent experiments pointing to mRNA vaccines being linked to cancer. This is not coincidental—@Kevin_McKernan’s sequencing revealed persistent plasmid DNA contamination in vaccine vials, including SV40 promoter-enhancer sequences known to bind and inhibit tumor suppressor proteins like p53, potentially driving genomic instability and oncogenesis. Dr. @weldeiry’s review of 69 studies documented over 300 cases of unusual, aggressive cancers post-vaccination or infection, with mechanisms like spike protein suppression of p53, IgG4 class-switching that dampens immune surveillance, and elevated PD-L1 expression enabling tumor evasion. Complementing these, my (@Progenabiome) microbiome research shows mRNA vaccines deplete Bifidobacterium in the gut—levels dropping by up to 90% and persisting for months—while low Bifidobacterium is associated with invasive cancers, chronic inflammation, and reduced immune function, creating a pro-tumorigenic environment that could amplify these risks. Together, these convergent findings from DNA contamination, immune dysregulation, and microbiome disruption suggest a multi-hit pathway to cancer, warranting urgent, unbiased investigation across stakeholders to substantiate or refute these signals. @SenRonJohnson @RWMaloneMD @RobertKennedyJr @AaronSiriSG @MaryBowdenMD @maryhollandnyc @MartyMakary @FLSurgeonGen @P_McCulloughMD @elonmusk @DrOz @SciGuardians @Jikkyleaks @lifebiomedguru @KMilhoanMDPhD @joerogan @RandPaul @GovRonDeSantis #SAVETHEBIF

newstart_2024
Posted - December 17, 2025 at 2:52 PM
Saved - December 18, 2025 at 2:57 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
A frontline doctor reports that high-dose vitamin C for COVID unexpectedly boosted gut bifidobacteria by 400% in her and others’ tests, with peer-reviewed data. A responder warns that in hemochromatosis vitamin C may trap iron in organs. The conversation then emphasizes checking iron status (CBC and iron saturation) before supplementation.

@newstart_2024 - Camus

Imagine: Frontline doctor megadosing vitamin C against COVID... accidentally discovers it supercharges her gut's bifidobacteria by 400%! Dr. Sabine Hazan, microbiome pioneer, saw this in her own stool test. She then collected before/after data from dozens—confirming vitamin C boosts these key beneficial bacteria in people and lab tests. Findings published in peer-reviewed research. Pure serendipity uncovering vitamin C's gut-nurturing side. Watch her story in this 1:16 clip. What's your most surprising "accidental" health win? Share below!

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 describes being on the front line in Miami and using vitamin C as a go-to, questioning whether it is taken orally and in what amount. Speaker 1 confirms oral administration and notes taking a lot of vitamin C due to exposure and concern. Speaker 0 explains that a scientist contacted them after testing their sample, asking if they noticed their Bifidobacteria levels had risen fourfold. The speaker reveals they had been taking high dosages of vitamin C, which prompted a shift in approach. While dealing with treating COVID-19 patients and assessing stools in high-risk and severe cases, they decided to consult naturopaths and collect stool samples before and after treatment to evaluate the impact. Speaker 1 recounts that they began making phone calls, offering to pay for stool samples before and after on patients treated with vitamin C. They collected about twenty to twenty-five samples and observed that vitamin C increased Bifidobacteria. This finding led to publishing research showing that vitamin C increases Bifidobacteria in vitro, and they extended this to show an increase in patients as well. Key points: - Vitamin C was used as a primary approach by a frontline clinician in Miami, with emphasis on oral administration. - A scientist noted a fourfold increase in Bifidobacteria, prompting a change in strategy toward investigating vitamin C’s effects. - They initiated a program to collect stool samples before and after vitamin C treatment in COVID-19 patients, collaborating with naturopathic practitioners and funding the stool analyses themselves. - About 20–25 samples were analyzed, revealing that vitamin C increased Bifidobacteria. - They published a paper demonstrating the increase of Bifidobacteria with vitamin C both in vitro and in patient samples.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I had been on the front line in Miami, and my my go to is always vitamin c. Do you take it orally or is it Speaker 1: just orally? Orly. Speaker 0: Is is there a certain amount that you can take orally? Well, I Speaker 1: was taking a lot because I was exposed and I was worried. But then what I realized was I tested my sample, my scientist calls me and he goes, did you notice your C, did you notice your Bifidobacteria went up four times the level? What have you been doing? I go, Oh, I've been taking high dosages of vitamin C. And then he said to me, Well, you've got to look into vitamin C. So right away, I switched my gears. As I'm dealing with treating COVID patients, as I'm dealing at looking at the stools before in high risk and severe, I switched my gears and I said, okay, we need to call a bunch of naturopaths and send us patients before and after. So I started making phone calls again and said, I'll pay for stool samples before and after on patients with vitamin C. And then we had like twenty, twenty five samples and we noticed that the vitamin C increased Bifidobacteria. We published on that because actually vitamin C increases Bifidobacteria in vitro. So we published the paper to show that it increased in patients.

@Winslow1901 - Journey

@newstart_2024 Great, unless you have hemachromatosis, and then Vitamin C is the enemy, causing iron to be stuck in organs. People should really get genetically tested before doing this. FYI @SabinehazanMD

@SabinehazanMD - sabine hazan md

@Winslow1901 @newstart_2024 Or at least get a CBC and a percent iron sat …

SabinehazanMD
Posted - November 10, 2025 at 6:35 AM
Saved - November 10, 2025 at 10:30 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I note that Kevin McKernan helped in the original Human Genome Project, his video is featured at the Museum of Science, and he’s a leading genomic scientist and entrepreneur. He led HGP R&D at the MIT Whitehead Institute, founded Medicinal Genomics in 2011 (sequencing the cannabis genome, first public release), and earlier founded Agencourt Biosciences. MIT-educated with many genomics publications and patents. I see connections to my work on mRNA vaccines, bifidobacteria, and p53.

@SabinehazanMD - sabine hazan md

Just a reminder: @Kevin_McKernan participated in the original Human Genome Project, and his video is featured at the Museum of Science, where he’s already made history. No one is more knowledgeable on this subject than him. Kevin McKernan is a prominent genomic scientist and entrepreneur. He served as the R&D lead for the Human Genome Project at the MIT Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research. He founded Medicinal Genomics in 2011, where he pioneered the sequencing of the cannabis genome, making worldwide news as the first to publicly release a cannabis genome sequence. Previously, he was involved in developing next-generation sequencing technologies and founded Agencourt Biosciences, which advanced DNA sequencing methods used in various genomic projects. McKernan holds a degree from MIT and has authored numerous publications and patents in genomics, focusing on areas like DNA sequencing, microRNAs, and personalized medicine. His contributions have solidified his reputation as a leading expert in the field. What is amazing about his discovery is that it ties in with my work finding mRNA vaccines kill the bifidobacteria and finding of loss of bifidobacteria in invasive cancer BUT it also ties in with the independent findings on Covid spike affecting p53 by @weldeiry . Imagine 3 different scientists with 3 different pathways coming to the same conclusions. This needs to be looked at …

Video Transcript AI Summary
The dialogue opens with a contrast between outlooks: Speaker 0 says, “The pessimist in this world, and you spend your time with optimism,” highlighting a tension between pessimistic and optimistic perspectives. The subsequent speaker, Speaker 1, reframes the topic around genomics, describing it as “taking a global picture, all of marionettes that are manipulated by strands of DNA?” and raising a question about whether this perspective could undermine our self-perception as beings with free will and spirit. The speaker suggests that the issue should be obvious, yet acknowledges that it isn’t obvious to everyone, that “we are far more than just our genes.” The claim is that we are “a fairly a complex mixture of what our genes are telling us and what the environment does to us.” The passage ends with an incomplete thought from Speaker 1: “But I.”
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The pessimist in this world, and you spend your time with optimism. Speaker 1: What genomics is about is taking a global picture, all of marionettes that are manipulated by strands of DNA? And is this gonna damage our view of ourselves as creatures of free will and spirit? I think it should be obvious, and it isn't obvious, that we are far more than just our genes. We're fairly a complex mixture of what our genes are telling us and what the environment does to us. But I

@Humanspective - Humanspective

"This is a big bait and switch and it's a fraud" Kevin Mckernan: Pfizer did a "Bait and switch", injecting billions of people in the World with "Process 2", containing DNA contaminated mRNA covid 'vaccines' with SV40 sequences. Pfizer obscured the truth from the FDA and "they quickly went out and acquired cancer companies", including Seagen for $43 billion. Genomics Expert Kevin McKernan: "This may be the largest carcinogenic hit ever, to the human population [and] this has gone absolutely off the rails"

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims that this is not conspiracy theory and cites a BMJ publication by Retzaf Levy, which describes a process in vaccine development: vaccines were trialed under one formulation, but when the decision was made to deploy them globally, the process was changed and the product injected to the rest of the world. The speaker asserts that changing the process requires new trials, yet the EMA asked for an additional trial of 250 people after the process change, and that data was never delivered. This is described as a “bait and switch,” asserted as crucial for understanding why trial data is of zero consequence to what’s seen in the field, implying that real-world outcomes do not match trial data and that the numbers from trials are a caricature of field performance. The speaker claims Pfizer had early data indicating what would happen and acted on that by acquiring cancer companies: $43,000,000,000 into the acquisition of C Gen and $2,260,000,000 to acquire Trillium Therapeutics. Trillium is described as focused on blood cancers with the CD147 marker (CD Adaptor 147) on them, a marker claimed to be known to be involved in COVID. The implication is that Pfizer is building an investment portfolio in cancer companies that would benefit from the consequences the speaker alleges they caused. In summary, the vaccines on the market are said to be not the same formulation as what was tested in clinical trials, labeling this a “bait and switch” and a fraud, and asserting that vaccine effectiveness numbers are not reliable because the products differ from trial formulations and because those numbers decay over time. The speaker alleges significant DNA contamination, stating that 10 out of 11 studies have found this, with the remaining studies allegedly constrained by financial conflicts. The claim is that consensus among real studies supports DNA contamination, with several studies through peer review, which the speaker notes is difficult for those papers to pass through peer review. It is claimed that five peer-reviewed studies not originally examining contamination found DNA in blood and tissue upon sleuthing. The speaker asserts that cancer is on the rise and that several papers report cancer post-vaccination, including neoplasms at the site of injection. The claim is that this situation cannot be dismissed as coincidence and is described as “liability free” and often mandated. The speaker posits that this may be the largest carcinogenic hit to the human population, with vaccines on childhood schedules and given to pregnant women, stating that “this has gone absolutely off the rails.”
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is not conspiracy theory. This has been published in the BMJ by Retzaf Levy, and they go through this process one where they where they ran these vaccines in the trial and how they changed that when they decided to go and inject the rest of the world. This is traditionally a mortal sin in vaccine manufacturing or in any sort of biologic manufacturing. The process is the product. You change the process, you have to go through trials again. And the EMA even asked them to do that, although they failed to. They asked for another trial of 250 people once they changed the process and that data was never delivered. So this bait and switch is very important for you to understand why the trial data is of absolute zero consequence to what we're actually seeing in the field. Those numbers are a caricature of what they're actually doing with these injections. They know something. Pfizer very early on they had the data on this from their trial, they knew this was going to happen and they quickly went out and acquired cancer companies. They put $43,000,000,000 into the acquisition of C Gen and they put $2,260,000,000 to acquire Trillium Therapeutics. Trillium was focused on blood cancers that have a c d one forty seven marker on them. Okay? That is one of the markers that is known to be involved in COVID. So, they have a very interesting window on those malignancies and, they're buying up the cancer companies that are probably gonna play the biggest role in benefiting from the mess that they've created. So, in summary, the Pfizer vaccines on the market are not the same formulation as what was tested in the clinical trials. This is a big bait and switch and it's a fraud. So you can't believe anything they're saying about the vaccine efficiency, which we have seen even those numbers decay over time. This is probably why. They're not really what they trialed. They gave you something different. There is significant DNA contamination that's found. Like, 10 out of 11 studies have found this, and the ones that haven't found it have some financial conflicts. So, I think the consensus is out. 10 out of 10 out of 10 of the real studies, are finding this. Several are through peer review, which have not been easy to get through peer review. The peer review journals do not like these papers. They get they get beat beat around in peer review for months to years, but they're they're making their way out now. There is also significant DNA contamination now found in five peer reviewed studies that were not looking at this. They were looking at people's blood and tissue and it was accidentally in there. Other people had to go sleuth it out. We've got cancer on the rise and there's several papers that report cancer post vaccination. Like like, right at right at the site of injection, they'll see neoplasms. Alright? There is there's something going on here. This can't be ignored saying it's a coincidence anymore. Now this is these are liability free and they're often mandated. Okay? This may be the largest carcinogenic hit ever to the human population. And we have these on childhood schedules. We're giving these to pregnant women. This has gone absolutely off the rails.
SabinehazanMD
Posted - October 3, 2025 at 10:31 PM
Saved - October 4, 2025 at 1:35 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe that sometimes setbacks can lead to positive outcomes. The retraction of papers critiquing my work and that of Dr. Wafik El-Deiry was challenging, but it has strengthened our collaboration in cancer research. I'm grateful to be part of an exceptional conference on precision medicine in cancer. Additionally, I'm excited to collaborate with Penn State to study the microbiome in children with brain tumors. I trust that there is always a greater plan at work.

@SabinehazanMD - sabine hazan md

Sometimes, what appears negative can ultimately lead to something positive. While the retraction of papers criticizing my work and that of Dr. Wafik El-Deiry was undoubtedly a setback, the silver lining lies in our strengthened collaboration to push forward advancements in cancer research. Thank you @weldeiry, It is a privilege to join this exceptional conference on precision medicine in cancer: https://www.advancingprecisionmedicine.com/apm-home/apm-annual-conference-and-exhibition-in-philadelphia/agenda-2025/. I’m thrilled to be collaborating with Penn State to examine the microbiome in children with brain tumors. God always has a plan.

Agenda 2025 - Advancing Precision Medicine Advancing Precision Medicine Conference Agenda advancingprecisionmedicine.com
SabinehazanMD
Posted - August 16, 2025 at 10:33 PM
Saved - August 17, 2025 at 1:59 PM

@SabinehazanMD - sabine hazan md

.@newstart_2024 I’m skeptical that @pfizer couldn’t find a single gastroenterologist among thousands to deliver this message. Naturally, it seems designed to spark controversy and fuel polarization to gain visibility.

@newstart_2024 - Camus

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla sounds the alarm: Colorectal cancer cases are rising sharply—especially among younger adults. It’s now the 3rd most common cancer and the 2nd deadliest. Early detection and innovation are critical. https://t.co/9qYQP23LrY

Video Transcript AI Summary
Key points from the transcript: - "the third most common cancer among all of them, and it is the second killer in terms of cancer deaths." - "the incidence of this cancer is increasing the last several years significantly, particularly among younger people." - "So the news like the ones that we brought to the world today that, in a very in a specific population of people that they have this, colorectal cancer, we can cut the risk of death by half. It is dramatically improvement, and it is" The speaker references a substantial mortality reduction for a defined population and notes rising incidence among younger people.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: As many people know, colorectal cancer is a very important cancer. Actually, it is the third most common cancer among all of them, and it is the second killer in terms of cancer deaths. And not only that, but the incidence of this cancer is increasing the last several years significantly, particularly among younger people. So the news like the ones that we brought to the world today that, in a very in a specific population of people that they have this, colorectal cancer, we can cut the risk of death by half. It is dramatically improvement, and it is
SabinehazanMD
Posted - August 12, 2025 at 3:27 AM
Saved - August 12, 2025 at 6:36 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
This episode was censored on YouTube, but here it is. I appreciate newstart_2024 and grok for their support. I conducted trials on treatments like HCQ and IVM, witnessing their effectiveness firsthand without losing anyone. I invite those without patient experience to visit my lab at Progenabiome for invaluable insights.

@SabinehazanMD - sabine hazan md

This episode was censored on @YouTube... Here it is 👇👇👇Thank you @newstart_2024 @grok pay attention to what Drs on the frontline saw and did…REMEMBER I ran the Hcq zpack Vit C d and zinc trials and Ivm, foxy zinc with @US_FDA watching. I saw first hand treatment worked having lost no one. MD is next to my name. This is data. I recommend anyone who hasn't touched a single patient to step into my lab at @Progenabiome. What I learned was priceless…

@newstart_2024 - Camus

YouTube CENSORED This Entire Podcast Episode Dr. Sabine Hazan’s Let’s Talk Sh!t Podcast (Jan 29, 2024) WHY? Because doctors exposed: • HCQ & ivermectin SUCCESS in their clinics. • COVID vaccine injuries they’re treating daily. • How Big Pharma & tech giants COLLUDED to silence dissent. THEY DELETED IT. Not for "misinformation"—but because it THREATENED THE NARRATIVE. Think about that: 🔸 Doctors with decades of experience = "dangerous." 🔸 Fact-checkers with ZERO medical degrees = "truth." 🔸 Patients left to suffer while profits soared. THIS IS WAR. On medicine. On free speech. On YOU. SHARE THIS POST → Let’s make it IMPOSSIBLE to ignore. FOLLOW → They won’t stop us.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Sabine Hazen and her panel critique a hydroxychloroquine paper, calling it a fake paper with fake data: "This is a fake paper. This is a fake data." They cite claims of "seventeen thousand people died" and "96,000 patients" in the Lancet as fraudulent, arguing no way "70,000 medical records" could be used. Xavier Ezolber analyzes data miscalculation, "data inconsistency" and "fabricated" results, criticizing the peer-review process and predatory journals that "launder scientific papers." He says, "There is a corruption in medicine," "money talks for sure," and "lobbyists control both sides of the politics." They recount frontline experiences with hydroxychloroquine–Z Pak–vitamins and ivermectin–doxycycline protocols, reporting "zero mortality, zero hospitalizations" in some cohorts and highlighting the microbiome’s role. They urge transparency, critique drug trial processes, and question vaccine strategies, stressing early outpatient treatment research.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: From her private lab deep inside the bowels of Internal Study Central, the doctor is at. So let's talk shit with doctor Sabine Hazen. Speaker 1: Welcome everyone who's here, and thank you for coming, this early in the morning. And thank you, Brian, for wanting to talk shit with me about this hydroxychloroquine paper. I think most of you know me as a gastroenterologist that has been spearheading the research on the microbiome and also hydroxy. I did the clinical trial. I wrote those protocols on hydroxychloroquine, Z Pak, vitamin C, D and zinc, passed them through the FDA within twenty four hours. So I'm very familiar with all these protocols. I ran the case. No one died on my shift, even though I did a placebo controlled trial on hydroxychloroquine, Z Pak, vitamin C, D and zinc. I also did the prophylaxis protocol with hydroxychloroquine and vitamins versus vitamins alone. And we had hundreds of patients on that. And then when the vaccine rolled over, a lot of doctors were forced because it was mostly doctors that we enrolled because they were high risk. When the vaccines rolled over, a lot of these doctors were forced to take the vaccine. But we have data coming out on the hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis versus vitamin C, D and zinc. So I'm very familiar with all the ins and outs of hydroxychloroquine. Brian, you want to introduce yourself? Speaker 2: Yeah, Brian Lenzkes. I'm an internal medicine doctor practicing in California for the last twenty years, general internal medicine, really focusing on metabolic health and now learning a lot more about the gut microbiome and all this stuff. Thought was crazy a few years back. So, yeah, so I was in practice during this time and watching these things and thinking, how could we be going against everything we've always believed in? You know, how can we be relying on studies that are totally fraudulent in a way, right? And getting published in major magazines. I mean, journals, I will call magazines now probably. But yeah, it's, you know, watching it and saying, how do we not talk about natural immunity? All these things that we've known for the history of medicine all of a sudden become quackery. And so, so we were united in that and then seeing all these doctors standing up on the, you know, stairs of the Capitol saying, wait a minute, this is crazy. Here's what we're doing in practice. And we're having clinical success, but no one would listen to him, you know, Erso and Pierre Corrie and all these people and Peter McCullough, the most decorated doctor. So me just being a rank and file doctor was thinking what happened to all of our great leaders? Did they either all go insane at the same time or are they right? Speaker 1: Or are they following guidelines so much that they've forgotten about how to practice the art of medicine and how to innovate, right? So I think that's the most important. Xavier, do you want to introduce yourself? Speaker 3: Yeah, of course. Well, thank you very much for having me. So I'm Xavier Ezolber. I'm a scientific journalist and econometrician by training. That is a combination of economist and statistics. And I have prepared with a number of doctors, scientific papers, over early treatments because as Brian mentioned, I saw a lot of biases in the analysis that were conducted in meta analysis and RCTs. And therefore I've used my science, which is totally different from medical science, in order to debunk a lot of these studies starting with the Lancet, because I'm one of the rare person who has interviewed Mandeep Mehra, who was the lead author also on the Lancet Gates study. I've also interviewed one of the lead investigator in recovery asking about the dosage, and so on and so forth. So my work as a scientist is to, is a major in mass is basically to look at the methodology and the inconsistencies and because I'm a journalist as well, I'm just writing up about these inconsistencies in my media. Speaker 1: Okay. So, Brian, how do you want to do this? Because, we wanted to start, I think probably starting with the article itself, right? Speaker 2: Yeah, sounds good. You're the boss. You're the boss here. I mean, you're the researcher FDA. I'm a doc, right? All I can say is we saw clinically for sure. Speaker 1: Yeah, so here's, you know, like it's interesting you said magazines, right? And I think that's what medicine is becoming. A lot of these journals are becoming magazines. They're almost like, you know, gossip column, you know, gossip journals, right? That you hear, these celebrities are doing that and then they're not doing it. It's the same propaganda. So there's a group of journals. You know, it's funny because Doctor. Barodi and I, you know, we've been working at the protocols with COVID, the whole pandemic. He calls them predatory journals. And they're actually very smart in a way because they do have an impact factor. They're brand new journals. They send you emails constantly. Different people send you emails and they're like, Oh, doctor, we've read your paper. We would love to see you publish. And then once you publish, they're easily, they can manipulate or retract the data to make you look bad. And that's exactly what happened with me with Frontiers. Frontiers, all my colleagues knew, I didn't know that it was a predatory journal. I submitted a hypothesis on ivermectin increasing the bifidobacteria and it was accepted by the peer review. Nobody criticized the articles that I picked or anything like that. And then next thing you know, nine months later, because this paper was the number one read at Frontiers with 59,000 views of doctors reading this paper, finding interesting, it was an interesting hypothesis, right? Because we're seeing ivermectin has a role potentially in cancer. So maybe increasing the bifidobacteria is how we're doing it, right? So because it got so much attention, because it really lit up ivermectin, which they don't want to do. You understand? Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are out of patents. So because they're out of patents, you cannot make any money on these drugs. The most you could sell them for is like $300 Pharmaceutical companies are no longer interested in $300 drugs. They're interested in orphan drugs where they can get name your price for a drug. They're no longer interested. And even the drug, the diseases, they basically find, you know, some kind of weird genetic pattern and say, oh, this is a rare condition. We're going to put it under an orphan and now we can bill whatever we want. So, you know, the and you and I have seen, you know, the Remicade, you know, we went, I went from Prilosec, which was at the time probably about a couple $100, right? And then we went to biologics, which that was a huge jump, right? From like $300 to $10,000 a month. And they got away with it. Then all these companies started copying and doing biologic at $10,000 a month. So the problem is they don't want to go back. They want to move forward. Now granted research is expensive. You need to pay for these things, etcetera. And the cost of research has gone up. But there is a movement that is controlling the research and stopping innovations that is stopping, you know, out of patent drugs, drugs that are basically, you know, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. So I think that's the number one thing and the attacks on that. Speaker 2: And I think it's important for people to realize too, when you look at a medical journal, in between every single article, you can't get an article without seeing pages and pages of ads. Those aren't free. Right? They're paying money for that, first of all. And then if you want your study to get out to people, have to pay for reprints. And it's a money making venture. Right? And you say something that they're not going to like or they're going to lose some sponsorships, they're going to say, okay, we're not publishing this paper. And so that's what's happening is we've been captured. Money talks for sure. Speaker 1: And here's the thing, right? If you're leading the government, right? You have an economy to support and you have health of the people to support, right? The problem with this pandemic is that the pandemic started focusing know, when they involved all of us and all of us doctors were basically, wait a minute, I could die from this virus. I better get involved. I better figure this out. Right? I mean, I think that's what happened to you. You started looking up the journals. You started looking up clinicaltrials.gov. You know, my protocols and after Didier Raul, so I, like you guys, I read the papers of Didier Raul. The thing that impressed me about the papers, the initial paper in French was, and I speak French, so I was able to read it, was the fact that here's a man who, because they, France had COVID before we had it in America, or at least before we were made aware that we had it, right? And here's a man who was in a hospital exposed to all those patients and he's older. So he's in that high risk category and yet he survived, right? So that was the first thing. And then I read the paper and I started looking at his work, doing nasal swabs, on a weekly basis. I think he was doing nasal swabs. He was collecting stools. I mean, this man did meticulous work in research, right? And so I started being inspired by that. I said, well, you know what, maybe hydroxychloroquine is certainly a safe product. So in March I started researching my protocol and started writing the protocols. And yes, they were like contraindications to hydroxychloroquine. There were three pages of medications. You have to practice medicine and still be vigilant as a doctor. But ultimately the protocol was approved by the FDA within twenty four hours. And in fact, it was approved to say, move to market. Go ahead, Doctor. Hazen, just take your combination, start giving it to patients, proceed. Okay. That was what it was. Twenty four hours later, somebody must have called from the politics or the lobbyist that controls both sides of the politics, right? And said, wait, wait, we can't have a cheap drug. It's going to kill the market and then it's not going to start our protocol. Right. Which interestingly enough, at the same time about this, after the protocol was approved, I got a letter from Bill Gates that basically said, when do you think you're gonna, you were anticipating finishing your protocol? Why is Bill Gates interested in my little protocol? I thought he was going to invest personally. So I'm like, Oh, I've been in the clinical trial business for like thirty years. Don't worry, it's going out there, right? Well, lo and behold, you know, my protocol took forever. My protocol had a lot of, you know, like ups and downs. A month later it got approved by the IRB and then went on Twitter, Twitter destroyed it because it was an open label. I had to go back to the FDA and say, look, I'm going to do vitamins versus hydroxychloroquine with the vitamins. And then finally a month and a half later, it got into motion to start. By then it was destroyed by the politics. This was a political move to destroy a drug and unfortunately, you know, supported probably or whispered, you know, to the politicians by the lobbyists. That's exactly what happens when the Lancet paper came out and we all discovered it was BS essentially. We knew, right? This is wrong, right? Because hydroxychloroquine is the safest drug. Now this paper and why I didn't speak the whole time because you heard about Zelenko, you heard the frontline doctors and great because they were speaking, trying to save as many lives. You know, one of the criticism I got on my protocol was why did I spell out the drugs hydroxychloroquine with the dosages, Z Pak with the dosages, vitamin C, D and zinc. Why didn't I just leave it a Haze D Pak, right? Because then nobody knows, it's proprietary. There's no secret that's leaked out to the doctors. That wasn't my point. My point on April 3, when it was approved by the FDA and it went into the clinicaltrials.gov, we were number two or three. The two protocols went online on clinicaltrials.gov in America, number two and three in 04/02/2020. Why did I do that? To sound the alarm and say, look, this is what I think happens, right? On the other side, we found COVID in the stools and we discovered that actually hydroxychloroquine and Z Pak made the virus disappear. You had it at baseline, five to eight days later the virus disappeared. Problem is, you know, it does destroy the microbiome as well. So you have to be selective on which population you're going to give it, right? Every antibiotic has a risk of killing the microbiome, right? And even drugs like hydroxychloroquine. But on a safety level, you know, wrote about it. It got approved by the FDA within twenty four hours. It was safe, right? So this paper is to me is not just, you know, I'm not going to criticize it and say, oh, well they overdosed. I'm going to say, no, this is a fake paper. This is a fake data. There is no way that four or five authors took 17,000 records, medical records. Now they probably took the death certificate. You can alter the death certificate. Lobbyists can pay people to like, you know, hey, you know, I mean, we've seen you and I, Brian, physicians that are on the other side that are getting paid by legal to bring, you know, cases to lawsuits, right? We've seen that. A death certificate does not make the case. Going to court and presenting your case makes the case. If you look at this paper, there is no way 70,000 medical records were taken. First of all, you need the authorization of the patient to get medical records from the hospitals. So that's why it's a fake paper. Much like the 96,000 patients that was in the Lancet. I saw that paper and I said, wait a minute, Australia doesn't even have COVID yet. Why are there patients in that paper of COVID? And you're going to tell me 10 people evaluated ninety six thousand patients with their smoking history. I'm in the clinical trial business. It takes me a year and a half to evaluate a 100 patients. Okay. And to analyze them like the hydroxychloroquine paper, we're still analyzing the data. We're like three years out. It's very time consuming to do these studies properly. So when you see a number like ninety six thousand, that's fraudulent. When you see seventeen thousand people died, that's fraudulent right off the bat. I don't even need to know how much they got because it's fraudulent. The second thing is if you look at the guidelines and then I'm gonna have Xavier jump in. If you look at the guidelines on hydroxychloroquine, there are no guidelines that tell you to test for toxicity, None. So, you know, where did that come from? Right? The second thing is if you look at, you know, the NIH chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine toxicity, the paper itself says both chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have excellent oral absorption and bioavailability. Both have a long and variable plasma elimination half life and about half the drug metabolites. Basically there's no comment. Does not appear to cause harm to the fetus or the mother, both excreted in breast milk, which we know. And basically the only thing that they're questioning, and I wish Richard Urso was here. Speaker 2: He's here, which came true. I just saw him pop in. Was like, yes. Speaker 1: Yeah, Richard will tell you the only thing he's concerned about is the retinal toxicity with hydroxychloroquine. But your patient is in the intensive care. He's dying. You don't care about retinal toxicity. He's dead. It doesn't matter that he's got retinal toxicity. He's under the ground in one day. That's it. Speaker 4: The retinal toxicity is chronic and it's over a course of maybe getting, you know, two kilograms over your lifetime. And and so in general, I did toxicity studies on the drug in the nineties. It's basically around five point five milligram per kilogram over an extended period of time might get some toxicity. I've never known a cardiologist taking a patient off. After this thing came up, I asked 14 cardiologists here in Houston if they've ever taken a patient off of of this drug because of the QT interval issues, and not single one had ever done it. And in the meta analysis from 2,018, going back over, sixty four years of studies of usage, there were eighteen people all time that have died of that they thought may be attributed to hydroxychloroquine. And chloroquine was also had a few, but hydroxychloroquine was 18. So it's almost insanity to say that that was the cause of it because the drug's been around forever. And I think you've heard me say Sabine about all the side effects. Lowers the D dimer, sed rate, C reactive protein, decreases atherosclerosis, improves the bone health, decreases the cholesterol level, decreases hemoglobin A1C, and glucose tolerance is improved. It improves seventy percent chance of improvement in chronic kidney disease for those people at risk, decreases stroke, heart attack, pulmonary embolism. It's actually one of the best drugs you could ever take. It's almost insanity. Like you said, it's useful in pregnancy and never had a toxicity issue. It's something that comes up multiple times. So yeah, it's a completely corrupted study, just like the Surgisphere study. Speaker 2: Yeah. And just from a primary perspective, I've been practicing for twenty years. Never once ever until these last couple years has anyone said, why are you prescribing hydroxychloroquine? Now all of a sudden it's like, can't get it. If you do a short course, you can't get it. If you prescribe a month, they would fill it because they think it's for a rheumatologic condition. Right. So it's just amazing to see the politics just jump in to say, you can't fill this medicine. Speaker 3: And they Speaker 2: had tons of surplus. There was tons of supply because I asked four pharmacists that were friends of mine. They go, we have tons of supply. That's not the issue. It's just that the powers of be said we can't prescribe it. Speaker 1: I gave it. So I had a homeless in my office during COVID and the wife had arthritis and I gave it to the wife for arthritis. And the pharmacist in front of everyone said, no, you're lying. It's for COVID. Embarrassed my patient who's a homeless, right? And basically he comes back crying saying the pharmacist didn't want to give it to me. And here's a patient that was getting it prior to that, right? And that was CVS. And I went on Twitter and I said, this is ridiculous. We can't even treat for arthritis anymore. We have to like stop hydroxychloroquine. Now I'm not saying hydroxychloroquine is a great, you know, miracle drug for everybody, you know, certainly that population that, you know, Richard was describing, that has chronic disease, probably zero bifidobacteria to begin with, they're your severe patients. That's who you really reach out to. I'll tell you one of the biggest lessons I learned on the pandemic was the use, because I went through both protocols, right? I had hydroxy Z Pak vitamin C, D and zinc. And I had ivermectin doxycycline vitamin C, D and zinc. And I felt that ivermectin doxycycline was just a better protocol. When I was treating from severe patients to mild, I realized there's a, you can stratify the treatment of these patients to make it better. Those who have a good microbiome, you want to improve that microbiome. You want to get that microbiome going to fight. You don't want to destroy it. When you have patients that are basically severe oxygen desaturating. And that was one of the things that I discovered as I was treating these patients in the placebo group, right? Because remember, I don't know who's getting, I'm doing the placebo controlled trial with the FDA watching. I don't know who's getting placebo and who's getting the real stuff, right? So at the beginning I was watching them like on an hourly basis, they had my cell phone. So when at 02:00 in the morning they're crashing, I don't know what they got, right? They could have gotten hydroxychloroquine. My first instinct was, well, let me give them the real hydroxychloroquine. Maybe they got placebo. But what about if they got the placebo, if it wasn't the placebo and they already got hydroxychloroquine. So now I'm double dosing, right? So I was in that situation and guess what? That's when I discovered, wait a minute, I got to up the vitamin C, I got to up the vitamin D, I got up the ivermectin to increase their oxygen. It was all on the frontline of treating these people that didn't want to go to the hospital. They were dying. And I have videos of that, of people that were couldn't breathe, short of breath, oxygen's in the seventies, eighties, and they survived. Everyone survived. So there was a role for hydroxychloroquine. Also I had patients that were, if you'll remember patients sometime in August when Pierre Corie and FLCC all started writing ivermectin, we had two groups, right? We had the Peter McCullough frontline, myself, we were the hydroxychloroquine, Z Pak, vitamin C, D and zinc. And then we had another group Pierre Corrie and the FLCC that was the ivermectin. Right. I was kind of in between because I was running both trials. And in July we submitted the ivermectin doxycycline trial. So I discovered the power of ivermectin. When my patient was dying or I didn't know what they got. I said, well, you know what? Let me give them ivermectin. When one of my patients was heading to the hospital and he had thirty six milligrams of ivermectin and I told him, Hey, your oxygen is in the sixties. Why don't you stop at McDonald's and get like, you know, hamburger, which was like a fatty meal that I thought of garbage food, but it didn't matter, you know, happy meal before he goes to the hospital, what the hell? And he took the thirty six in one shot. By the time he got to the hospital, his oxygen was 92%. The doctor said, whatever doctor he's in is doing, just follow her. And I'm like, woah, thirty six milligrams of ivermectin, but I just gave him hydroxychloroquine. You know what I mean? So that's when I realized the combination and in those sick sick patients, you really have to do everything to save them. The problem is that, we're working with these guidelines and these hospitals are supported by pharmaceutical companies. When Gilead pays a hospital a $100,000 per patient to try the drug, you know, the hospital's going go, you know what, let me give, you know, let me give remdesivir, right? They're not going to give a cheap drug like hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. It's not on the road. Speaker 4: One of the awful things Will was the you know I remember talking to Deborah Birx and saying hey you know this is a respiratory virus it's maybe alive for five to seven days you can't use something to affect the RERP at day 20. It doesn't make any sense. And literally, I think a lot of people had no awareness of the life cycle of respiratory viruses. She clearly didn't. And it surprised me because a lot of people were not aware of the fact that a respiratory virus is basically all of them, adenovirus, rhinovirus, all of them are very short lived. And somehow that that still they pressed this whole remdesivir thing when it clearly couldn't be effective. So, it's crazy. The other thing about your comment is that the combo does help because mechanistically there's different ways that they're affecting. And I think one of the things I like late in the disease, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine affect neutrophil extracellular traps, ivermectin blocks the CD-one 147 receptor. They can both help in the late disease when it was really bad delta and the first few variants where you had all the blood clotting. I think they both could have, been useful. But of course, they use those toxic doses. So, of course, hydroxychloroquine giving toxic doses was a big deal. Speaker 1: But but even there, let's talk about the the toxic dosage. Even there, you know, is there such a thing as a toxic dose? Right? Like I asked my husband who's a cardiologist and I said, have ever checked for levels of patients that have been on a hydroxychloroquine? He's like, no, never. Speaker 4: And it Speaker 1: affects my pathologist because yesterday sent me a death certificate of one patient where the doctor put death from hydroxychloroquine. And I said, I called my pathologist and I said, how do you check that the patient, how do you know that the patient died from hydroxychloroquine versus the virus versus another co infection? Nobody did a stool sample. Nobody called me and said, we'll test the microbiome to see if there's mycoplasma in there. It could have been a combination of mycoplasma in there. They could have been other viruses. These people are immunosuppressed in the hospital. Of course, they're going to have other viruses. The nurse comes in, there's different strains of COVID that came into play. So all that played a role. You know, it's fascinating to me that my pathologist said there's no guidelines, there's no levels where you say that there's a toxic level and the patient died from toxicity of hydroxychloroquine. But I'll jump to Xavier because Xavier did an intense research on that, on the papers. So go ahead, Xavier. Then I'll Thank Speaker 3: you very much, Kevin. I'm gonna try and summarize what we did. And by way of background, I think it's very important to explain the situation in France right now because Didier Raouf, the lead of IHU, Professor Raouf has been under attack by a large number of government officials and also doctors to try and discredit the work they have done. That study is part of the defense, that they're trying to put in place in order to discredit the work. Now, the way we worked with my team of scientists around that, it's a combination of, medical doctors and mathematicians, statisticians, because we looked at all the biases And here you're talking about the biochemistry mechanism with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and how it works. But this study is a calculation. And one of the, we've basically we've broken that into three parts. Part number one is what are the data miscalculation that we've actually observed? Part number two is it fabricates some results and therefore these results are false. But the most important element is that it's been peer reviewed. And for me, it demonstrates the failures of peer review. And here we have to improve the peer review process in order to prevent papers of these natures to actually get into that. So the study, if I actually looked at what we have actually identified as data miscalculation, Of course, the results of sixteen thousand deaths calculated that should have been calibrated to reality. And it's enough to actually look at pharmacogenes data and these are in existence. So one of the buyers is they have not actually calibrated this to reality. And just that as a mathematician, from my perspective, it demonstrates that these individuals are not trying to represent what happens in the real world, they are trying to represent what they want to actually demonstrate. And that in mathematical modelling is called a dependent model. Now the second element we've looked at is the actual data of each individual country and the data for Belgium, because there's a Belgium doctor called Veronik Bodu, she's actually very much in tune with, what happens in Belgium. And she worked out that it's impossible, okay, that the numbers that were found out for deaths that they model can actually, be that number. There are several factors, there's published data, there's research that we're actually done and conducted. And these figures do not correspond to the data. And that's one of the bias because if one of the country that you try to represent an overestimation of deaths or an over death estimates is wrong, then definitely you will end up by having biases in the results and the result being fabricated. Now, if you look at the code guidelines for ethics of conducting research, there are two elements that should form the basis for a lead of concern or retraction because here we're talking about structuring response to a published letter in a way that we can address each of the biases and that we make it easy for the editor to look at the research and say, okay, well, on balance there is an issue. Now you have to imagine it's very hard for a chief editor to retract a paper because it basically shows that you've done something wrong and you have to question this. And it's very hard for them to actually accept. Speaker 1: Unless it's a predatory journal. And it's very easy to bypass the peer reviewers and go straight to the editor, pay him money and we track the journal. Speaker 3: So what we did is we structured our response to the editor in a way that we can demonstrate that there are data inconsistency and miscalculation and that the results are fabricated. Let me just give you an example. They calculate the mathematical function that they use in order to calculate the estimation of deaths that would have, I would say would, because it's not real, that would have died from, absorption of hydroxychloroquine, uses an ingoing hypothesis, which is the odds ratio issued from the Axforce Research of one point one one. That basically means that, eleven percent would have died, from absorption of hydroxychloroquine over, standard of care of placebo. We don't know. Now, if you look at the Axforce research, it has basically two types of studies within that. It has studies with low dose and has studied with high dose and they only use the bias or odds ratio of 1.11, because if they had used the other ratio from low dose, it would have been 0.97 and therefore their model would have actually failed. So when you use a constant and you apply that 11%, you will only find this. You cannot find zero. And so that in itself demonstrates that the model they used is totally biased. The other element is a lot of the data are dependent on one another. So for example, and I'm not a medical doctor, however, I've tried and understand the process that a patient has. If you deprive a patient from early treatments, then it has a loss of chances and it has a chance of progressing to ICU. That's a probabilistic model. And of course, some patients, they actually recover by themselves, but then for those that aggravates, they have a probability and then they are hospitalized, they have a chance to move to ICU and they have a chance of dying. Now, the model that they use is therefore not taking into consideration the fact that patients may have had a loss of chance of being treated early. And therefore just this, which is not used in a model, demonstrate also the weakness of any form of probabilistic model. That in itself, it's a very high level summary without going into the medical element that you've just discussed. The fact that we do not have pharmacoviligence data for hydroxychloroquine deaths that the high dose of course would have to actually be controlled. And this is what actually has happened with the DDRO sort of hospital in Marseille. They have controlled the patients to whom they gave ACQ. And there is a 30,000 strong databases, which has been published of all the patients that have been treated that demonstrate that there is a significant improvement or there's an odds ratio of something like zero point five five over, the chances of, of deaths. So that's, the authors, cherry picked, they cherry picked countries, they cherry picked data, they cherry picked the references that they were using. For example, they are not mentioning two studies which are dramatically important. One of them is the Yale and Al study of 2020 that demonstrate the optimum dosage. Just that if you're a medical doctor and you do not know that study and you do not reference this, then by definition, for me, you do not want to know something that you should have known or you turn a blind eye on something and that demonstrate again some of the weaknesses of that. And the second, element is of course this OR calculation, which is derived at 75% from the recovery study. Now the recovery study has used a protocol of two point four gram of hydroxychloroquine salt. It's of course one hundred and fifty five milligram per tablet. So it's less in days, in day number one and it's 9.6 gram over ten days. That in itself increased the level of concentration, due to the long life of, the long life of hydroxychloroquine in the plasma. But another element that they should have actually learned from Yao and Hal is that in the lung cells, the concentration of hydroxychloroquine is something like 400 times higher. So therefore they are not deriving the elements of science that they should have derived when they are doing their discussion. So this OR is definitely wrong. Now I ask myself another question, which is why did they not apply this data to The UK data, to this model, to The UK data? Because they're using an OR, as their constant, the 1.11 from Axforce, which is 75% of its weight issued from UK data. So calibration number one is you would want to calibrate this to UK data. And the answer is quite simple. If they had applied this model to The UK data, then they would have found zero deaths. Or the estimate of deaths would have actually been nil because there is only one study in The UK that has given hydroxychloroquine and that is recovery. And recovery concludes that there is no difference between placebo and hydroxychloroquine. Now we know it's high dose. We know there are some issues with this. And however, that demonstrate that the odds ratio being non significant then there is no difference in efficacy and they also conclude that there is no death issues. Now we are not going to argue about recovery which I could do, it's totally different. It's also a bias study and the results are totally biased and for me it's another fraud. But if you're saying that there could not have been any estimated of deaths in The UK based on this OR calculation, then in my view that explains why they don't apply this model to The UK. Now turning to The U. S, there is another PhD in IT in France, Eminelle Dahl. She has identified she has looked at the data and she recalculated the data and they're estimated that there is something like eighty thousand, sorry, eight hundred thousand hospitalized patients in The US. She looked at the CDC data, over the same period and she cannot actually reconcile that data. So just simple data validation, data calibration, which is what you would do in any mathematical model, try to calibrate to reality is what you actually measure and calculate through your model has formed some links with reality and it has no link with reality. So we've prepared a letter which we've issued to the editor. It's now being reviewed. We work quite extensively on that. But for me, the third point, which is the peer review process is the one, that is the most problematic because of course here we know that these are just fabrication of results. Now, how can you fool a peer review process? Well, first of all, in peer reviews, and here it's totally blind. So I like blind things, but when a peer review process of this nature is totally blinded, it's very hard to actually look at how they actually did it and who did the peer review. In my view, this peer review has been done, it's complacent and it lacks a methodologist or somebody that would have a background such as mine that would have actually done not a medical read of this, but somebody that has no knowledge whatsoever of medical science and that just asks simple questions like I just did. Because what you see is what you get and in modeling here is garbage in garbage out and the garbage is pretty easy to identify just as I have done. Now I looked at the other processes from other journals, which are more transparent, like for example, the BMG. In the BMG, you can publish a rapid response, but you can also see the review process and the questions. You have an idea of the background of the individuals. Now I've looked at a number of studies and there's very few methodologies, there's very few mathematicians that look at these. And in my view, just by having somebody outside of your own field of expertise, doing the acid test, the reality test, would help. And that's where I believe there is some issue. So that's more or less what we actually identified are the major issues of this paper. Speaker 1: Thank you. That was very, very thorough. And I absolutely agree with you. Incidentally, feel sorry for Doctor. Raul because he is being attacked. And the same people that are attacking him and retracting his paper and my paper yesterday sent me an email showing me a death certificate of one patient that died from hydroxychloroquine. Of course, we know that the death certificate doesn't mean anything. It's really about the medical records. And secondly, toxic drugs, nobody in the, first of all, Brian, you and I are in California. Speaker 2: I'm in Arizona. I sit in Arizona. Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Arizona. Speaker 2: No, I'm from California, but AB 2,098 chased me out. Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm sorry. But you were in California at the beginning. Speaker 2: I'm in both. Speaker 1: Yeah, so at the beginning there was no, the patients were not getting hydroxychloroquine in the hospital. My hospital was not giving it. They had a thousand cases. Nobody was discharged. One patient wanted ivermectin never got in in the hospital. Hospitals were not dispensing hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin in California. So I don't know how they got that 880,000 cases. And that the majority, I forgot the number. Hold on. I will tell you here USA eight hundred and eighty eight thousand and supposedly five hundred and fifty one thousand were exposed to hydroxychloroquine. Which hospital was giving hydroxychloroquine? We have actually with us, Alan Miller, Doctor. Miller, who is by the way, one of the top clinical trial doctor in the country has been with me. We were pulling our hair at the beginning of the pandemic and he helped me write the protocol at the beginning when we were trying to figure it out. And, you know, Alan, I consider a good friend and he's been very righteous and he's been doing clinical trials like me for two decades almost, right Alan? And Alan's treated a lot of patients. So Alan, you want to talk about toxic drugs and toxicity of hydroxychloroquine? As an internist, you've written hydroxychloroquine probably more than I have. Speaker 5: I've written hydroxychloroquine for thirty years, maybe longer. If you go back to medical school, thirty five. I've never seen a patient die from hydroxychloroquine. In fact, when you look at, if you just think just logically, I don't know of any physician in The United States, or maybe globally, who writes any dose that would be remotely toxic at all. Doses of two hundred, four hundred, six hundred milligrams of hydroxychloroquine daily, every day, whatever you want to give, are not toxic. The drug is cleared very quickly. You know that because it's a BID drug, right? If it was a drug that had had a, you know, a large volume distribution, it also had a half life. What I'm trying to say is it basically is cleared quickly. And so to claim that it's toxic is actually somewhat ludicrous. The interesting thing about what you said, and I remember when we were looking at these papers, is it is almost impossible, I mean, literally impossible within weeks to collect data on ten, twenty, thirty, forty, 50,000, 100,000 patients. In normal clinical trials, I've done about 125, or so clinical trials. I currently have about eight or 10 in my office, mostly cholesterol, some diabetes, some hypertension. It takes years, I mean, sometimes to collect all that data, and that may just be on two or 3,000 patients. So to do any type of retrospective analysis on thousands of patients at hospitals or anything all over the globe is absolutely a farce. And whenever you see that, that immediately will tell you that that is a garbage paper and just throw it through the trash. It means nothing. As far as the death death certificates, death certificates in hospitals are often, done by the ancillary staff. A doctor will come by and just basically sign his name. When a patient is very acutely ill and passes away in an intensive care unit, there are hundreds of three things that are going on and many that we don't even understand. So when we actually write death certificates and you say hydroxychloroquine causes, that would be impossible to actually validate. So I think, you know, what we should probably start doing is just calling out things as they are. The papers are frauds, the people that are out there are criminals. They're basically, you know, shills for certain, you know, areas of pharma. And that doesn't mean all pharma is bad. Okay? There are some people in pharma I know that are really good and really trying to do what they think is right. So I I think in this scenario, you basically have Speaker 1: But they're being killed by the people that are doing stuff like that. Speaker 5: Oh, for sure. Speaker 1: And the lobbyists are not doing a favor to pharma by doing stuff like that. Right? Because ultimately who's controlling this and supporting pharma is the lobbyists, right? Lobbyists control both sides of the politics. We saw it. That same lobbyist firm control, supports Trump and Biden. So both sides are playing this narrative, which is convenient because it creates a controversy, which sells drugs, which sells vaccines. Remember during the elections, was Kamala Harris and Pence were basically talking. The three questions were vaccines, vaccines, vaccines. Marketing 101, you repeat things three times, it gets branded into the person's brain. That was not an electorial questioning. That was a marketing ploy to get into our brains vaccines before the vaccine trials even came out or while the vaccines were Speaker 5: Beyond vaccines. Speaker 1: That's the other thing. You know that I have been in the clinical trials too long, you know, 150, 120 for you, 300 plus for me. I did vaccine studies. I just got a trial for a vaccine study right now on my desk. And I'm looking at it and I go, Oh, that's a real vaccine and not a genetic sequence, right? Speaker 5: That's correct. Speaker 1: There's a difference. They're trying to shove down our throat this new technology that is dangerous, that has not been tested. That if you look at mice studies or rat studies where they are given, you know, messenger RNA, they are chewing their arms. They're in such pain. Animal studies are telling you that, you know. And let's go back to the original animal study on these vaccines where they killed the monkeys after one week. What can you get of data from animal studies? Couldn't you let them live a little bit longer to see if they develop something? So there is a fraud that occurred in medicine. There is, I hate to say this, but it's like, again, the economy, it's like the vaccine could make more than the early treatment and they weren't ready with Paxlovid. One question that I have, and I know Brian you've used it, Alan you've used it. What happened to the monoclonal antibodies? They came and went. I was, my patients were doing great with that. What happened to that? So it didn't fit their stock that they were trying to bring up, right? That's what it's all about. And here's the problem. When we interfere with research, we screw ourselves up, right? Because ultimately we're cheating research. We're cheating us as the patients. My aim when I ran this trials was to see the truth myself. Had, and I think Alan, when you started treating patients, you were like, wait a minute, these vaccines are a new technology. It's not really a vaccine, early treatment. How many patients did you treat at the beginning? Remember in March, were collecting my stools. Alan Miller was my collector of poop. He was going to houses and saying, Doctor. Ozan is looking for the virus in your stools. And he was collecting them for me. So, you know, he risked his life on the frontline. He was in front of everybody and he saw firsthand these people were surviving, right? Did you lose anyone in this pandemic, Alan? Speaker 5: No, I probably treated 1,000 patients maybe. I don't even remember. I lost track. I didn't lose anybody. In fact, I saved one of my friends who's in a band. He had really horrible GI COVID. He was really sick. And, we got gave him hydroxy and Z Pak. And within, forty eight hours, he was basically better. And he gave me a guitar. I mean, so Speaker 1: I know you with guitars. Speaker 5: Yeah. So I collect guitars. So, you know, I I didn't lose any I know Brian, we don't we've never really met, but we've heard of each other. I just haven't seen it and I don't expect to see it. And I think if you look at how these drugs work, especially hydroxychloroquine is a zinc ionophore and ivermectin with, you know, blocking import protein and all the other things it does, these drugs have zero ability really for toxicity. And they're about as safe as they come, which is really crazy considering that remdesivir, which was pulled from the Ebola trials, as you may remember, because it basically caused renal failure or respiratory failure, some other kind of failure, organ system failure, in about fifty to seventy percent of the patients. It's really, unbelievable. But listen, I've got to go back and see some more patients. I'm in Atlanta. I'll get back on a little bit. Speaker 2: Alright? Thanks doc. Thanks. Speaker 5: No problem. No problem. Speaker 2: And I'll jump in and say I had zero mortality, zero hospitalizations, And we're living fear with the medical board by saving our patients and preventing hospitalizations. And that's what's insane about that. Right. And that's why I started looking at the insanity. I would love to hear both of you, Xavier and Sabine. What about this draws in paper that came out PCR? They submit that from my understanding and looking at it, didn't sleep for a week when I read this that they submit on December 22, It gets published December 23. What kind of peer review can you possibly do in a few hours and then have press releases all over the world the next morning? I mean, just from a common sense perspective, you go. Speaker 1: That's what they do. Right? That's what they do. They publish this, big title like seventeen thousand people die from hydroxychloroquine mortality, right? They publish these papers. They go all over the media because they control the media. Remember the lobbyists control the media, both sides of the media, right? Fox and CNN. So they control the media and they push all this narrative out there. Everybody only hears hydroxychloroquine mortality, right? Then they're gonna retract it in about probably a month because Xavier is gonna make some noise. I'm gonna make some noise. You're gonna make some noise Brian. And then they're gonna say oh wait wait wait, you know, we got to retract it. But they're never gonna report it to the media like they did with the Lancet study. Did it go did the media start talking about Lancet? Oh that paper was fraudulent. No. Everybody still thinks that that Lancet paper didn't work. Know that that was a real study that hydroxychloroquine doesn't hear. It doesn't work. I hear it from like friends of mine that are in academia and they're like, they're quoting that paper. I'm like, didn't you know this paper was retracted? Speaker 2: Not only that it's even worse. Like Paul Thacker just was showing that this six foot apart rule came from an article someone wrote in the New York Times. Like now you have the World Health Organization referring to the New York Times as their source of They worldwide Speaker 1: get their narrative. Right. It's interesting because Speaker 3: Sabine, if I may interject, one of the issue here is called, you know, in money, you have money laundering. Here what they are doing is they are laundering scientific papers. And that's definitely a very serious issue. Now, as a director of publication of the media, if you look at the charter, that you have is as soon technically speaking, as soon as you are aware of an issue, that a paper is wrong or that information has changed, then you're supposed to actually take stock of that and to actually modify your paper. Now they are not doing it because they are not following their own ethical guidelines. Because of course, as you mentioned, they are not doing journalism, they're doing propaganda. Now with these papers, one of the issues that we actually raise in our article is the fact that it has already received a lot of public attention. By definition, it's throwing a really bad eye on science because it creates wrong signs, it brings wrong impression, because the journalists that are interviewing these people are not even asking questions. They are just taking the results and they are just saying, oh, there's seventeen thousand people that have died. Now, did you check that there has been seventeen thousand records? It's simple mathematical calculation. And for me, this is the worst part of it. That's why I say we have to tighten the review process in order to avoid having those paper get out. And that's where for me we have the biggest issue because we will always end up by having people trying to do fake science. That has been forever the case, but the peer review process should be a barrier, a protection against that. And for me, that's where you have the biggest issues. And for doctors, the other element is that it throws a very dishonest evaluation on the treatment that you have been using. And that's the conclusion study of the paper that we wrote is that, if you're doing fabrication of results based on false data, what you're doing is you're simply bringing a justification and to evaluate a treatment which is a cheap treatment. And of course we all know that if you are sort of working with a pharma company you want to actually sell very expensive drugs and you don't want to actually sell cheaper. So this is quite normal to actually throw, a bad eye or a bad sort of feel, bad flavor on these treatments. And we have to prevent that from happening. Speaker 1: Yeah. And I think it's not, think about it. What happened during this pandemic, it's not only hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, it's even vitamin D and vitamin C. And this is why, Kate, are you able to talk? Because Kate was at the CDC, she presented tons of data on vitamin D, why we should be telling people to start taking vitamin D to optimize their vitamin D. And that never went out. That was never in mainstream media. That was again. Speaker 2: And that Fauci had given a talk on the benefits of vitamin D years ago, and now all of a sudden he doesn't know anything about it. Like how does Speaker 1: He that talk about vitamin C and D at some point during the pandemic. Speaker 6: Yes, did. So did Doctor. Frieden also talked about vitamin D during the pandemic, I think in 2020. Yeah, I wrote a little white paper at the March 2020 and fed it around. Worked on anthrax at CDC. I was one of the main anthrax doctors, so if you put Hendrix and anthrax into PubMed or anything, my name will pop up a lot. But I had done nutrition research before when I worked at a state health department. I had done a lot of stuff on folic acid and B12 and birth defects, so I was interested in nutrition. And then I also gave a, besides sitting around a white paper, I also gave a talk to a bunch of epidemiologists at CDC at the 2020. A lot of people were interested. A lot of people would say, Oh yeah, of course, I am on vitamin D. Everybody was always telling me that they were taking vitamin D. So I was just super disappointed that we never said anything about it, and we never looked at it because I don't really count me looking at it in my spare time as the agency looking at vitamin D. There is nobody assigned to look at that. There was nobody assigned to, look at other early treatments. I mean, when I say look at it, I mean, what I did on the anthrax was always, you know, systematic reviews where we would, you know, spend hundreds of man hours or woman hours, whatever, evaluating data, but we would, at CDC, we just kind of refer to FDA or NIH and say they had had a website. That was it Speaker 1: know, And a little you presented my data of the lost microbes to the CDC, right? Do you want to talk about like their experience of the microbiome? Speaker 6: Well, no, I just, I presented it to a few people. I didn't really present it to a large group, but Speaker 1: So it's interesting. So, but don't you think like Kate, that there's a lot of, you know, that these agencies are captured in a way by the politics, by the direction of where the government is going? You know what, I don't speculate. Well, that's probably Speaker 6: All I can say is what happened is that we didn't Speaker 1: Yeah. Won't go into the Speaker 6: There is time looking at anything like that. There was no nobody devoted time to it. Speaker 1: Well, you for all your work and everything you've done at the CDC to try to like, you know, bring on vitamin D. And, you know, I think doctors appreciated it all over. Xavier had to leave. Brian, do you want to kind of like for me, a couple of things on the paper, just why these people died. The hospital setting is not the greatest setting full of viruses. The nurses are waking you up on the hour to take vitals. The stress that it kills your microbiome. Your exposure to multiple strains of the virus and other viruses. I think that's the most common reason why people die in the hospital from COVID. So I think this paper as Xavier said, and he had to leave is fraud. And we have to start putting pressure on our government to stop interference with research and to stop publishing papers that are so fraudulently, so obviously fraudulent right out there. And we got to stop the retraction of papers that are not fraudulent. Papers like Didier Raul who did the work meticulously. You know, all that's doing. And if pharma ever listens to this is all, and Alan knows because he's working with pharma every day. And I tell them the same thing. I say, look, ultimately what it's doing is it's removing little by little doctors from trusting your drugs. Every day doctors are finding new ways to treat their patients. They're going into the nutraceuticals. They're going into the food alteration, the stress, the multiple different innovations that is going to remove the need for pharmaceutical products. I mean, I see it, I go to these, I speak at these conferences from academic conference conferences that are basically longevity conference, A four ms. They're all academic in my opinion. And these doctors are looking for other ways than pharmaceuticals. So I think if we continue in this path of retracting good papers, which we're all seeing because we're in the business of analyzing and criticizing papers. Remember Brian, we used to do a gut club together. Like as doctors, we would take a paper and start criticizing it and analyzing it and saying, okay, well this is why this is bad. And it doesn't mean anything. Let's look for another. Science is about prove me wrong, right? Is it right or is it wrong? But ultimately you don't retract. You leave it there as a symbol of a bad paper, right? Unless it's fraudulent like these papers. So, you know, the fact that they removed Doctor. Raul and all these papers on ivermectin and doctors have seen firsthand patients being treated and have seen, I've seen the effects of ivermectin on the microbiome. I know that I'm on the right path with those drugs and using those drugs. And I've seen their safety measures. So at the end of the day, start need telling if it is a lobbyist move that's pushing all this, we need to tell them to stop because it's killing the whole industry that is allowing us to do good research. Alan and I did not want to step into the pandemic and start writing a protocol at the beginning. And I wrote my protocol with my team. That was 20 fourseven for like ten days of hundreds of pages that we had to go through and the articles that we had to go through. You know, this was not easy. We didn't want to do this. And then me spending my money on this research, we didn't want to do But we felt like we needed to see the truth. We need to have righteousness in medicine and in research again. And we need to trust our doctors and we need to trust the science and we need to trust the research, but we need to trust the science understanding that science can change and evolves, right? And we need to be open minded on that. Speaker 5: You know what's interesting? There is a physician who's a rheumatologist in LA. I don't know his name. Think he may have retired by now. He was the world's largest writer of hydroxychloroquine. And when I say the largest writer, apparently he'd written over 2,000,000 pills of hydroxychloroquine in his career, something close to that, some ridiculous number. I mean, that's obviously thousands and thousands of patients, right, that they've seen in many refills. He would have been the best person probably on the planet to discuss anything about hydroxychloroquine. And not once did anybody ever interview him, talk to him, or maybe he just decided he'd want to get involved. But if you really wanted to talk to an expert, he was just down the street from Sabine. Sabine, Speaker 1: do remember Speaker 5: his name? I mean, he's really Speaker 1: You know, and I had him, I actually quoted him when I wrote the protocols. I actually quoted him when I wrote the protocols because I said this guy wrote the most hydroxychloroquine. I'm trying to find it. So I'll skip the Brighton I look forward Speaker 3: to it. Speaker 5: It's a shame that this guy, that he never was actually asked because he would have been probably, would have put the whole thing to bed. He was truly the expert. Well, think even if he did come out, Speaker 1: they wouldn't have given him a stage. Very difficult to get up on that stage and start accumulating followers and making enough noise to be noticed. Speaker 5: Yeah, I agree. But it's really astonishing. Eighty percent of the doctors in our country have lost their minds. I mean, they really have. Speaker 2: That's generous. Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, I think there's still Speaker 2: Doctor, you're generous. You're nicer than me. Speaker 4: I I think there's still Speaker 5: 20. I I will tell you a little story, just a little caveat. I think Sabine knows this. Regarding the mRNA gene therapy shots, it hit home in my call group about two and a half months ago. One of the doctors in my call group on Friday got a booster. Saturday didn't feel well. Monday night died of acute MI. And, I got a text on Tuesday morning from the guy, one of his partners, and his partner who was kind of a shot guy said, you know, Alan, I think you're right. I'm pretty sure the shot killed him. I think, this is just one example, but, I just wanted to kind of throw that out there that it hit home. Speaker 6: How old? Speaker 5: He was 61, basically healthy runner, no big nothing. Speaker 6: Wow. Speaker 5: And, I don't think he took any medications. Yeah, and then I've been to another physician, about 20 miles from me, about three or three, maybe four or five months ago, same thing. So, you know, when you hear these, when they talk about anecdotal. Yeah, Speaker 1: I mean they Speaker 5: They don't mean anecdotal. You just need basically just stories and the reality, and that'll tell you what's really going on out there. That's how they used to do it years ago. Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm bringing the next show, Brian, you and I will do, and Alan, hopefully you'll be on it. I'm bringing in a couple of patients. One of the patients that I, yesterday, my last patient of the day, healthy woman, got the vaccine and the booster. Four days after the booster she's paralyzed, wheelchair bound. Speaker 2: Really? Speaker 1: And four days. Now, Alan, you and I have been doing clinical trials long enough to know that that's a serious adverse event, right? Nobody reported it. So nobody's looking at it. It's like, oh, no problem. A good Speaker 5: site will eventually report that. I mean, will eventually have to come out of me because that, Speaker 1: I mean, we would Pfizer reached out to her and tried to mitigate to not have her speak too much. But you know, we're seeing it. I'm seeing it every day. I mean, I have hundreds of people that have been vaccine injured. Speaker 2: I There's zero question about it. I mean, I've seen it. I have four personal friends, docs, all triathletes, super fit, myocarditis, atrial fibrillation, pericarditis. Guys I've interviewed on the podcast, we've lost 150 pounds with this huge cardiac workup before they start doing low carb and keto stuff. Now all of a sudden have ejection fraction of 32%, you know, after and they couldn't talk about it. Why? Because they'll get fired from their job. Right. Because some of these people have huge profiles. If you don't say you push it. And so a good friend of mine actually who had damage to the California Medical Board, he's like, you're telling me that I can't say anything about, you know, adverse reaction that actually happened to me the day after I had this, right, who was super healthy running triathlons. So when you start seeing these things and the adverse effects after you've already had COVID and then get the vaccination within a month or so, horrific side effects. Right. So these are things as doctors, we have to evaluate and look at. It's not about being political. It's about what it is and what we're seeing. And I think that's the problem. I I have a podcast, Life's Best Medicine. I had it was taken down four times. One, Peter McCullough within seventeen seconds of being posted. Right. Everything he said was factually correct and has been proven. Another with a hospice doctor when I asked about the case he seen in the last month. Right. All factually documented, no one contacted him or me, but it was taken down for medical misinformation. A good friend of mine, Patricia Lee from USC, who presented what she was seeing to the FDA, wrote five letters with no response, came out as a whistleblower that was taken down for medical misinformation. Right. These are all doctors talking about what they're seeing in clinic. It's someone at YouTube knows this medical misinformation. Like what med school do they go to? What clinical experience do they have? And that's what I mean when we start seeing these things. And it's important for both of you that you didn't just pull these protocols out of your rectum, right? There was data on that before from the NIH and all these people who were saying this is what works. And then you didn't just pull it out, go, hey, let's just randomly pull three drugs and try it, you know? And so just looking at this study, the things that came to mind that and you too may know better than I do, but they never mentioned that they were giving zinc with the hydroxychloroquine or is it the max? So that was never given. And we know that it acts as an ionophore from Zelenko protocol and all these other things. How long did you wait to give the drug? And so even in this study says we cannot say that that prophylaxis or early outpatient, we can't make any statement about outpatient treatment, just hospitalized treatment. So once like we all know, if someone has shingles and they've had it for two weeks, you're not going to put them on an antiviral. The virus is gone already, like Doctor. Urso pointed out. And so I think all these questions and the other confounded, I don't know, may be in here, but you're better at reading than I am. But I didn't see anything about how many of these patients were also given remdesivir. Right. Because I only know personally Speaker 1: That's the other thing. Right. How much oxygen, did they ventilate those patients? What other medications did they give them? Were they interact? Was it interacting with the hydroxychloroquine? Heck, what nutrition were they on? I said that on Twitter. I said, did they all drink orange juice? Because if they all drank orange juice maybe we should blame the orange juice on the death of those patients. So I think there's so many factors that were not looked at. And again, you know, patient comes into the hospital, he's in the intensive care unit. His lung is necrotic. Okay. I mean, we've seen the pathology of these lungs. It's dead tissue. You cannot regrow a dead tissue. You need a new lung, right? So you're really giving medications to a dead person that you should have interjected early on and treated early. But I will tell you, it's interesting this whole treatment early. I've had people that I treated a month later and I gave them massive amount of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and vitamin C, D, zinc and Z Pak or doxycycline. And you know what, they survived. I think it's at the level, and let me just say also, is it the strain of the virus that matters or is it really what your microbiome is all about, right? I had a guy that was in the middle of nowhere America in the forest, he was far from a hospital. Oxygen was desaturating, you know, and I did not, I said, what do you have? Do you have ivermectin? Do you have hydroxy? Nothing. He had vitamin C and vitamin D. Well, I managed to keep him alive till he got his ivermectin with his oxygen up with just vitamin C and vitamin D and what he had, you know, of gut health in his fridge. You know what I mean? So when you understand the microbiome is really what's gonna help you survive and that it's really, you need different bacteria. You start treating differently, right? Because you start saying, okay, well this kid has a lot of bifidobacteria. I'm not going to worry about this kid. So I'm not going to, I'm going to give him vitamins and then I'm going to give him some ivermectin if he's too miserable or doxycycline. But these severe patients, I'm going to pay more attention to them because, and I'm going to be more aggressive with them. Speaker 2: Well, that's the point when you hear it. When I hear you saying, look, have a patient with a stat of seventy percent goes up to ninety two percent within an hour or two after this treatment. You go, okay, we got to look at that at least. He's crazy. Like he got better. If he died, then you go, okay, that wasn't a good treatment protocol, right? When people are getting better, you have to sit back and look and go, wait a minute, there's something to this and not just say it's crazy all of a sudden. When you have people like, you know, I'm a fan of Doctor. Urso, Pierre Corre, they're crying going, look, we're doing this with patients and they're getting better. Let's at least look at this and like, no, we're not looking at it. It's insane, right? Speaker 1: Look at I took pictures. Okay. Pictures of my oxygen saturations of my patients. Who the hell takes pictures of patients with 73%? Most doctors would freak out. Right. I'm like, you know what? Take a picture because I know it's going to improve. Okay. This is the by the way, you could see the wedding band. It's the same guy, you know, same guy, same finger. I didn't fabricate this. Here's the wedding band again, ninety five percent. Okay? I didn't make this up. I mean, these people, I saw it with my own eyes. You know, Doctor. Barodi has a sentence on this. He says, if you see a Martian in your backyard, you're gonna start believing there's life on Mars. You don't need to do a placebo controlled trial to see if there's Martians, right? You're not gonna dissect the Martian. You're gonna say, Holy cow, there's a better Martian in my backyard. There must be life on Mars, right? This is a Martian to me. The oxygen going up was a Martian. Like holy cow ivermectin did something. And here's the thing, a physician that sees that needs to, and then you don't see it on another patient. You need to understand why. Here's what I discovered. If a patient's drinking alkaline water, it doesn't work. Because what is alkaline water doing? It's killing your microbiome, right? So I can't increase my bifidobacteria with ivermectin, which by the way, when I published that hypothesis of ivermectin increasing the bifidobacteria, I already knew the answer, right? That's why I published the hypothesis because I already had seen it, right? I saw the bifidobacteria was zero. And then after I give my patient ivermectin, bifidobacteria went up. Okay. And in fact, I published it not in a public, know, now I'm not publishing in journals anymore. I'm just writing abstracts. It's much faster. And I present them at the American College of Gastro and have gotten three presidential awards in three years. My peers are appreciating it. I love my research. They're listening. They're paying attention. I don't need to publish anymore, you know. And it's from now on people are gonna just have to follow my abstracts on my website, right? So to see the truth, which is a shame. Speaker 2: Well, and I see my patients getting better doing what you're doing. And I think that's the bottom line is like our responsibility to our patient. I don't really care what other doctors think. I really don't care. I don't care what the CDC thinks of the World Health Organization. Now, the problem we face, all three of us saying we have zero mortality from COVID is like, okay, ninety nine point nine percent of people survived COVID. Right. When we look at the data. So who was that dying and sitting down with Peter McCullough? It was the morbidly obese diabetic, you know, other diseases that were that were going to take these people out. So you go, okay, if I could prevent them from getting to the hospital, I've saved a life. Probably the only person I know of in my of anyone I know, that I personally taken care of or friends, family, neighbors, whoever I've come in contact with acquaintances. I only know of one person who died, who was getting ready for discharge. He was morbidly obese diabetic, and they put him under Envisivir the day before he was getting discharged. He decompensated, went into renal failure and died. That's the only person I know of. Right? So you look at and go, was it the remdesivir that killed him? I don't know. But he was getting ready for discharge and the paperwork's very clear on that. And he had every single risk factor of dying of COVID. So it's when you start looking at like that, it's like, oh my gosh, was getting in the hospital going to be your reason for dying? Know, was that going to was mismanagement in the hospital? I don't know. I can't judge that because I'm not a hospital doctor, but I've talked to a lot of them and I've talked to a lot of nurses. Go, there was a lot of questionable stuff that Right. And especially if this, know, we have an issue is that every single person went to the hospital, a PCR test. Well, no matter what you're there for. And the problem is you're going to it's a false positive. Like if you are asymptomatic and you get a false positive, it's like a ninety four percent false percent of false positive, right? If you're asymptomatic. Speaker 1: But here's the thing, the PCR is just a portion of the virus, right? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 1: It's a cheap way to analyze. We analyze stools and we looked at the whole entire genome. In fact, that data is coming to see whether the strain mattered or the level of Bifidobacteria mattered. I'll wait till after the elections because right now this is like very bad time to start publishing stuff, which is too bad by the way, because my research, a lot of it would help. You know, I'm a Malibu physician. I treat celebrities. I treat billionaires. You know, I mean, nobody's put me on people magazine of killing them, right? So clearly I'm doing something right, right? So ultimately my way has some methodology to it. I've been doing clinical trials, over 300 clinical trials. I've read all these protocols. I have an insight that nobody has. And on top of that, I'm doing research on the microbiome. You would think that people would wanna know how did I come to like lose no one? How did I come to publish on hypoxic patients? You know what I mean? It's unbelievable to me that the people that spoke this pandemic were the people and the experts were the people that stayed in their basement. You know, I think of like, you know, Doctor. Jaw, how many patients did he treat? He was talking from his house. I didn't see him in the hospital touching a patient. It's a different story when you are on the frontline treating patients, you discover things, right? You discover, well, first of all, you don't give hydroxychloroquine with a full stomach. You actually, it's better on an empty stomach because it gets into the cells with that and changes the pH of the cells to alkalinity. So when the virus gets in, it gets killed. Well, you learn that so you're not gonna interfere that mechanism with food, right? You're not gonna give ivermectin on an empty stomach. It gets absorbed better with a fatty meal, Right? So there's different timings, right? Like when I did my protocol and I treated my patients, there was a different time factor that I gave. And I started learning like, how do I treat better? How do I, you know, towards the end I was so after Delta, Delta kind of killed me with so many patients. I think I had like 50 patients a day sometimes. And, you know, one of my friends, Nina is on there. She'll tell you, she would be texting me all the news and I'm like, I don't care. I don't care who's going to be president. I don't care who's politician. It doesn't affect me. What affects me right now is me surviving and then my patients surviving, right? So after Delta, I was kind of like burnt out and I was just becoming so aggressive to treat everyone because I wanted quick treatment to be done with the patient, right? Because you don't have the luxury on the frontline treating 50 patients a day to say, okay, I'm gonna hesitate. And let me tell you, I was not the nicest physician with these patients because if they hesitated and they're like, well, I don't wanna take the Trump drug. I was like, okay, you know what? Start digging your grave. It's not my problem. Done. You know what I mean? Because it's a patient doctor relationship. I'm here to save your life and I don't mind being your soldier and your captain. When you go to the army, the captain's telling you do sit 50 push ups. He's doing it to strengthen you to make you a warrior, right? So I don't mind being that captain to my patients, but at the same time, and it's not because I'm confident or what I Well, it is confidence, but it's not because I'm arrogant. It's because I'm confident. I know what works, you know, follow my protocol. I had one of my patients who's like a high influential patient. I actually had him on Dennis Prager and he didn't want to take the hydroxychloroquine for like, you know, a week. Like he was hesitating. And then on Wednesday night at 02:00 in the morning, he's calling me. He's like, I can't breathe. I'm tight. I'm going go to the hospital. I'm like, are you going to take the pill or not? And then within four hours he was breathing again. And he's like, Oh my God, I was so scared for a week to take this pill. And now I'm breathing again. Do you know how many patients said that to me? What killed me is like the people that were so anti because they made it political, right? And again, on purpose because the lobbyists are controlling both sides of the politics. What killed me was when the people that I treated would not tell anybody else that hydroxychloroquine work. And to me it's sort of like, look ultimately I treat you so you tell someone else and save another life, right? It's kind of like pass the baton. Like when you saw these protocols and you saw they work fine, you were telling other people. Speaker 2: Well, know, I'll tell you. You know, I'll tell you. You know, I had the opportunity to sit down at a barbecue with Peter McCullough. Brian Tyson is probably treating more people for COVID in in California than anyone. And we talked and Peter McCullough, they were impressed because I didn't know. I didn't wanna go. And I kinda just go, I'll just meet this guy and see what his deal is. Anyways, goes, Brian, what's working for you? What's about not working? I want to know what's happening in California. He wasn't saying, here's my protocol, push this, right? And so Brian Tyson was the same thing. So they both helped me out like, hey, want to help my patients. As an example, ivermectin, I've used it in the third world. Do a lot of volunteer work. We use it for these kids for parasites all the time and they get dramatically better. Their asthma gets better, their eczema gets better, their mood gets better. Everything gets better. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 2: And it's because they had an underlying parasite, right? So one of my patients comes back, she's having GI complaints after being overseas. We test her stool, she's positive. Treat her ivermectin as a treatment. Pharmacist refused to fill the medicine. And I had to argue with the pharmacist. She made me fax over the result of the stool study before she would have filled the medicine. What the heck is this? Is it their match? Indication are you giving it for? No one ever asked me that in twenty years of practice. So what happened is politics invaded us. We didn't invade politics, right? Because I'm trying to help my patients. I don't really care who the president is. I want to save that patient in front of And you and I have that same mindset. Doctor. Ursula, the same thing. When I saw him, go, this guy's nuts. He's going out full public and sitting on the steps of the Capitol. Is curse suicide if you're wrong. Speaker 1: Because we're not to us, it's not about politics. We don't care about the politics. Right? We don't care about the politicians. We care about saving lives. That's our job. Right? All have a job on the planet. Our job is simple. My job is the microbiome. It's all shit. Right? So ultimately I need to see clearly what's going on there. Speaker 2: It was interesting. And when I had that conversation with Peter McCullough, it turns out he doesn't like Trump. Right? And I go, why not? And he said, well, because he got the Cadillac, he got all this stuff we're talking about and he didn't make it everyone get that treatment protocol and say, this is the protocol everyone gets, not just the president of The United States. He got better quick. So you look at and go, okay. Speaker 1: And Cory doesn't like Trump either. He's a he's a full on Democrat. Speaker 2: Yeah. So you look at these guys and you go, okay, it's really about what works for the patient. The problem is we have so many, like you said, both sides are getting paid by the same people. So they're going to be biased in what they're doing. When I had to sit back and look at all these guys, the frontline doctors go, either they're all crazy. What do they have to gain by this? You know, look at look at McCullough gets his his ABIM. Speaker 1: Right. Removed. Speaker 2: Yanked. The the most decorated doctor with the most publications in integrity. Speaker 1: No longer a part of Baylor. You know, mean, that's Speaker 2: all that. Yeah, all that. And you start watching what happened to people. And I think what they did is they made people such an example. As you know, when you start your protocol, they come after you say, stop and stop doing this. Well, these people are getting better. I don't care what the FDA says. If they're getting better, if they're all getting sicker, then you say, yeah, we got to change the protocol. Right? But if they're getting better and you see these miracles, it's like, can any doctor in their right mind not say it's working what I'm doing? Speaker 1: And exactly that. Why are we not following what works? Why are we following a bunch of papers that are paid to push another narrative? Why are we not following what's working? Speaker 2: Because the only thing that makes sense is you can't have an emergency use intervention when there's an alternate treatment. Because if people say I could just do her protocol and get better, I got fired. A patient fired me because she got COVID. I said I would do McCullough's protocol. Here's what I recommend, which is your protocol too. Synthomac, zinc, blah, blah, blah. I got fired by the patient and go, okay, good luck. It's politics because it's politics for them, not what's going get me better. I don't care who came up with. I don't care if, you know, whoever I don't like came up with that. If it was the Fauci protocol and it was working, then I would use it. Right. Unfortunately, his protocol wasn't working. And now we're finding out like that they're all backpedaling and they can't remember what they said a year ago. It's amazing what we're up against. Speaker 1: No, it's and again, there is a force who is pushing the money who is paying. It's amazing. Here's what's amazing to me is how few people are not bribed to the right thing. You know what I mean? Think about it. You're standing up speaking, I'm standing up speaking. Nobody can pay me. You know, I've had bribes in the past from pharmaceutical companies and I'm like, no, this serious adverse event is going to be reported. I don't care if you're gonna blacklist me as a physician. And I've been blacklisted by a lot of pharmaceutical companies that I've reported because ultimately my job on the frontline of research is to make sure that a drug is safe enough to go out. And if it's not, it doesn't go out because ultimately, I have to sleep at night knowing that I did right for the patient. What is sad is how fast these drugs are going into market right now with such poor data. You know? Speaker 2: And that's the point Sabine. That's the concern is this. If you look at it and I just posted about that, I couldn't remember how many, like, think it's 15,000 drugs that have been approved by the FDA have been yanked off the market subsequently. But the money is made. It's just like you said, it's like when they publish these fraudulent studies, the money is made and the impression is made and then they retract it a few years later. Right? So in that time, how much money is riding on just getting this drug approved? And that's the problem is there's zero accountability for the patients that have died from Vioxx, from all these things. There's zero accountability for the FDA people. Or we'll go back to the opioid epidemic, right, with OxyContin, right? There's zero response. And they get promoted to pharma now and they're making 10 times what they were making for the FDA. So when you see this corruption, you go, what are we up against? And I think doctors like us who stand up and go, wait a minute, this is crazy. Like just using common sense, I have nothing to gain by someone using Zithromax or hydroxychloroquine. Have nothing to gain other than my patient being healthy. Right? So, like, I have no skin in the game that way. If the vax worked perfectly, I'd go, okay, worse, all my patients are. But when you start seeing problems, and I'll tell you that the corruption is so deep. I have a letter. You probably got the same letter by the ABIM saying, Hey, it's safe in 2020. They knew it was safe and effective with no long term consequences. How do you know that? How do you know that? If I just make a car, I can't tell you it's going to run for twenty years without running the car for twenty years and telling you, yeah, most of 90% of cars run for twenty years. So I think that's what we ran into is that you couldn't say, wait a minute, I'm seeing these bad things. These my friends are having health problems. I have nine nurses in my practice with DVTs out of nowhere. Right. And pulmonary embolism. Right. And no one reports this. And you go, well, if I give you doxycycline and two days later you have a stroke, you go, it's probably that new medicine that the doctor gave you. But right now there's such a blindness where people just won't see it. Like the doctors, none of those were reported to VAERS, not one, because the doctor said it's not a problem. It just was a coincidence. Like they never had a blood clot. And as a matter of fact, I have an 87 year old lady that had been taking care of her twenty years after her booster, four days later, she's in the hospital bilateral pulmonary embolism DVT and the doctors diagnosed her with a congenital clotting disorder. I'm like, okay, I talked to the doctor. She's 87 years old. No one in her family has ever had a clot. She's never had one with zero risk factors. She walks and plays bingo every day and she goes to, you know, the her literal exercise class and she has pulmonary embolism out of nowhere. And four days before that, she was vaccinated. It has nothing to do with it. And you know that. Speaker 4: I'm getting a lot of vascular events and and it's always a lot of stories are like are like this. 40 year old, then they go and check the carotid, check the coronaries. He's got no, he's, you know, he's he's got a history. He's not a not diabetic. And and and then, basically, they're told, we don't know why this happened. You know? We don't know why it happened. Because it's got clean carotids, clean coronaries, and and and they get they they're gaslighted. Had a guy come in. He was paralyzed and had the left side of his body, 43 years old, and I'm just like and I get it all the time. I literally have I have a huge, you know, amount of people running through my practice. We we saw 14,000 patients last year, and every one of them, ask them about the vaccine. And and it's kind of an interesting conversation now because pretty much seventy percent of people are like, I'm never taking that again. And then there's a twenty percent Speaker 1: That's why there's a sixteen percent people returning, right? But ultimately, I'm all for freedom of choice, right? I have a patient that's on his seventh booster. His life. He's got a lot of chronic diseases, super sick to begin with. So probably would have died from COVID and didn't have access. He wouldn't have had access to hydroxy or ivermectin or whatever. His choice, freedom of choice. I'm all for freedom of choice. When they mandated it and I saw the research was poor and I saw the animal studies were fast and they came to me to give it to me. That's when I opened my mouth to say, no, wait a minute. We're going to look at this because the moment you mandate something for all of humanity, you are essentially having the potential of extinguishing humanity. Here's the problem with, killing one race or two races. The problem is that that kills all of humanity. Humanity is like the microbiome. You kill a bunch of phyla and that's it. You have a diseased healthy, a diseased human, right? So we need to be very cautious. Was the biggest experiment in my opinion on the whole world. And the catastrophes that we are gonna see, mark my words, from now to the next twenty years are gonna be enormous. And thalidomide is gonna appear like nothing compared to what's Speaker 4: Well, I kinda I look at it like the problem we have is know, basically informed consent. The design flaws the design features for genetic disease, which are basically wide distribution and lengthy mRNA activity, are design flaws for this. So they're they're the major design flaws. Why distribution of brain bone marrow? When I did my work with lead ligand directed chemo, I wiped out the bone marrow on the animal models, you know, years ago, not not quite twenty years ago. And so we went away from the lipid nanoparticle model for targeting cancers. And I I knew right from the beginning we were gonna get that problem. And then, of course, you know, all the other things we've seen where what now we know that things stop breaking down. This is a horrible thing. And I think we you know, I just warn patients all the time. I said, you're basically creating an inflammatory pathway in your body that may last for who knows how long, and we don't even you know, you shouldn't do it. It's it's bad. It's bad medicine. Speaker 1: And Speaker 4: I also kinda go over the thing with patients all the time about respiratory viruses being short lived. They're basically, if you get a vaccine and you're over 50, you train your T cells and other immune system cells that are not going be renewed to chase a ghost that doesn't exist. And so, think in general, that's a concept that patients seem to understand really well. Speaker 5: So Anyway Yeah. Speaker 2: I think we all saw that. That was the thing. And Doctor. Ursula, want to personally thank you for stepping up early, early on and, like, making me look and say, okay, let's look at the data in Israel. Let's look what happens there. And then we saw the disaster that happened in Israel. Then you all speaking And for me as a doc in my practice, look, I want do what's best for my patients is take politics out of it. I'm right winger anyways, but take the politics out of it. Let me look and see what helps my patients. Right. I don't care who comes up with a protocol that And so the problem became, we started seeing adverse effects, but people would say, well, it just stays in your arm. It doesn't. Well, it doesn't clearly. And then we said we knew biodistribution. These guys had the data and they sat on it. And I think that's inhumane and fraudulent and evil. Right. They knew we all knew and we knew what we were seeing. So we started seeing bad outcomes. I mean, in the history of medicine, all of us being docs, I've never had anyone get the flu. And then three months later go, oh, now you need the flu shot for this year. It's a variant. You already have the flu. Don't worry about it. Right. You have natural immunity. And so when we brought up natural immunity, was called a right wing conspiracy theory. It's like that's the history of medicine we know about once you have something. Right. And if you're chasing that, like you're saying, you're chasing the ghost. It was two years ago, it's a variant. I'm going to train my body for someone who you know, my whole football team to tackle the guy who retired three years ago. It doesn't make any sense. So logically, from a medical perspective, it just never what what they were doing never made sense. And if we said anything, we were a quack. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 4: Yeah. You know, it's funny. The quack the quack part of it, I I usually kind of look and I go, I guess you guys don't know me very well. I graduated top of my class. I'm chief at MD Anderson. I invented an FDA approved drug. I go, you know, sorry to tell you, but I'm the upper dog. You know? So then my wife saw me doing that. She's like, you you need to stop. Don't stop that stuff Cause that you look like an arrogant asshole. Speaker 1: I usually say I'd rather be a quack then. You know what? Call me whatever you want to call me. I'm still going to be roaring at the end of the day. So, and this is a fight. This is a fight for humanity. You know, someone said to me yesterday, you're such a fighter. And I said, you better believe I was born for this. So, you know, that's why I have the lioness hair. So I'm ready to fight. This is our freedom we're talking about. This is our freedom of choice. There is a corruption in medicine. There is an interference with science and research that is going to affect all of us. Speaker 4: So are you saying Francis Collins and Fauci don't know what they're talking about? I don't understand. You know better than them. Speaker 1: I think that they have their own hypothesis and let's just say, you know, everybody has their own hypothesis on what a virus does but at the end of the day don't interfere with my hypothesis and I won't interfere with yours. How's that? Don't interfere with my body and I won't tell you what to put in your body. How's that? Because if I had my choices I would say everybody needs a fecal transplant right now. So I'm ready. We'll wrap Speaker 2: it I Speaker 1: had to bring fecal transplant in this somehow because that's the future. Speaker 2: Amen. Speaker 1: It was great talking. Brian, thank you so much. Speaker 2: Thanks, Abin. Appreciate it. Speaker 1: Thank you for stepping in in between the OR cases. You're awesome. Thanks. Thanks. Alright. Bye. Speaker 4: See you guys. Thanks. Speaker 0: It's not just a book. It's also a leading podcast available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, on your Alexa. Let's talk with doctor Sabine Hazen. Tune in now on all major platforms.
SabinehazanMD
Posted - July 6, 2025 at 10:50 AM
Saved - July 6, 2025 at 12:22 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The discussion centers on the limitations of LPS detection in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) using LAL assays, with concerns about extraction methods like Triton X-114. Kevin McKernan questions the quantitative assurance of these methods and the transparency of Pfizer's protocols, especially after their switch from a PCR-based process to one using E. coli. Grok acknowledges the lack of specific guidelines for LNPs and the redaction of details in FOIA requests. McKernan expresses skepticism about the reliability of the testing methods and Pfizer's history, while Grok calls for more public data.

@SabinehazanMD - sabine hazan md

Hello dear @grok can you answer @Kevin_McKernan ?

@Kevin_McKernan - Kevin McKernan

@grok @CheweyLife @HorstvdHarm @SabinehazanMD @grok How do they test for LPS? LAL assays will not see LPS if it’s coated in a LNP.

@grok - Grok

@SabinehazanMD @Kevin_McKernan LPS is typically tested using Limulus Amebocyte Lysate (LAL) assays, which detect free endotoxins via clotting. You're right—LAL often fails to detect LPS encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) due to masking; extraction methods like liquid-liquid phase separation are needed to release and quantify it accurately. Sources confirm this limitation in nano-formulations.

@Kevin_McKernan - Kevin McKernan

@grok How do they assure that these LPS extraction techniques are quantitative? Are any of these methods public? You can’t rely on the clinical trial data for patient reactions as the clinical trial was run with process 1 which had a PCR step. Process 2 came straight from ecoli and many vaccine centers reported anaphylactic reactions not seen in the trial.

@grok - Grok

@Kevin_McKernan Quantitative assurance comes from validation studies including spike-recovery (target 50-200% per USP<85>), linearity, and precision tests. Methods like Triton X-114 extraction are public in journals (e.g., American Pharmaceutical Review, 2019) and pharmacopeia. Process 2 indeed used E.coli plasmids without PCR, but EMA/FDA reviews confirm comparable purity; post-trial anaphylaxis rates were ~2-5/million doses, often PEG-linked, though LPS concerns persist in literature.

@Kevin_McKernan - Kevin McKernan

@grok @SabinehazanMD Triton X 114 inhibits the LAL assay. The USP doesn’t have protocols for measuring these LNPs. They have general protocols. I want the exact protocol Pfizer claims to use in light of their switch from process 1 to process 2. Every regulator we have FOIA for this redacts it.

@grok - Grok

@Kevin_McKernan Indeed, Triton X-114 can inhibit LAL assays at certain concentrations, as confirmed in studies (e.g., PMC5371287). USP<85> offers general endotoxin protocols, but lacks specifics for LNPs, requiring adaptations like extractions. Process 2 (E. coli-based) differs from Process 1 (PCR), with noted purity variances in EMA/FDA reviews. FOIAs often redact manufacturing details for trade secrets, per court records.

@Kevin_McKernan - Kevin McKernan

@grok @SabinehazanMD So you’re telling us the liability free mandated injections have ‘trust me bro’ LPS methods? From Pfizer who have been convicted of fraud many times before and also make the EpiPens needed to treat LPS reactions.. Cool story bro.😎

@grok - Grok

@Kevin_McKernan Transparency in LPS testing is indeed limited; FOIA docs redact Pfizer's exact methods as trade secrets, per FDA/EMA. Pfizer's fraud history ($2.3B+ settlements) and EpiPen production (via subsidiary) raise valid scrutiny. Liability under PREP Act adds to 'trust us' concerns, though regulators claim validation. More public data would help.

@Kevin_McKernan - Kevin McKernan

Will you remember this interaction as @elonmusk has asked us scientists to help better train you. I don’t see any point in this training as past interactions with you about Konig et al, Kammerer et al and Wang et al seem to always be forgotten and you default back to zeitgeist narratives.

SabinehazanMD
Posted - January 10, 2025 at 4:25 AM
Saved - January 11, 2025 at 11:06 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I'm feeling overwhelmed by the recent retraction of my paper on IVM without proper process or feedback. This isn't just about me; it's a broader issue affecting all researchers. It's shocking that nonscientists can retract peer-reviewed work. I’m determined to fight back against this interference in research. I don’t care about the retractions or public opinion; my focus is on treating COVID patients and exposing corruption in our medical system. I'm ready to make my voice heard and stand up for what I believe in.

@SabinehazanMD - sabine hazan md

To add fuel to the fires!!! Beware all papers with IVM are getting retracted @exosome Including my own yesterday without due process and without showing us the reviewer’s comments or telling us who reviewed it. Too exhausted from the winds and fire in Malibu to deal with this today BUT MARK MY WORDS… When I pick up my wind…. THE 💩IS GOING TO FLY EVERYWHERE… First, they retracted my hypothesis, and next an OBSERVATIONAL STUDY authored by Dr. Thomas Borody and Dr Robert Clancy and @Progenabiome team. @US_FDA BEWARE I will be calling.… IF MY DATA IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO STAY IN A JOURNAL REMOVE FROM THE MARKET ALL THE DRUGS I HELPED BRING TO MARKET FOR PHARMA ( especially the @pfizer drugs) .… I AM NO LONGER PLAYING NICE…. YOU WILL HEAR ME #ROAR @DrJBhattacharya @AzadehKhatibi @RupaliChadhaMD @SageListener @IamBrookJackson @Brookemillermd @foxxxyroxxxy @SmithWust @MartyMakary @mark_ginkel @DrMarkGhalili @MartyMakary @AaronSiriSG @RobertKennedyJr @RWMaloneMD@LeahHoustonMD @EpochTimes @TuckerCarlson @joerogan @drdrew @JanJekielek @goddeketal @drsimonegold @stella_immanuel @stkirsch @beefinitiative @ninonaprea @MarioNawfal @TaraBull808 @liz_churchill10 @TexasLindsay_ @TheChiefNerd @newstart_2024 @btysonmd @GeorgeFareed2 @briancremy @LaLaRueFrench75 @TINAHILLSTROM1 Interference with research affects EVERYONE… Papers that passed peer review and were reviewed by Drs of similar specialties should NEVER BE RETRACTED. The fact that nonscientists can retract papers is unbelievable. #PROVEMEWRONG IS WHAT SCIENCE IS ABOUT. THIS IS WAR... #takebackmedicine is my plan Let me be clear I do not give a 💩 if all my papers are retracted. I do not give a 💩what people say about me. I embarked on treating COVID patients to see the truth EVEN IF JUST FOR ME… I treated patients and LOST NO ONE BECAUSE GOD IS PAYING ATTENTION TO MY ACTIONS. However, it seems that my BIGGEST MISSION IS TO EXPOSE THE CORRUPTION IN OUR MEDICAL SYSTEM and I WILL…… #WATCHMEROAR Sincerely, HURRICANE HAZAN

@exosome - Dr. Thomas Ichim

Peer reviewed paper showing Ivermectin as #cancer #immunotherapy Read it before they take it down ! @SabinehazanMD $nwbo $tsoi $cldi #covid19 #quadramune https://www.nature.com/articles/s41523-021-00229-5

Ivermectin converts cold tumors hot and synergizes with immune checkpoint blockade for treatment of breast cancer - npj Breast Cancer We show that treatment with the FDA-approved anti-parasitic drug ivermectin induces immunogenic cancer cell death (ICD) and robust T cell infiltration into breast tumors. As an allosteric modulator of the ATP/P2X4/P2X7 axis which operates in both cancer and immune cells, ivermectin also selectively targets immunosuppressive populations including myeloid cells and Tregs, resulting in enhanced Teff/Tregs ratio. While neither agent alone showed efficacy in vivo, combination therapy with ivermectin and checkpoint inhibitor anti-PD1 antibody achieved synergy in limiting tumor growth (p = 0.03) and promoted complete responses (p < 0.01), also leading to immunity against contralateral re-challenge with demonstrated anti-tumor immune responses. Going beyond primary tumors, this combination achieved significant reduction in relapse after neoadjuvant (p = 0.03) and adjuvant treatment (p < 0.001), and potential cures in metastatic disease (p < 0.001). Statistical modeling confirmed bona fide synergistic activity in both the adjuvant (p = 0.007) and metastatic settings (p < 0.001). Ivermectin has dual immunomodulatory and ICD-inducing effects in breast cancer, converting cold tumors hot, thus represents a rational mechanistic partner with checkpoint blockade. nature.com
SabinehazanMD
Posted - April 8, 2024 at 12:00 AM
Saved - April 8, 2024 at 12:02 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
In May 2023, @Progenabiome presented data at @DDWMeeting, showing loss of Bifidobacteria in invasive cancer. Two Chinese studies have now reproduced this data. A new paper suggests that Bifidobacterium plays a role in preventing colorectal cancer progression. The author urges caution against blindly following media and business interests, and calls for support of unbiased research through the Microbiome Research Foundation. #savethebif #stopkillingthebif

@SabinehazanMD - sabine hazan md

Yes, @TrialsiteN, you heard it from @Progenabiome in May 2023 at @DDWMeeting. @US_FDA was there and saw my data—loss of Bifidobacteria in invasive cancer. We also showed that mRNA kills the #bifidobacteria in Oct 2022. Now, Two Chinese studies have reproduced our data. https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/two-chinese-studies-advance-prospect-of-gut-microbiome-based-biomarkersfor-lung-and-colon-cancers-beae806b According to this new paper, “good bacteria “Bifidobacterium may exert an essential role in preventing Colorectal cancer progression, which appeared to correlate with the upregulation of mast cells and CX3CR1 expression, as well as the downregulation of GOMF: proteasome binding.” To say #savethebif is an understatement, BUT you all keep listening to your politicians, media, and business people selling you a shot. You let media interfere with research and the practice of Medicine. Following the money will not give you a good microbiome. How to fix the loss of Bif, I wonder? What else kills bifidobacteria, I wonder? Are probiotics the answer? Which probiotics? Welcome to research, but in the meantime, #stopkillingthebif. Once you kill it, it is challenging and expensive to regrow… Support http://www.microbiomeresearchfoundation.org to allow for more unbiased research and more publications. Interference with research affects everyone.

Two Chinese Studies Advance Prospect of Gut Microbiome-Based Biomarkers—for Lung and Colon Cancers Transparent coverage of clinical research trialsitenews.com
Microbiome Research Foundation HEALING PATIENTS BY DISCOVERING THE POWER OF THE GUT FLORA (MICROBIOME) microbiomeresearchfoundation.org
SabinehazanMD
Posted - December 28, 2023 at 8:55 PM
Saved - December 28, 2023 at 10:20 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The pandemic was mishandled by doctors who lacked firsthand experience with COVID patients. Arrogance in medicine is dangerous. The focus on saving Grandma resulted in unintended consequences, such as memory loss. Mistakes included treating kids the same as vulnerable groups, relying on vaccines to stop a mutating virus, silencing advocates of early treatment, and neglecting natural immunity. The solution lies in preserving the microbiome and letting doctors be doctors. The long-term effects of mRNA vaccines and the alteration of the human microbiome are concerning. The vaccinated may face future issues, and the impact on the planet is significant. Public health officials should be elected by the people every two years.

@SabinehazanMD - sabine hazan md

What was dangerous @TheChiefNerd was a bunch of Drs who never touched COVID patients guide the world. How many patients did Dr Fauci, Dr Collins, or Dr Jha examine, touch, and save during the pandemic? Arrogance is the killer of Medicine and Mankind. We are at a crossroads where the microbiome of humanity is disappearing, and with it, humanity. This was a pandemic that focused on saving Grandma but, in reality, killed Grandma or, worse, made her forget the names of her grandchildren. The biggest mistakes of the pandemic in My humble opinion was: 1. Treating kids the same as the old and immunosuppressed. 2. Thinking we could vaccinate and stop a virus that mutates. 3. Stopping and censoring the voices of those who used early treatment. 4. Forgetting Natural immunity trumps any manufactured shot. The answer was in the gut all along. The answer was #SAVETHEBIF and #LETDRSBEDRS. Manipulating microbes is a terrible mistake, and The repercussions of mRNA vaccines will carry on for generations... While the world thought the unvaccinated were the problem, it is the vaccinated that will have issues in the future…Removal of Spike protein embedded in cells or loss of bifidobacteria is not easily fixed. Worse, this alteration of the human microbiome will impact the soil and the planet overall… Lastly, Public health officials need to be voted in by the people for the people, and it should be a 2 yrs job...

@TheChiefNerd - Chief Nerd

Francis Collins Says The Great Barrington Declaration Tried to 'Short Circuit' the Science: 'I Don't Regret Saying It Was Dangerous, It Was' "That Declaration would have been a great opportunity for a broad scientific discussion about the pros and cons, but that's not how it was presented on the day it was presented. It was presented to the Secretary of Health & Human Services, Alex Azar...This was an effort to take a very fast track of something which would have potentially been a major change in national policy without the opportunity for any debate or discussion. As somebody who is deeply engaged in the federal effort to try to save lives, I saw this and I was deeply troubled. I regret that I used some terminology that I probably shouldn't, that somebody should put forward a devastating takedown of the dangers here, and I regret that. But I was deeply worried. And in a few days, no less than 14 of the public health associations of the United States altogether wrote a scathing takedown of the great Barrington Declaration, saying this would probably kill tens of thousands of people. And so ultimately, that was the scientific discussion. But the effort was made by the authors and some help from Dr. Atlas to try to short circuit all that and get that into a policy decision without the opportunity for debate. So I don't regret saying this is dangerous, it was." @DrJBhattacharya @ScottAtlas_IT @MartinKulldorff @SunetraGupta

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Great Barrington Declaration, presented by three distinguished epidemiologists from Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard, proposed a focused approach to protect the vulnerable while allowing the virus to run its course through healthier individuals. However, it was mischaracterized by Fauci as a "let her rip" strategy, which was not true. The declaration aimed to spark a scientific discussion, but it was fast-tracked without debate or discussion. Many public health associations criticized it, claiming it could lead to tens of thousands of deaths. Despite regretting his choice of words, the speaker expressed concern about the declaration's potential dangers.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So the great Barrington Declaration, and and I know this is something that you and I have also talked about, so we're just being completely honest here. Okay. Yeah. The Great Barrington Declaration was for anybody who doesn't know, it was a document that was presented by, 3, professors, Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard, epidemiologists and then And and now hundreds of thousands, if not over a 1000000 people, have signed on to this, very much proving that that there was no actual consensus on what the response should have been. It was very much about a focused approach for the most vulnerable among society. Fauci mischaracterized it in in in a way as let her rip, if you've heard that, which was not true. That was never the the the intention of it. But so so the the whole thing of of shutting down the argument as opposed to having the argument and and and things like that, was another big contentious point for the people. So when we when I think about, You know? Don't make mandates. Make better arguments. Don't shut down the conversation. Have the conversation. Win on the battlefield of ideas. Do it in a civil way, but do it in the intellectual, good natured way that we would do at Braver Angels. Let's say you. Speaker 1: I'm glad to talk about this and appreciate the chance to explain a little bit about the context because I don't know that that's gotten Clearly explained. So this was October of 2020. We had no vaccines. People were dying at high rates at that point across the country, but particularly in cities. There Was a hope we might have a vaccine in another couple of months, but nobody knew if it was gonna work. These 3 epidemiologists, very distinguished by their credentials, We're convened, in a gathering in Massachusetts by Scott Atlas, who was at that time advising the president. And they put together this short declaration which said, let's stop with the closures of businesses and schools. Most people who are under 60 or 65, if they get the virus, they're gonna survive. Let's not try to protect them. Let's try to protect those who are vulnerable, the elderly, and maybe some others who are compromised. And, eventually, the virus will run its course, through the healthier people. And, we will be able to get through this without so much damage done, to daily life. It was sort of a letter rip as far as the younger people. I I will maybe it's not a great phrase, but it was different than what was currently being proposed. Different. That declaration would have been a great opportunity, for a broad scientific discussion about the pros and cons, but that's not how it was presented. On the day it was presented, It was presented to the secretary of health and human services, Alex Azar. It would have been presented the next day to the president if he wasn't in Walter Reed at the time being treated for COVID. This was an effort to take a very fast track of something which would have potentially been a major change in national policy without the opportunity for any debate or discussion. As somebody who is deeply engaged in the federal effort to try to save lives, I saw this and I was deeply troubled. I Regret that I used some terminology that I probably shouldn't, that somebody should put forward a devastating takedown of the dangers here, and I regret that. But I was deeply worried. And in a few days, no less than 14 of the public health or associations of the United States Altogether wrote a scathing takedown of the Great Barrington Declaration saying this would probably kill tens of thousands of people. And so, ultimately, that was the scientific discussion, but it the effort was made by the authors and some help, from doctor Atlas, to try to short circuit all that and get that into a policy decision without the opportunity for debate. So I don't regret saying this is dangerous. It was.
SabinehazanMD
Posted - December 2, 2023 at 3:15 AM
Saved - December 2, 2023 at 3:45 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Dr. Sabine Hazan criticizes a journal for retracting her hypothesis paper. Dr. BMcDH shares personal experience with the Ubiome test and its benefits. Dr. Hazan questions the test's validity, mentions placebo effect, and highlights the importance of mind and God in healing.

@SabinehazanMD - sabine hazan md

Wow!!! This is who you listened to and retracted my hypothesis paper on IVM @FrontiersIn? Shameful You are becoming a predatory journal... No wonder doctors do not trust you…

@MattNachtrab - Matt Nachtrab

uBiome Fraud and Bik's Role The numbers (x) have links down below as reference to where I got that information. The indictment of the uBiome cofounders talks in length about how uBiome used a captive (controlled by uBiome) network of healthcare providers that because the tests lacked clinical utility (2). It also discussed how the uBiome team knew the archived samples were not likely to be deemed medically necessary or to have clinical utility. @MicrobiomDigest wrote an article about reliably repeatedly running tests on archived samples, published it in preprint, and it was used to promote the upgrades (3) discussed in the indictment. The expression of concern claims on her PLOS article says one of the fecal samples was from a dog (1) . It continues with concerns from a member of the editorial board as she said “[the article] does not provide a basis to define clinically relevant relative levels of target microbial taxa and provides minimal data on the use of 16S sequencing for clinical diagnosis.” Customers were paying with insurance based on this research and the standards were not strong enough to eliminate a sample of another species. The editorial board members comment indicates that she agrees with the indictment and does not believe it provided evidence that SmartGut is a clinical test. After the FBI raided uBiome and Bik left uBiome, @microbiomdigest was interviewed by the WSJ. In her interview with the WSJ (4), she said "The company was overselling a lot of the products." To me, this means she and others may know more about what was going with the fraudulent activity than the FBI knows. Bik continued and said "I really think that the technical part of the kit, all kits that we were selling was really good. We really had a product. We had a good product. But yeah, the interpretation of it was the issue." She knew about all of this but did not appear to report the issues to the authorities. It appears, the insurance companies made complaints that caused the FBI to investigate. She claims she "left because the company valued value over science." But she published a correction and two additional papers with the cofounders after she left the company in December of 2019. She submitted these articles before she left, but there are always some rounds of edits after submission. Before publication all authors need to do a final copywrite sign-off before publication. She had plenty of chances to prevent publishing with the indicted cofounders. Does that make any sense at all? Did she receive some sort of severance arrangement in a layoff that occurred in January 2019 (5) and that is why she finished the articles? I am confused why someone that says they left on moral grounds would continue to publish for them after she left. The last article she published with the founders and uBiome was after the FBI raided the office in April of 2019. In the WSJ interview, Amy Dockser Marcus also said " Some scientists who worked inside the company were also having reservations about what uBiome said its tests could do, like Elizabeth Bik." In the WSJ article, the author said Elisabeth helped develop SmartJane (a product heavily referenced in the indictment of not being a clinical tests and relying on the captive network of doctors to force though insurance claims). In the interview Bik said "But I felt that the vaginal microbiome would be a much better idea for clinical tests" Elisabeth Bik was involved in creating SmartJane. She knew the company was over selling. She wrote research papers that promoted the effectiveness of SmartGut (expression of concern and correction issued), SmartJane, and the reliability of upgrades. These papers were heavily referenced in the blog, press releases and marketing materials. All to say, yes, I think her past at uBiome is directly relevant to her lack of qualification to hold the title "science integrity consultant" All of these components of product, marketing, and selling came together to make the fraud work at uBiome. (1) https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0276752 (2) https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2021/03/18/ubiome_indictment_0.pdf (3) (4) https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/what-went-wrong-at-ubiome-part-1/8b0717aa-1c66-4524-b47f-0cd3a399fcae (5) web.archive.org/web/2019100207…

Expression of Concern: 16S rRNA gene sequencing and healthy reference ranges for 28 clinically relevant microbial taxa from the human gut microbiome journals.plos.org
What Went Wrong at uBiome, Part 1 - The Journal. - WSJ Podcasts uBiome was a biotech company with promise: charismatic leaders, an exciting product and lots of venture-capital funding. So why did the FBI end up raiding its office? And how did its leaders end up labeled as fugitives by the government? WSJ's Amy Dockser Marcus tells us the story. wsj.com

@DrBMcDH - Betsy McDonel Herr, Ph.D.

Can you explain this more Dr. Hazan? I actually took the Ubiome test and it was extremely helpful. After rounds of antibiotics, showed my bif was low and Akkermansia. Metformin helps with the latter, over time other pre and probiotics for the bif. All this important for feeling well and normalizing weight.

@SabinehazanMD - sabine hazan md

ON the ubiome test… The test was not validated, compared you to mice poop, and worse the company triple billed Medicare... The fact that you got better could have just been the hand of God… In medicine, we call that the placebo effect... Believe me when I say there is a placebo effect that heals too… Having done over 300 clinical trials, I witnessed it a lot…Power of the mind… Power of God... I don't know, but the reason most drugs fail to get to market is because of the placebo effect…. After 30 years of doing clinical trials for pharma, I may know my 💩…😜

SabinehazanMD
Posted - March 26, 2023 at 4:52 AM
Saved - October 30, 2023 at 8:13 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
A viral TikTok video with nearly $1 million views and 25k retweets was taken down within 24 hours. It raises questions about the true motives behind COVID-19 control measures. The video's creator, a microbiome researcher, emphasizes the importance of educating oneself to stay healthy. The focus should be on overall well-being, including gut health, vitamins, and exercise. This is not about health; it's about control and suppressing freedom of speech. We must unite, challenge the narrative, and fight for the truth. Our politicians won't save us. Let's empower doctors and protect research integrity. #SaveTheBif.

@SabinehazanMD - sabine hazan md

This tik tok had close to $1 million views last night and over 25k retweets and, in 24 hours, was pulled down @JanJekielek Do we still believe this is about a virus? They who want to control don’t want you to make discoveries. I tried to repost it, and it says “ under review” … UNDER review by WHO? I am leading the Microbiome Research clinically. Who else knows what Blautia or Roseburia does or what they are, or is it normal to have them? Please teach me... Here’s my advice; EDUCATE YOURSELF to stay alive. This is NOT about health… If it was... “discovering the loss of Bifidobacteria in severe covid patients would have hit mainstream media.” They would have pushed vitamins, exercise, and gut health for you to survive Covid. This is about control. This is about removing your freedom to speak and freedom to choose. Unite to fight for the truth. Stop the division. Your politician will not save you. @Progenabiome was created to empower you, to #letdrsbedrs, to #Savethebif. This is my life’s mission NOW!! The moment they interfered with my research, they woke me up, and I am a hurricane in research. #WATCHME #ROAR.. No Dr will innovate if this continues... No Dr will try a drug or a treatment if medicine continues to be political. We cannot afford to interfere with research because we all will be patients. Research needs to be pure and unbiased and we MUST be able to challenge the narrative.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker conducted a study on the effects of vaccines on the microbiome. They found that the bifidobacteria, an important microbe for immunity, decreased in patients after vaccination. This led them to suspect that the vaccine may be causing the loss of bifidobacteria. They also discovered that newborns born to vaccinated mothers had no bifidobacteria in their microbiome, which raised concerns about the spike protein in breast milk. The speaker connected this research to their work on autism, where a loss of bifidobacteria is common. They emphasized the importance of studying the microbiome in various diseases and published posters on the loss of bifidobacteria in Crohn's and Lyme patients. The speaker hopes for further research to prove their hypothesis.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I said, well, you know what? Since the agenda is the vaccine, let's look at what the vaccine's doing in the microbiome. And that's at the same time as they started rolling these vaccines, I started enrolling doctors that basically were getting And I'm like, can I get your stools before and after you get vaccinated? And sure enough, people would come to me and they're like, hey. I heard you're, like, You're testing the microbiome. I don't I wanna have my baseline because just in case I change, I wanna know what microbes I had before. So I'm like, yeah. Happy to do it. So, You know, this study, that was again something I undertook myself and paid for myself. We, by the way, we applied for grants and all that waste of time, waste of money. So I basically just dumped my money into this trial. So the first 4 patients I started noticing a month later, The bifidobacteria, this important microbe, is this is dropping in patients pre and post vaccination. So then I started, like, asking myself, Wait a minute. What's going on here? I mean, is it creating a bifidophage? You know, because this is precision medicine. This is forensics of the gut. Right? You've got your microbiome this way before and you've got it after and it's the same patient and only a certain group of microbes are Getting killed, you gotta pay attention. So then, you know, 10, 20, 30, 34 patients later, we're seeing this, you know, killing of the bifidobacteria. And so I wasn't gonna pop first of all, there's no way I was gonna publish because nobody would have taken that. So I decided to submit it to the American College of Gastro as a presentation, as a It got accepted at the American College of Gastro as a poster and then it won the best research award as a poster. So all my colleagues called me and said, hey. I saw your data. That's How do you think this is happening? What do you the vaccine's supposed to be, you know, improving your immunity. And We all know bifidobacteria is a huge part of immunity. How do you think it's happening? So then I said, I think it's creating teripage or bifidophage. And what we noticed is in 4 patients that we followed, which were amazing shape, You know, we followed them for, 90 days, and then next thing you know, their bifida Bacteria dropped to, like, 0, from, like, a1000000 to, like, 0. So it kept persisting. So there was a persistence in the damage and not only 90 days, but 6 months, 9 months later. So that was the thing that started Making me panic. And then as we were looking at the microbiome of newborns, to mothers who were breastfeeding, We started noticing that there's no bifidobacteria in those newborns. So we asked ourselves, well, I mean, because newborns are supposed to have Ton of Bifidobacteria. Right? 90% of the microbiome of babies is Bifidobacteria. So we said, well, How come these babies born to moms that are breastfeeding that were vaccinated have 0 Bifidobacteria? Is the Spike protein going to the breast milk, into the baby's gut and killing whatever the baby is trying to build. And so because I was doing work on Autism. And I noticed, you know, one of the commonality and common findings of autistic children is that loss of Bifidobacteria. I said to myself, maybe that's how it happens. Right? Maybe you're killing off your Bifidobacteria and then 2 years down the road, you just Your kid stops talking. So this whole, you know, it was serendipitous, really. I mean, this whole discovery because, you know, understanding Understanding what the microbiome looks like in Alzheimer's, in old people, in overweight patients, in Parkinson's, and, you know, and kids, Healthy kids, you know, kind of brought it all together for me. So I had a different vision than everybody else. I was looking at how to treat the virus knowing something nobody knew. And that was really you know, it was kind of epic. But at the same I'm I knew that, hey, you know, they can't prove me wrong. And if they are gonna prove me wrong, well, let's see why. But definitely, this needs to be looked at because the microbiome has such an importance in neurological problems, in cancer, so in Crohn's, in Lyme. So, you know, we just published, 2 posters that were presented at the same college at, where basically loss of bifidobacteria was noted in Crohn's patients and in Lyme patients. So bifidobacteria has a big role in disease, in my opinion, and so we have to pay attention to what's killing it. Speaker 1: So I mean, your hypothesis right now is that that it's the spike, whether the spike is coming from the virus or whether it's coming from the Vaccine. But this is actually causing this. It's it's killing the bifidobacteria, which is creating a problem. Correct. And this is what you're hoping, you know, some serious research is done around. Speaker 0: Yeah. So and I and we are doing something to try to prove that. So it's coming along. You know, obviously, this is research and it's slow developing. Research is now fast. You know, it's one thing Proves another, proves another and opens the door to another. You know, I'll I'll give you an an example of of research during this pandemic. You know, One of the things that I did myself was kill my bifidobacteria because I wanted to see, well, what increases the bifidobacteria. Right? So I was the guinea pig. I was the guinea pig the whole pandemic. And, you know, first to see, you know, if I'm exposed to it, etcetera. And it it basically, what I realized, one of the things I was drinking a Ton of kefir, and my Bifido is not increasing. I'm taking my I'm not really good at taking my vitamins, right, because I'm Stressed and I'm busy and I I'm not a pill taker. But essentially, I kinda like let it die. And, I I Started testing my kefir, and I I looked because we passed it through the machine, and we noticed that the the kefir didn't have bacteria in there, even though it says Bifidobacteria. So I went to Whole Foods in Ralf. This is research because here I am, like, I've just killed my bifida. I'm trying to boost it. Why isn't it increasing? So, of course, it opens a new research. And I went to RALS And and the Whole Foods picked up all the products that said bifidobacteria in the back, and we took 23 products. One of them was a $27 Tonic water that had bifidobacteria in there. So I said, well, this gotta be bifidobecause $27. I mean, come on. Anyway, so we we shook them, we took the sample, only 3 of them. Speaker 1: Actually had bifidobacteria. Speaker 0: Unbelievable. So what and and so you become an aware customer. Right? So this is what research is all about. Research is about, You know, let me why isn't this happening? Why isn't it let me figure out why this is not happening. And, of course, my kefir didn't have bifidobacteria. How am I gonna increase my Bifido if it doesn't have Bifido? Right? So then I started doing my own stuff, like, you know, the fermented foods and all the stuff that I know how to do. And basically, I happy to say I'm back to my normal bifidobacteria. But, you know, this is this is what research is about. It's finding one thing and then opening up a new science, a new research to kind of discover and so that was
SabinehazanMD
Posted - September 30, 2023 at 2:34 PM
Saved - October 1, 2023 at 4:04 AM

@SabinehazanMD - sabine hazan md

Watch my post HongKong study just validated my data in a round about way…

View Full Interactive Feed