Loading summary
Transcript80 lines
- [00:00]
A
The medical world says, hey, they tried Ivermectin. It's really not good. It doesn't work. Let's move on. Conspiracy theorist. The American Society of Clinical Oncology released a statement recently saying oncologists should proactively ask cancer patients about Ivermectin. And then they should tell them that there is no clinical evidence that it should be used outside of clinical trials. Now, if you read this, you will note it does not claim that they did clinical trials. And then it doesn't work. They're just saying, we don't think it does does, and then look into whether or not your cancer patients are using it. So are they not gonna look into it? When they say they're looking into studies, what do they mean? Dr. Mary Boden is the author of Dangerous Misinformation, the Virus, the Treatment and the Lies. She was one of the first people to successfully treat COVID patients with ivermectin during the pandemic. So I wanna talk to her not just about this statement, but about the overall history where we are now. Because we could not say ivermectin on YouTube during the pandemic, we avoided it because of YouTube's terms of service that expressly forbid videos that suggested that it could be used to treat Covid. Now, YouTube's guidelines have since changed, but they still say that we can't have content that contradicts authority guidance on the prevention, transmission, diagnosis or treatment of certain conditions in a way that would pose a risk. So, so I will say that still the three letter agencies, the fda, the who, the cdc, advise that ivermectin should only be used for anti parasitic indications. They still do not really recommend it. They continue to cite insufficient evidence. So, okay, that's the disclaimer. That's what we're supposed to say according to the laws of censorship. Now we can talk to Dr. Bowden, who has used it to great success. What do you make of this statement, first of all? And then we'll sort of back up and talk about Ivermectin.
- [02:03]
B
Well, I do want to mention something about the FDA and YouTube and clearly YouTube doesn't know about our lawsuit against the FDA because the FDA is not allowed to tell patients and they're not allowed to tell physicians how to use medications. So their, their job is to approve the medications, they give indications for the medications. But there is absolutely nothing prohibiting doctors from using medications that are outside of the FDA indicated uses. And there is nothing prohibiting patients from taking medications that are outside the FDA indicated uses. So for YouTube to say that if the FDA doesn't approve it for this indication, you cannot talk about it. Well, YouTube is completely misinformed on the.
- [02:51]
A
On the law.
- [02:53]
B
And we actually took the FDA to court over this because they launched this smear campaign against ivermectin. It was August 2021. They put out the infamous horse tweet. It was the attractive health care woman nuzzling the horse. And it said, seriously, y', all, you're not a horse, you're not a cow. Stop it. And then they also put information on their website concerning when you can take Ivermectin and when you can't. And they're not allowed to do that. We sued them. We won. We put them back in their lane. They had to take down their misinformation and remove all that propaganda against Ivermectin. In terms of this cancer statement, I mean, it's the same playbook as what happened with Ivermectin. And they basically don't want patients trying something off label to use for cancer. And what I would say is ivermectin is incredibly safe. I treated over 6,000 COVID patients during the pandemic. About two thirds of those patients, I used Ivermectin. I quickly became an expert on the safety of Ivermectin. I never saw anything serious with Ivermectin. Every once in a while, you'd have maybe stomach upset or maybe mild blurry vision, but it was never enough where somebody had to go to the emergency room or call poison control. I honestly have far more problems with antibiotics in terms of side effects. So, you know, if patients are using this experimentally, doctors are prescribing it off label. Yeah, it's not going to harm people to try it, for the most part. You know, maybe if they have liver failure or, you know, there's some extenuating circumstances, but for the vast majority of patients, it's incredibly safe.
- [04:37]
A
Now, you said something that gives me pause. You said the FDA is not allowed to tell doctors how to use medications. But we saw during the pandemic that there were certain authoritative groups that decided they wanted to set in stone only approved protocols, and it kind of became effective. Do you worry that we're moving towards that world where there's only XYZ choices to treat things and that anyone who steps outside of the box would continue to be punished?
- [05:10]
B
Right, because the vast majority of the public doesn't realize what the limitations are on the government and what they're allowed to do. And it's so hard to sue and fight back. I mean, it's really hard to sue the government and win because they have something called sovereign immunity. So the fact that we were able to was really shocking. And we had to do it on appeal. And it's an enormous amount of time and money to do that. So they can get away with a lot because people are not willing to stand up to it. And yes, it became normalized during the pandemic. We had the government, we had people in the bureaucracy dictating how to treat COVID patients. We see all these things with Fauci's diary and they're leading the protocols for the entire country without even treating COVID patients. With no firsthand experience treating COVID patients.
- [06:03]
A
Okay, that's outrageous. Now, I haven't fully dug into Fauci's diary. Let's talk about. Does he say he wants to suppress information that may nullify his authority?
- [06:15]
B
Well, what you see is he really is anti hydroxychloroquine. It was like a knee jerk response without any kind of curiosity or scientific inquiry into whether it works. It was basically, it's not going to work and so we're not going to use it. And it's a little. His diary is very fluffy. Like, you get the sense that he's flying by the seat of his pants. And it's not very scientifically. His decisions are not very scientifically driven. Now granted, it's a diary and I get the sense that he just at the end of every day, speaks into a microphone about what happened in terms of events and doesn't really probably show a lot that of what's the true picture. But you do get the sense that he has got his agenda and he's sort of willfully blind to other options.
- [07:08]
A
Well, from the cursory look that I've taken, if he was legitimately concerned about something like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, that would have been something that was top of. He would have raised the alarm. Well, how do I stop this here is exactly why. You know, it. It doesn't read like that. Like, oh, no, it's like this is. We gotta, you know, he doesn't even mention.
- [07:35]
B
He does not even mention ivermectin in the entire diary. Which means it must not be that dangerous. Right. Because didn't even make. Wasn't even worthy of a mention.
- [07:45]
A
Yeah. One thing I'll just share with you as a, as a mom, you know, sometimes when the pandemic comes up and I make A mad face. People who I suspect are more liberal leaning will say, well, you know about pandemic lockdowns or vaccine mandates, we just didn't know any better. And then I go crazy bananas. Because it's clear from reading your book, from reading the story of Pierre Corey and Dr. McCullough, that there was a lot of things that people did know better and that was actively suppressed. And so you can't have it both ways. We didn't know better, but we couldn't try these hypothetical things because we didn't know better. That's bonkers. That's crazy. So do you want to respond to that? Because it just makes me so angry.
- [08:34]
B
Yeah, I mean, when I start, when I had my first COVID patients coming in, I hadn't done a lot of research. I remember when it came on the news thinking, well, this won't be my problem. This will be in hospitals. I had this quiet little ear, nose and throat practice and I just thought, well. And so when they came in, I just used common sense, you know, from my training, that if you treat somebody, if a patient has a severe cough and they're not getting better, which is, you know, over the counter medications and you cover them for secondary infection with antibiotics. And I like Z packs because they're anti inflammatory. So even if you do have a viral infection, Z packs can help with the inflammation. I will do breathing treatments for patients that have a severe cough that's not going away using steroids. I mean, these were just basic things that I was already doing that I started using. And then, you know, hydroxychloroquine. I actually personally took that when I got Covid and my symptoms went away so quickly. And that gave me the confidence to start trying it on patients. And I already knew about the safety profile and what to watch for and that sort of thing. It was a lot of trial and error at the beginning, but then it became very routine. I mean, it became very easy and I knew exactly what to do. I mean, when you treat over 6,000 COVID patients, it just becomes very almost mundane. So it really wasn't that difficult. I wasn't some Nobel prize scientist. It was very basic and it was just having an open mind. And then there's so much information, you know, hard data available on the Internet to prove, you know, to prove that ivermectin is safe. I went to the FDA's own website to find their toxicity data because they had to go to the FDA to get it approved. And there's, you know, it's A little hard to find, but you can find it on the FDA's website. I did a literature search, and I checked for accidental or intentional overdose from Ivermectin, because if you do that search for Tylenol, you'll find thousands of studies. I couldn't find a single study showing that anybody had committed suicide using Ivermectin or accidentally died. I mean, it didn't take much. It just took a little bit of effort and open mind.
- [11:00]
A
Right. And so just quickly circling back to this cancer statement, you know, why are they saying that physicians should be actively asking their patients about whether they're using this? Is it like a. This. This seems a little big brother.
- [11:17]
B
They're all using it, I'm telling you. Well, all the patients I know that have cancer are just using it, but not. They're not telling their oncologists, because what happens is their oncologists will scold them or fire them, or so patients are taking it without telling their doctors for fear that what will happen, you know, will my. Will my doctor fire me if they know I'm taking it, or will they treat me differently? Especially the patients with more advanced cancer, where you want to throw the kitchen sink at it. I think that's what prompted this. But I don't do cancer patients in my clinic. But the few that have come through, I just haven't. They're taking very high doses of Ivermectin, and I have not seen it affect them in a negative way so far.
- [12:18]
A
Okay, but the. The, like, tattletale nature of this. It's. It's suggesting that doctors are upset that patients are looking for something outside of the box that they're not already getting. And then let's just make sure we shut that down. And that's what piques my curiosity about this statement, is this, like, what could happen to them, you know, eventually? Like, they could lose access to it. They could be punished. You know, that that's the kind of dystopian society that we could eventually live in.
- [12:58]
B
Right. Well, I'll say, from the oncologist perspective, if you are running a clinical trial, you've got to have, like, very stringent control over what's going inside the patient's body. If you're in a clinical trial, the patient's secretly taking ivermectin, is that going to skew the results? That's one reason which is justified, I think. I think a lot of these oncologists haven't done their research on the safety of ivermectin. The oncologists don't get paid for ivermectin, but the oncologists do get paid for chemotherapy. There's a reverse revenue incentive here. And then Ivermectin was branded during the pandemic, right? It's branded as a quack alternative horse dewormer medication. And in my opinion, the FDA needs to come out and issue a statement to correct the record, to educate the public just that it's not just a horse dewormer and it won a Nobel Prize in medicine and it's been given to billions of people in the world very safely. And I also think they should just make it over the counter.
- [14:11]
A
We're going to pause the interview quickly and tell you about our show sponsors at upwork. Now. One of the biggest lessons we've learned building multiple businesses is you don't have to do everything yourself. The smartest companies aren't working harder. They're getting the right people involved at the right time. And that's where upwork comes in. When we have been using upwork for over a decade in our businesses and we cannot live without them. They are a one stop platform where you can find, hire and pay expert freelancers across the web and across the world really to do whatever you need. Data marketing, business operations, software development, and more. So instead of spending weeks recruiting for a full time hire, you can quickly find specialized talent in more than 1002025 categories to help launch projects, fill skill gaps or scale your businesses as needed. And again, you get expertise from around the world, not just whoever's in your town. You can browse profiles, review past work and even get help defining the role so that you hire with confidence and with business. Plus, you can Access the top 1% of talent on Upwork with an AI powered shortlisting system that matches you to the right freelancer in under six hours. They even handle the contracts and the payments all in one place, saving you extra work. So visit Upwork. Right now it's Upwork.com post your job for free. That's Upwork.com to connect with top talent again up W o r k upwork.com we also want to tell you about web root because back to school season isn't just about getting the kids ready. It's also when we all get back into routines and and spend more time online. So whether you're helping with homework, paying bills, or just trying to keep everyone's devices running smoothly, it's a good time to think about making sure you're protected. Now I Thought about this the other day because I always update my software to make sure that I have all the vulnerabilities patched, but I don't necessarily check the kids devices. Yikes. That's why I like Webroot. In fact, they're based in Colorado, like us, since 1997, and they offer flexible protection for individuals and families to make sure that your whole repertoire of devices in your house is protected against ransomware, malware, suspicious links, other online threats. They have features like a password manager, firewall system optimizer, makes life every day safer and easier, and it quietly works in the background so it doesn't slow down your device. And it takes up 33 times less space than competitors, scans 6 times faster and installs 6.7 times faster. So you're not sacrificing the performance of your devices just to stay protected. Check them out for yourself. If you go to webroot.com redacted, you can get 60% off today. One more time. That's webroot.com redacted for 60% off. Live a better and a safer digital life with Rubroot, because peace of mind shouldn't be optional. So what they're not saying in this statement is that there has been clinical trials and that they're going to do it or they're going to look into it. It's very much like we don't have high data. Not, we're curious, we're going to do that later or wait, or anything like that. Is there any effort by the medical industry to actually run trials on Ivermectin for something serious like cancer?
- [17:41]
B
Well, it's not financially lucrative, so they'll never do that, in my opinion, because it's cheap, it's, it's off patent. There's it. And it costs tens to 100 millions of dollars to run a clinical trial. So it's a, it's a huge endeavor. If it's not, if there's no financial payoff at the end of it, you're not going to run it. And the vast majority, 70% of clinical research, is done by pharmaceutical companies because it's so expensive.
- [18:12]
A
Right. But in the 1980s, Merck did commit to studying Ivermectin for as long as it takes. What happened to that, do you think? Do you have a theory?
- [18:23]
B
I honestly don't know. I'm not even familiar with. With that.
- [18:27]
A
Okay, all right. But it was used in Peru during the entire pandemic. And so why do you think that that was allowed there when there was so Much consistency in vaccine rollout.
- [18:45]
B
Yeah, I don't know the specifics of what the culture is like in Peru. I know in Africa, in India, they use Ivermectin routinely anyway in their population. So I think it's not as voodoo. It's not something that's considered as, you know, odd or not mainstream in those countries. And perh. That's probably the case in Peru as well, is my thinking.
- [19:11]
A
Okay, now you mentioned that it's not profitable. It's because according to my research, it's something called off patent, meaning that manufacturers don't have the marketing rights and so competitors can make cheaper versions. Why didn't, why do you think could. They was like, did the opportunity close for them to make profit on this and then so that's why they're not interested. Is that what you think?
- [19:37]
B
Yeah, I mean, I think that's the case. Yeah. That's why they keep coming up with new drugs is because it's, it's profitable. I mean they could, they could reformulate it maybe, or add another drug to it and, and make it lucrative, I guess. But I don't know, it's become probably the most controversial drug we've ever seen. And so it's probably one of those things where they don't want to touch it anyway. Even if, even if they could figure out how to make money off of
- [20:06]
A
it because they would have egg on their face.
- [20:10]
B
Right. It's just. Yeah, it's like you're instantly discredited if you, if you support Ivermectin.
- [20:19]
A
Right. But if you look in the history of it, it was found initially in soil samples in Japan and that became the precursor for what we have now. It was in fact researched initially for humans and animals. How did you become aware of it so fast?
- [20:38]
B
Actually, it was not through another doctor. It was my brother in law. He emailed me and he was talking about it and he had heard it from his sister who lives in Australia. And Thomas Barodi was a scientist in Australia who was, I believe he was the first one to start talking about Ivermectin. And I actually kind of poo pooed it because I thought, well, it's my brother in law, he's not a doctor. I would be hearing about this from other doctors if it were something legit. And I kind of put it on the back burner. And I didn't really start using it until monoclonal antibodies ran out. So I was using monoclonal antibodies. They weren't controversial. I had planned plenty of supply I could get as much as I wanted. And then the government took over distribution, and they became harder and harder to get, and then the government completely shut them down. And that's when I started using Ivermectin, because I still had sick people coming to me. And I was sort of a skeptic about it, actually. But then once I started using it, I saw it was working.
- [21:37]
A
And so the government took control of the supply chain of monoclonal antibodies. I don't think I knew that.
- [21:45]
B
Yeah, initially we would go through. We would just basically order it directly from the manufacturer. Actually, the government paid for them, too. And it was very easy. We would get as many. We just say, okay, we want 100 doses, and we'd have it at our clinic in a day or two. It was great. Then I think what happened is they were. Apparently, the southern states were demanding more of the monoclonal antibodies, and there was an inequal distribution across the country. And so the government took over, and then they started limiting how much you could get. I think it was also they were motivated because they wanted more people to get the vaccine, because if people knew that there was a great treatment out there, they were less likely to get the vaccine. And basically, the shutdown of monoclonal antibodies coincided with the mandate of the COVID vaccine. It was all in the fall of 2021.
- [22:44]
A
Okay. Did you get an official explanation, or it just was.
- [22:49]
B
No, I.
- [22:50]
A
Okay.
- [22:50]
B
I remember feeling very frustrated. I was constantly texting my nurses, where are the monoclonal antibodies? I was emailing the people, like, what is going on? And it was not very clear.
- [23:02]
A
Okay. And so then instead of, how did you know not to just say, well, just get the vaccine and we'll just. Because you still had sick patients, no matter what.
- [23:12]
B
Well, I was testing, and I was seeing that the vaccine wasn't working because I was tracking people based on their vaccine. I would say, oh, okay, this is. How many people who tested positive. Were they vaccinated or not? And what I found was the vaccinated outnumbered the unvaccinated and were just as sick, if not sicker. And so I just saw it wasn't working. And initially, I didn't see severe side effects, but, I mean, then I started seeing all the severe side effects. And I still see people with severe side effects even to this day.
- [23:42]
A
Right. Because again, when you say it was not working to stop transmission, it was never tested for that. It was not tested whether or not it would stop transmission. It was only tested on how severe the COVID would be if you got it. And that was obscured by the government and the media narrative. And so you then decided to move on to Ivermectin. And you at that time could get it though through medical prescriptions. Right. You weren't going to any feed store or anything like that when you were using it?
- [24:18]
B
No. I mean, but it was hard. It was still very hard to get. I mean, I couldn't get a. I couldn't send a prescription to Walgreens or CVS or any grocery store. We could only send them to compounding pharmacies. And we sort of, we created a list of safe pharmacies where we could send the medication. It wasn't covered by insurance. It was way more expensive than it should have been. We couldn't get it on weekends because most of these compounding pharmacies were independent pharmacies that had sort of nine to five weekday business hours. I had, for the first time ever, I had people coming to me just stocking up on medications because they knew that they wouldn't be able to access them quickly if they got sick. I've never seen that before as a doctor in America. Right. You have to stockpile your medications because you're not going to be able to get them in time.
- [25:11]
A
Right. I mean, that's something I've been thinking about a lot because, you know, we continue to escalate a war with Iran and the supply chain for everything will be slowed down. The ingredients for things, the packaging for things, everything. And so that's something that I've continued to think about as we just face political uncertainty. And unfortunately, that's a necessary mindset right now. I don't want to ask you about the war, but what do you think of that now as a tactic?
- [25:48]
B
Yeah. I mean, the pandemic taught me that we do in terms of medical care just being prepared, like for patients that are higher risk, I tell them to get a nebulizer and have that in their house because that was another thing that was difficult to get during the pandemic. And people were. If people were able to do breathing treatments in their home, that was wonderful in helping prevent them from having to go to the emergency room or end up in the hospital. But it became hard to get those machines. So that's a example where I'm still. And I actually, I have high risk patients get their flu medication in advance. So there's a single dose flu pill called Zofluza which is, I think it's actually pretty effective. It's better than Tamiflu. I Haven't seen any serious side effects. You just take one pill. And vast majority of people I've seen have responded very well to that. So I tell people, you know, get that medication now before flu season, because oftentimes when the flu hits, it's really hard to get that medication. And, you know, by time you get it, it's too late or, you know, you're just. It hasn't done any good.
- [26:59]
A
Right.
- [27:00]
B
The pandemic has changed my advice to people in terms of getting more prepared.
- [27:06]
A
Yeah. Now, you were punished by the Texas Medical Board for giving a patient Ivermectin. You had to get. Was it a court order to do it, and then a court was trying to stop you. You had already done it. Can you tell that story?
- [27:22]
B
Yeah, he never got the Ivermectin. So he never did.
- [27:25]
A
Okay, never did.
- [27:26]
B
And he died. But he was a sheriff's deputy, father of six, otherwise healthy. Tried to get Ivermectin before going to the hospital. Couldn't get it. Ended up on a ventilator for a month. And at that point, the hospital was discussing hospice. And this is Texas Hughley Hospital in Fort Worth. His wife wanted him to have the opportunity to try Ivermectin because even in those late stages, they saw that patients were getting better on Ivermectin who were in the hospital. Hospital refused, and so she sued them, and she asked me to testify. When I testified, they reported me to medical board just based on my court testimony. And I'm actually suing them over that because that is very protected free speech in court. Anyway, they also then reported me. Well, the medical board would not let. Basically, the medical board went on a fishing expedition after that, and I had a court order. We won the lawsuit. The court ordered the hospital to grant me emergency temporary privileges so I could give him Ivermectin. The hospital appealed. There was a stay on the order that we were not aware of. But my lawyer told me that we had the green light that everything was good to go. Not knowing about the stay on the order. The medical board has established that we did not know about the stay when I sent the nurse to the hospital. But they said that even so, I'm guilty because the hospital never officially granted me privileges. I had submitted two full applications, and my lawyer had talked to their lawyer, and everything was supposedly good to go. So I've been fighting for five years to clear my name. They issued me a public reprimand, which is online and on my record, if you go search my license. And, yeah, I will still be able to practice medicine, but it just. I'm fighting on principle, and it's just emblematic of the tyranny that we were going through. And it sets a bad precedent. If I lose this, basically my options were defy the court order or obey the court order. Defy the court order and obey the hospital or obey the court order. And I chose to obey the court order. But if I lose this, it means that, okay, the hospital has more say than the court. So that's what. And it's, you know, right now we're in the appeal stage.
- [29:58]
A
But the picture that they're trying to paint of you is that you're this witch doctor who's insisting on getting to the hospital to give this guy a crazy medication. That's what they need out in the narrative. It's not clear when you read up on this that you were asked to come in by the patient's family. It's terrifying because several reasons. One is the painting of you. Yes. But then also as a patient, could we not say, hey, I want to try this? And the hospital can just say, absolutely not. Like, I've been reading up against about intravenous vitamin C recently, and I'm scared that you could go to a doctor or hospital because you're sick and they'll say, no, we're not going to do that. And so can you respond to, I guess, those two different things?
- [30:53]
B
Yeah, I mean, we saw during the pandemic that you basically sign your rights away when you go to the hospital, and if you want to get a second opinion, you're pretty much stuck. I would like to see legislation where hospitals are required to allow patients to bring in an outside physician as long as their license is in good standing. A patient should be allowed to bring in a doctor for a second opinion. Because you could end up in some hospital, and if your doctor doesn't have privileges, you're out of luck. That would solve a lot of problems. Give some autonomy back to patients so that they're not just beholden to whatever this doctor that they don't know in their hospital is saying.
- [31:38]
A
Yeah, that's terrifying that you. I mean, it's just the luck of the draw. And you can get someone who's just absolutely. Nope, I read it in cnn. I'm going this way only. And that. That is the world we lived in because some people were intubated so soon or put on ventilators so soon that could have precipitated their worse outcomes. You know, so. Yeah, is there any legislation like that in the works. Has anybody thought of that, what you just said?
- [32:10]
B
I have thrown that out there. I'm now a precinct chair in Texas, and I'm trying to push that to, you know, get it to the attention of the legislators. But, no, not to my knowledge.
- [32:24]
A
Yeah, not even in Florida, where, you know, you have a bit more medical rights. That's crazy. And so, yeah, if we could just circle back to this, because now Attorney General Ken Paxton has said that he will support you in your constitutional rights in this case. So does that help at all? Is there something the AG can do, maybe even. I mean, this is not up to you, but he could sue the Texas medical board, possibly. Any thoughts on that?
- [32:53]
B
Yeah, so that is being contested by the medical board. So basically, it got to the stage where it got to the state district court. It was in the administrative courts, where Ken Paxton had no jurisdiction. So now it's in the state district court. And at that point, normally, Ken Paxton would represent the medical board, but he refused, and he said, no, I'm not representing the board, and listed all the reasons why. Now the board has filed a motion to force him to represent them. And so we're waiting on the judge's decision on that.
- [33:29]
A
Okay. All right. Well, that's incredibly stressful, though. I understand why you would need to fight this on principle, not just for yourself, but, again, because of the control of the narrative, because we don't know whether or not this patient would have survived the general knowledge about Ivermectin. I think most people, when you think of the person just that you meet in the grocery store, in the mall, knows that the government maligned Ivermectin. And now there has been some victory for people who used it or wanted to at least talk about it as a therapeutic. And so. But they don't know exactly where it stands now. There was no real apology. People were censored and punished, and those punishments, you know, like yours, are still standing. So what is. What is the general trajectory of that narrative? Can you talk about how, yes, it was maligned, but there's no mea culpa. There's no. There's no retribution for people like. And so the general public doesn't know its promise because we're not getting clinical trials.
- [34:42]
B
Right. I mean, ideally, the FDA would correct the record and make a statement. I would love to see that in terms of getting accountability for what they did to us over the situation. We actually are suing seven state medical boards and the Federation of State Medical Boards. It's myself and six other doctors over the censorship issue, over our right of free speech. And like I said, with that, the court situation where I testified in court, I was punished for my testimony in court. And I had two doctors on my lawsuit were lost their licenses over vaccine exemptions, one of them over writing an email newsletter to his patients, warning them about the COVID vaccine. So there are a lot of fights still going on behind the scenes in terms of making Ivermectin more accessible. Some states have made it available without a prescription. They've passed laws, but it's still a little bit difficult to get. It's still not being carried in cvs. But Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Idaho, and Tennessee have all made it so that you can go into a pharmacy and get Ivermectin from the pharmacist directly without having to have a prescription. So we're making progress on that. You know, I think. I think with these Fauci's hearing, we're going to see a resurgence, hopefully, in this interest in the pandemic, at least in our sphere. I think most of the Republicans have sort of moved on, unfortunately, but hopefully people start talking about it more.
- [36:33]
A
Yeah, it's a shame that it's politically tainted by what I think is the ruse of partisan politics, because it's not useful right now. Yeah. And so most of these attacks were ad hominem. Right. On the doctors, they didn't actually come to you and say, here's the science and why? What you. It would be like if I were saying, hey, you should eat your shoe in order to get better from certain ailments. You know, then somebody could come to me and say, here are the chemicals in shoes that you don't eat. Right. So they didn't do. And that's. I made that purposely crazy so that no one can accuse me of medical misinformation.
- [37:12]
B
Well, the pro. I mean, a lot of these complaints are. Well, none of them was a patient harmed from the complaints that were sent to these medical boards. It wasn't from patient harm at all. It was basically speak, you know, advice that mainstream medicine did not agree with. But, you know, we all, in medicine, you should be allowed to have different opinions. And that's sort of how you make scientific progress, is by arguing it out. But, you know, the other side will not argue with us. They won't. They just shut us down. Stonewall. There's. There's no debating. It's just, you're a quack. You're a misinformation spreader. End of story.
- [37:50]
A
Okay, we're going to pause one more time and tell you about our show sponsor, Lear. Now, have you ever looked at some of the biggest investment stories of the last few years and thought, I wish I'd gotten in on that earlier? Maybe it was AI, maybe it was Nvidia or SpaceX. It always seems like by the time everyone's talking about an opportunity, it's too late for you and all the big gains have already happened. But what if the next opportunity is not just a headline grabber, it's what's making the headlines possible. I'm talking about silver. Silver is a critical material used in the technology behind the AI revolution. It's found in all of your electronics and the data centers that power your electronics, advanced computing, robotics. It all depends on silver. That's why silver's prediction is still more than $150 per ounce. That's why I want you to get a free copy of Lear's report, the AI Revolution Solution. It explains why so many investors are taking a closer look at silver. Now our friends at Lear Capital can teach you to invest in silver and whatever asset class you'd like and however you're comfortable. And you can call them, call them at 800-613-3557 to get your free copy. And while you're on the phone, you can ask how you can qualify for up to $20,000 in bonus silver. Now, we bought some silver years ago. It has been an amazing investment for us. We continue to do so. So check it out. Learn this for yourself learedacted.com or call them 800-613-3557 or one more time you can get started learedacted.com in in my research, I found this metric that I'd never heard of called nnt. It's a measure of, you know what it is, but my audience probably doesn't of a therapeutics potency. So according to early studies, ivermectin's NNT was 2, meaning that for every two severely ill patients, one who would otherwise have died will have survived. And that's unprecedented. And so the things that they used that were approved, like Paxlovid or, you know, other therapeutics that were approved by the FDA didn't have a high NNT like that. It was not nearly as impressive. So they're not coming to you with the goods, right? They're just saying, we don't like this and we didn't approve it. They're not using actual data.
- [40:11]
B
Well, there are some studies and what they'll do is they'll cherry pick the studies. You know, just like anything in medicine, you're going to find a study to support using something or support a certain procedure or support a clinical protocol. And you'll find other studies that don't support it. There's never 100%, but you can cherry pick studies to say, oh, well, this study shows that it does work. And then somebody else in the debate will say, well, this study shows it doesn't. We had 105 studies about ivermectin and Covid and the vast majority of those showed a good benefit. And it varied in the degree of benefit.
- [40:55]
A
But they're not showing harm. They're cherry picking the ones that say no studies. And sometimes you can give it late or it can be, for instance, I found one on autoimmune disease where ivermectin was given with something else. So how the heck do you know what is useful, what's working there when it's given with another? So it's usually just, they're never saying it's dangerous. Right.
- [41:22]
B
And the problem is, I mean, it's messy and there's an art. And that's why clinical experience, I put more stock in clinical experience than any study. When you treat thousands of people with the same disease, you get a sense, okay, well this person, this person will do fine with just ivermectin. Well, this person's going to need ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and a Z pack or. Yeah, it's just, it's, yeah, it's rarely a one to one plus one equals two in medicine. And that's what they, if they can't find a one plus one equals two study, then they're just going to completely discount it. But there, you know, there are people that, a million people died in the US Supposedly from COVID And why not, you know, try things that are safe, especially when you have loads of doctors who are saying that it works.
- [42:15]
A
Right. And so where do you think we might be going next? Because if there is another pandemic and the media is continuously warning about bird flu or what the next thing is, you know, we can't preemptively say, well, there's this, or there's this, you know, or can we, can we talk about things like, like I had said intravenous vitamin C or, you know, monoclonal. What did you call them? Monoclonal antibodies. Is there a way to like boost our knowledge now for what we're not going to be allowed to know next time is That a crazy question.
- [42:57]
B
As long as Elon controls Twitter, there's hope or X. Right. Because I was knocked off of X for five months during the pandemic and I was very careful, like you were saying with Ivermectin. I would use little symbols in the middle of the word so it couldn't get picked up by, you know, the censorship bots. And I do worry about AI basically taking over and directing the protocol driven narrative. But I also think that I look at my kids and how they use AI and they were much more savvy about it than me. They can spot an AI picture immediately, whereas I'm often tricked and I'm wondering, okay, well, the next generation be able to circumvent AI in a better way because they're used to having to always figure out is this real or fake? I think for my generation it's harder. So.
- [43:56]
A
Right. And so I mean AI, of course I do a test experiment before an interview like this and ask about Ivermectin. And it's still very much get a hand slap for asking the question. But it can be used for anti inflammatory and antiviral purposes. I mean it does, it does admit that it has been used. And, and you know, there has been studies that, that it is effective in vitro. Which means like in a test tube setting. Right, right again. Zika, hiv, West Nile influenza and RNA viruses like Covid. I was able to push the AI to say that, but it will not come out of the gate and say that. So I wonder if the next generation can at least know to read between the lines and say, like when I was a teenager, you know, I wasn't lying to my mom, but you know, line by omission, and she would say, what are you not telling me?
- [45:01]
B
So will they learn? Right? That's true.
- [45:04]
A
Will they learn to say, what are you omitting here? Or is that, you know, something we can promote is realize what's not being said. Because I can see now, I've learned since the pandemic to read clinical trial press releases and they're never saying the drug works. They're saying, shown some promise. Right. So we need to learn.
- [45:28]
B
The first thing I look at now when I look at a study is who paid for the study? Right, right. And that's that then. And then I start reading and then I look, I use that as a lens through what I read. It is okay if it's, if it, if a drug company spot is sponsoring a study, they are, the study is significantly more likely to show the Drug works. And if it doesn't work, they're not going to publish the study, right?
- [45:57]
A
Yeah. Okay. So, you know, reading between the lines, the government, the media, I mean, given the way our politics is going, it would be very useful to have another pandemic. And so do you actually see rumblings of something or am I being paranoid?
- [46:18]
B
I don't know. They're always trying to rile up another pandemic. Right. The monkeypox and then bird flu and I don't know, I mean, actually, if they do try it again, I think people will be wiser and less willing to comply. So maybe it would be a good thing so that we can actually get some accountability for what happened.
- [46:43]
A
Right.
- [46:44]
B
Show them that we won't be rolled over next time.
- [46:48]
A
Right. You know, I spoke to Dr. Keller Victory a couple years ago and she had said, I think she's also in Texas. I'm not sure that bird flu, if it does mutate to become transmissible between humans, number one, that might suggest gain of function, but number two, hydroxychloroquine, when should be useful in treating that. So there, these things that they're floating across, you know, our bow hantavirus, you know, things like that, it will be hard to know, you know, what we already have available that could treat it, given the vaccine only narrative. So where do you think we should. I mean, X obviously is a great place, but where else would you suggest we stay connected in case this happens?
- [47:37]
B
Yeah, well, Independent Medical alliance is the offshoot of flccc, which FLCCC was the one that really provided guidance on how to use ivermectin for Covid. I leaned on them very heavily and now I'm part of the organization. But it strives to be very factual, objective, non biased, not influenced by big Pharma and not worried about censorship or. That would be a good resource for actual clinical information if there were to be another pandemic.
- [48:20]
A
Do you worry now that people just don't want to go to hospitals, don't trust doctors anymore, that that could have a negative outcome in general?
- [48:30]
B
Yes and no. I mean, I think it's. I think people need to be on alert when they go to the hospital, which is, you know, it's good and bad, unfortunately, they have to be, but at least now they're aware that they need to be. Meaning that you have somebody with you to keep track of what's going on. Meaning that you have everything set up in advance in terms of what you want done. So, and I think, you know, hopefully it motivates people to take care of their own health. I mean, the best thing you can do is just manage your weight, manage your stress, manage your sleep, exercise, do all the things you need to do. So it doesn't get to that point.
- [49:11]
A
Yeah. Well, it's been great to talk to you about this. I really appreciate you because you were one of the pioneers in this. And, you know, when you talk to. When I talk to you, you realize you are definitely not this crazy lady, you know, chasing people like, here, you need to take this. You just knew something and wanted to help. So, you know, I feel really bad for what you went through.
- [49:35]
B
Well, it was a. It was very meaningful. And it's. You know, it. It's been difficult at times, but it's. The challenge has been interesting, I guess, and I've learned so much.
- [49:51]
A
Do you feel vindicated?
- [49:55]
B
I used to. You know, I used to worry when I'd go to the grocery store, and I used to worry when I go to my kids sporting events, and now I don't feel that way at all. I. So yes and no. I mean, I still think there are people. I know there are people. I know there are people out there that think I'm crazy still, but I have also the flip side of a lot of support.
- [50:17]
A
Right. Yeah, I felt that, too, for, you know, just speaking out against things that didn't make sense. Vaccine mandates, lockdowns and things like that. And then you're labeled the crazy mom, you know, in the group. And people don't want, you know, oh, you're one of those. And it affects your kids. And. And that's really tough because, you know, you don't want your children to suffer for things that they can't completely defend, so. I get that. Yeah. All right. Well, again, the book is by a Dr. Mary Talley. Sorry. Dr. Mary Talley Bowden. And it's called Dangerous. The Virus, the treatment, and the lies. It's been my pleasure to talk to you today.
- [50:59]
B
Thank you so much.