Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:06.760]  The human body is truly amazing, and however amazing you may think it is, unless you've
[00:06.760 --> 00:11.360]  studied physiology, you cannot fully appreciate exactly how amazing it is.
[00:11.360 --> 00:15.680]  One of the things I've always found spectacular about the human body is that it has backup
[00:15.680 --> 00:16.680]  systems.
[00:16.680 --> 00:20.360]  In other words, if something suppresses the body from doing what it normally does by method
[00:20.360 --> 00:26.240]  A, oftentimes it has a method B that it can employ to get the job done.
[00:26.240 --> 00:29.240]  Something similar is also true in the pharmaceutical world.
[00:29.240 --> 00:34.200]  Two drugs using a different mechanism can accomplish the exact same task.
[00:34.200 --> 00:45.160]  Today we're going to look at Pfizer's new COVID treatment drug, Endivermectin.
[00:45.160 --> 00:56.600]  The Dr. Reality Vodcast with Dave Champion.
[00:56.600 --> 01:02.760]  On November 16, 2021, Pfizer officially submitted its paperwork to the FDA seeking emergency
[01:02.760 --> 01:09.360]  use authorization for its five-day regimen, its new pill that is supposed to reduce hospitalizations
[01:09.360 --> 01:11.720]  and death from COVID-19.
[01:11.720 --> 01:14.280]  Its name is Paxlovid.
[01:14.280 --> 01:20.240]  Pfizer claims that it has an 89% efficacy rate in reducing hospitalizations and deaths.
[01:20.240 --> 01:24.640]  Pfizer's made a lot of previous statements about efficacy when they were pitching their
[01:25.200 --> 01:28.000]  And then when it hit the streets, yeah, it was nowhere close to that.
[01:28.000 --> 01:32.640]  So if past performance tells us what's going to happen in the future with Paxlovid, once
[01:32.640 --> 01:37.200]  it hits the street, we can probably look for an efficacy level of about 50%.
[01:37.200 --> 01:43.520]  But this presentation is about several newer studies which cumulatively show that Ivermectin
[01:43.520 --> 01:48.920]  and Paxlovid accomplish the exact same thing, though each uses a different mechanism to
[01:48.920 --> 01:49.920]  get there.
[01:50.080 --> 01:54.640]  Before I get rolling, I want to thank and credit Dr. John Campbell for bringing this
[01:54.640 --> 01:56.080]  information to my attention.
[01:56.080 --> 02:00.160]  It was interesting in John's presentation, which is much lengthier than I'm going to
[02:00.160 --> 02:06.960]  be today, he begins with a disclaimer where he says, I'm paraphrasing his statement, I'm
[02:06.960 --> 02:11.840]  not saying that governments around the world and corporations have conspired to prevent
[02:11.840 --> 02:15.320]  people from taking Ivermectin and thus causing hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of
[02:15.320 --> 02:16.320]  deaths.
[02:16.320 --> 02:17.960]  I'm not saying that.
[02:17.960 --> 02:20.160]  That's his disclaimer.
[02:20.160 --> 02:24.240]  And my interpretation of why he says that at the outset of his presentation is because
[02:24.240 --> 02:30.040]  when you look at the evidence, it's hard to come to any other conclusion.
[02:30.040 --> 02:35.640]  To prevent a virus from causing illness, the key to that is to prevent viral replication.
[02:35.640 --> 02:40.280]  You're probably all aware of that after 22 months living with SARS-CoV-2.
[02:40.280 --> 02:45.440]  The current method to do that is to inhibit, to suppress the activity of an enzyme called
[02:46.040 --> 02:50.320]  which is specific to SARS-CoV-2.
[02:50.320 --> 02:56.160]  SARS-CoV-2 uses that enzyme to take long strings of amino acids, which we typically call protein
[02:56.160 --> 03:00.560]  but more scientifically they're strings of amino acids, and cleave them into the shorter
[03:00.560 --> 03:06.960]  components, the shorter strings of amino acids that the SARS-CoV-2 virus needs to construct
[03:06.960 --> 03:07.960]  more of itself.
[03:07.960 --> 03:09.420]  In other words, to replicate.
[03:09.420 --> 03:15.620]  If you take away from the SARS-CoV-2 virus the tool that it uses to cleave those long
[03:15.620 --> 03:21.460]  amino acid strings and make them into short amino acid strings, it cannot replicate.
[03:21.460 --> 03:26.120]  Maxilovit, Pfizer's new COVID treatment drug, does exactly that.
[03:26.120 --> 03:28.660]  It inhibits the Cl3 protease enzyme.
[03:28.660 --> 03:31.820]  If you'd like to read about that, the link is down in the notes.
[03:31.820 --> 03:36.000]  By the way, all these studies that John referenced, I think there are seven or eight of them,
[03:36.000 --> 03:39.340]  the links to all of them are in the notes.
[03:39.340 --> 03:44.500]  What I'm going to say next is the purpose of this presentation.
[03:44.500 --> 03:50.960]  Ivermectin also inhibits Cl3 protease, significantly with great efficacy.
[03:50.960 --> 03:56.100]  It does it with high specificity and a strong disassociation constant.
[03:56.100 --> 03:57.740]  These are pharmacological terms.
[03:57.740 --> 04:03.740]  In other words, Ivermectin is highly safe and efficacious against SARS-CoV-2.
[04:04.540 --> 04:11.380]  What is the difference between Paxilovit, Pfizer's new COVID treatment drug, and Ivermectin?
[04:11.380 --> 04:18.740]  With Paxilovit, Pfizer's laboratory researchers created a brand new molecule that inhibits
[04:18.740 --> 04:20.100]  Cl3 protease.
[04:20.100 --> 04:27.420]  That brand new molecule is what has allowed Pfizer to patent Paxilovit to do essentially
[04:27.420 --> 04:31.740]  at the end, it doesn't get there by the same mechanism, but essentially at the end to produce
[04:31.740 --> 04:36.540]  the same outcome as Ivermectin, which does it, of course, for pennies.
[04:36.540 --> 04:40.020]  The information about Pfizer and the creation of the molecule is again in the link down
[04:40.020 --> 04:45.340]  in the notes, as is the studies that detail Ivermectin specificity and disassociation
[04:45.340 --> 04:46.340]  constant.
[04:46.340 --> 04:50.820]  In light of the fact that the establishment is just incredibly stoked about Pfizer's
[04:50.820 --> 04:58.620]  new drug that's going to inhibit Cl3 protease, why virtually all Western nations condemned
[04:58.620 --> 05:02.860]  Ivermectin in addressing SARS-CoV-2 or treating COVID-19?
[05:02.860 --> 05:04.460]  Well there are two reasons for that.
[05:04.460 --> 05:10.380]  First, under U.S. law, the Federal Food and Drug Administration is barred from granting
[05:10.380 --> 05:16.460]  emergency use authorization to any vaccine if there is in existence at that time an effective
[05:16.460 --> 05:23.020]  treatment for the disease that the virus causes that the vaccine is intended to address.
[05:23.020 --> 05:27.560]  In other words, if the FDA, if the United States government had acknowledged the efficacy
[05:27.560 --> 05:34.600]  of Ivermectin, that it was a valid, useful, effective, life-saving treatment against SARS-CoV-2
[05:34.600 --> 05:40.600]  and COVID-19, then the FDA would have been legally prohibited from granting any of the
[05:40.600 --> 05:44.440]  vaccine manufacturers emergency use authorization for their vaccines.
[05:44.440 --> 05:47.640]  And last estimate a couple weeks ago when I looked at this subject and I shared it with
[05:47.640 --> 05:52.620]  you here, that would have prevented a number of the pharmaceutical companies cumulatively
[05:52.620 --> 05:59.880]  from making during 2021, $61 billion.
[05:59.880 --> 06:02.800]  But not to worry, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the money.
[06:02.800 --> 06:07.920]  If you're curious why the FDA would be looking after the financial interests of big pharma
[06:07.920 --> 06:13.320]  to the tune of $61 billion and ignoring the interests of you and I that could use something
[06:13.320 --> 06:19.360]  like Ivermectin for just pennies, do yourself a favor and look up a term called regulatory
[06:19.360 --> 06:21.320]  capture.
[06:21.320 --> 06:26.560]  One more word about Paxilovid, it is not to be taken alone, it is to be taken in conjunction
[06:26.560 --> 06:31.900]  with Retonavir, a drug that's been on the market for decades and let me give you a brief
[06:31.900 --> 06:34.360]  explanation for why that is.
[06:34.360 --> 06:39.440]  At the dosage that Paxilovid is going to be prescribed, a natural physiological response
[06:39.440 --> 06:46.620]  in the body will be to create an enzyme to activate an enzyme that will inhibit Paxilovid
[06:46.620 --> 06:50.820]  from inhibiting Cl3 protease.
[06:50.820 --> 06:57.780]  But what Retonavir does, Retonavir inhibits that natural enzyme reaction of our bodies
[06:57.780 --> 07:04.100]  that would then inhibit the action of Paxilovid so that you can take less Paxilovid.
[07:04.100 --> 07:10.100]  But the bottom line of all this is that you have to take two or pay for two prescription
[07:10.100 --> 07:15.480]  drugs in order to get the benefit from the Pfizer COVID treatment pill, which might beg
[07:15.480 --> 07:21.920]  the question, what do you have to take along with ivermectin to inhibit Cl3 protease?
[07:21.920 --> 07:25.040]  Oh, right, nothing.
[07:25.040 --> 07:30.500]  You just have to take one thing that costs pennies.
[07:30.500 --> 07:34.100]  Let's switch gears and talk about Merck, the company that had the patent on ivermectin
[07:34.100 --> 07:36.140]  during the 20th century.
[07:36.140 --> 07:43.060]  During 2020, a number of research institutions in poorer countries reached out to Merck because
[07:43.060 --> 07:47.580]  of Merck's association with ivermectin, reached out to Merck and asked Merck to participate
[07:47.580 --> 07:54.180]  with them in studies to show that ivermectin was effective against SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.
[07:54.180 --> 07:58.420]  Merck declined to help any of those poorer countries.
[07:58.420 --> 08:04.140]  On February 4th, 2021, Merck issued an official statement concerning its position on ivermectin
[08:04.140 --> 08:11.260]  and SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, in which it stated, quote, there was no scientific basis for a
[08:11.260 --> 08:18.380]  potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from preclinical studies, no meaningful evidence
[08:18.380 --> 08:24.540]  for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, a concerning
[08:24.540 --> 08:29.340]  lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
[08:29.340 --> 08:32.100]  And all of those statements are false.
[08:32.100 --> 08:37.660]  Dr. Pierre Corrie, one of the world's experts on ivermectin, responded with this, quote,
[08:38.220 --> 08:42.980]  I need to call attention to how disturbed I am at Merck's actions on February 4th when
[08:42.980 --> 08:47.500]  they issued a statement that there was no evidence to support the efficacy of ivermectin.
[08:47.500 --> 08:54.100]  They even called into question the safety of the safest drug known in history.
[08:54.100 --> 08:59.900]  That statement was a lie, and it's hurting patients, and it's caused an incalculable
[08:59.900 --> 09:02.980]  loss of life, close quote.
[09:02.980 --> 09:07.860]  By the time Merck made that statement, there were quite a number of observational studies
[09:07.860 --> 09:11.420]  that had been completed concerning the efficacy of ivermectin.
[09:11.420 --> 09:14.980]  Now, let me explain observational studies.
[09:14.980 --> 09:16.900]  Observational studies are very, very simple.
[09:16.900 --> 09:21.500]  I'll start with the old humorous line where you tell the doctor, doctor, it hurts when
[09:21.500 --> 09:24.180]  I do this, and the doctor says, don't do that.
[09:24.180 --> 09:27.040]  So if you don't do that, it won't hurt.
[09:27.040 --> 09:28.440]  That's a linear equation.
[09:28.440 --> 09:31.900]  Stop doing that, and you'll stop having the pain.
[09:31.900 --> 09:34.500]  Observational studies work in a very similar manner.
[09:34.500 --> 09:36.980]  Somebody reports symptoms of SARS-CoV-2.
[09:36.980 --> 09:44.780]  They immediately start taking ivermectin, and they don't develop moderate or serious
[09:44.780 --> 09:46.260]  COVID-19.
[09:46.260 --> 09:50.820]  As an illustrative example, if you took 500 people and you put them all through what we
[09:50.820 --> 09:54.060]  just talked about, as soon as they start to feel they're not quite right, or they get
[09:54.060 --> 09:59.060]  a test and they're confirmed positive for SARS-CoV-2, they immediately start a regimen
[09:59.060 --> 10:00.140]  of ivermectin.
[10:00.140 --> 10:06.740]  489 out of the 500 do not develop moderate or severe COVID-19.
[10:06.740 --> 10:12.860]  That would clearly speak to the efficacy of preventing moderate to serious cases of COVID-19.
[10:12.860 --> 10:17.420]  With an observational study, you know that something is so even though you don't have
[10:17.420 --> 10:21.940]  information, the scientific knowledge of the precise mechanism.
[10:21.940 --> 10:23.300]  In other words, you know it works.
[10:23.300 --> 10:25.660]  You just don't know why it works.
[10:25.660 --> 10:27.860]  That's an observational study.
[10:27.860 --> 10:32.340]  Observational studies have been used since the beginning of the scientific method, but
[10:32.340 --> 10:41.220]  apparently in February of 2021, Merck didn't feel that there was any validity to any observational
[10:41.220 --> 10:43.960]  study concerning ivermectin.
[10:43.960 --> 10:45.460]  That seems odd.
[10:45.460 --> 10:49.900]  Or perhaps not, because about three weeks after Merck made that statement, the United
[10:49.900 --> 10:55.380]  States government gave Merck millions and millions and millions of dollars, I believe
[10:55.380 --> 11:00.300]  at the time when I read the story said like $399 million, although don't quote me on that
[11:00.300 --> 11:04.820]  number because it's been months since I read that article, in order for Merck to develop
[11:04.820 --> 11:12.740]  a new COVID-19 treatment drug, one that they could patent, it would cost dramatically more
[11:12.740 --> 11:13.740]  than ivermectin.
[11:13.740 --> 11:17.520]  But again, I'm sure money had nothing to do with it.
[11:17.520 --> 11:25.960]  In June of 2021, the United States government agreed to buy $1.2 billion dollars worth of
[11:25.960 --> 11:32.800]  Merck's COVID-19 treatment drug, which wasn't even on the market then, still isn't.
[11:32.800 --> 11:39.640]  And Merck had 1,850 people in phase three trial for its COVID treatment drug.
[11:39.640 --> 11:47.280]  I should point out that 1,850 people in a clinical trial is a infinitesimally small
[11:47.280 --> 11:53.200]  fraction of the number of people worldwide that use ivermectin to avoid COVID-19.
[11:53.200 --> 11:56.560]  But we don't pay any attention to that.
[11:56.560 --> 12:00.760]  And again, I'm sure it has nothing to do with that $1.2 billion dollars.
[12:00.760 --> 12:06.880]  As I said earlier concerning Dr. Campbell's disclaimer in his presentation, it's difficult
[12:06.880 --> 12:10.600]  to interpret the data any other way.
[12:10.600 --> 12:13.960]  If you appreciate my being able to be here to share this sort of data with you, I want
[12:13.960 --> 12:19.680]  to encourage you to go over to DrReality.News, grab yourself a copy of Body Science.
[12:19.680 --> 12:24.400]  If you let it, it will change your life.
[12:24.400 --> 12:28.160]  Same thing with income tax shattering the mist, it breaks down an incredibly complex
[12:28.160 --> 12:32.640]  array of law into something every single American can understand, which that sort of reduction
[12:32.640 --> 12:38.000]  of highly complex subjects down to a presentation that everyone can understand is exactly what
[12:38.000 --> 12:39.000]  I do here.
[12:39.000 --> 12:41.400]  And I do it in body science and I do it in income tax shattering the mist.
[12:41.400 --> 12:45.200]  And the important thing about this is not only will these books change your life if
[12:45.200 --> 12:51.320]  you let them, but it also helps me to continue to be here for you with this kind of information.
[12:51.320 --> 12:51.920]  Thanks.