Connect with us


Emergency of Under-Treatment – Panel of 8 prominent doctors and scientists say earlier treatment is the only way out of health emergency


62 minute read

Produced by Roundtable Media

Panelists Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Brian Tyson, Dr. Richard Urso, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Heather Gessling, D. Brian McDonald, and Dr. John Littell discuss “Kids and covid”, “covid vaccines”, “variants”, and “your immune system”.  They also discus the controversy around Ivermectin and why that drug has not been approved to fight covid.

Most importantly, all 8 panelists call for the adoption of early treatment to turn covid from the terrible killer virus we now know, into one that even many of the most vulnerable can expect to survive.

Roundtable Media was launched in June, 2021 by Brock Pierce, James Heckman and David Bailey.  The Digital Media and Bitcoin Pioneers are setting out to finance and distribute the work of hundreds of the world’s top journalists, activists and news producers. Click here for more information about the Roundtable Media venture.

This discussion was moderated by Rob Nelson, a former Executive Producer/Anchor with ABC, FOX, UPN, E! and A&E.  Click here to see the biography of Rob Nelson, as well as the principle members of Rountable Media.

Unfortunately Youtube keeps taking down the video.  We will check periodically and load the actual video when/if it comes up again.  You can see it at this link.

In the meantime, the transcript is attached.

Panelists included Dr. Robert Malone, Inventor of mRNA technology, Dr. Ryan Cole, Mayo Clinic-trained, board certified pathologist who has diagnosed 300,000 patients, Dr. Pierre Kory, M.D, M.P.A, a Pulmonary and Critical Care Specialist and President, Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, leader in intensive care and author of medical student textbooks used across the world. Kory has influenced the standard of care for COVID and given US Senate testimony.

Also on the panel were Dr. Richard Latell, a Family practice doctor, Dr. Heather Gessling, MD, FABFM, a Hospital Chief of staff that has been working with children and families around COVID since the beginning of the pandemic, Dr. Mark MacDonald, Psychiatrist, Dr. Brian Tyson, who has possibly treated more COVID patients than anyone in the world, seeing over 6,000 of them, Dr. Richard Urso, an Ophthalmologist and inventor of FDA-Approved wound healing drug and an eye surgeon with one of the largest clinics in the country and has spent the last year and a half deep in COVID, Mathew Crawford, a Biomedical statistician with Metaprep Education Group and Moderator Rob Nelson.

Moderator: We are seeing a spread of Delta right now. Officials say we’re all going to get Delta. Should we be scared? Is Delta upon us? Are we in a permanent pandemic right now?

Dr. Richard Urso, MD FAAO: It’s like the same song, second verse. We’re going to keep seeing variants. It’s normal. I don’t expect that to change. We’re vaccinating in a very narrow framework. And so when you vaccinate just the spike, you’re going to get variants because we are doing very specific treatments, what you’re seeing now in the Delta variant is you’re seeing the same thing. Just a small change will allow the virus to mutate and get around that and you’re going to see this happen over and over again.

Moderator: Dr. Malone, We’re seeing all these variants and I think the question people often ask is, why?

Dr. Malone: This is really controversial. There’s a lot of discussion that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated and the unvaccinated are the ones that are driving these escape mutants. That from a fundamental evolutionary standpoint, as a molecular virologist, doesn’t make sense. This virus now is known to mutate and throw off mutants at a much higher rate than we expected it to be. So there are very many mutants. The virus is evolving very rapidly. This is akin to what happens if you overuse antibiotics. So in sum, what we’re doing with universal vaccination is driving towards this end point of vaccine resistant mutants. We don’t have to.

Moderator: So it sounds like we’re on the defensive. We’re trying to defensively vaccinate our way out of something that we’re already deeply in.

Dr. Cole: Here’s my optimistic view on Delta. Yes. Delta’s new, it’s shaped differently. Technically it has escaped the antibodies from the vaccine. So we give a shot, give another shot and say, we’re going to give a booster with the same shot for a virus that existed five variants ago. It’s like saying to healthcare workers, we’re going to give you a flu shot for the upcoming flu season, but we have leftover flu vaccines from four or five years ago in the freezer. Illogical, no common sense in that whatsoever. So the variant has escaped it. And if you use a vaccine only approach you select for these variants, my optimistic point is Delta is a wildfire. A lot of people are going to get it. If you look at countries that handled it right, the death rates from Delta in most countries were far lower from this variant than other variants. So I want to give that optimistic message. Does it mean people aren’t going to get sick, not be hospitalized, not going to die? No, it doesn’t mean that, but what we do need to look at, is early treatments because if you’ve been vaccinated, I think scientifically we need to be 100% honest with everybody and say, even if you’re vaccinated or you’re not. We can get the virus now, vaccinated or not. And the vaccinated can carry equal or higher viral loads.

Dr. Kory: This path that we’re on, which is this sort of monolithic vaccine only strategy. We’re explaining the science, why that can’t be the only solution. We can not vaccinate ourselves out of this problem. The positive that I want to say is that there we know of strategies. They’re actually largely being ignored and suppressed. And I don’t want to sound conspiratorial about this, but the reason why is because there’s still a firmly held belief that the vaccines will solve this. The evidence that you just articulated is that it’s becoming increasingly clear that that’s not true. And so my hopes are that more and more attention is going to be paid to the other strategies, which have so far been ignored, which is that of early treatment. Especially now that the vaccinated are getting sick. Many of the vaccinated, many people were led to believe that if you get your vaccine, we’re going to end this thing. You don’t have to worry about it. You can carry on with your lives. But guess what, we’re talking about variants. My colleagues are now talking about even scarier variants that are coming. And so we need more tools to fight this. We need more weapons to fight this. And guess what the positive message is. We have them. And I’ll tell you the strategies that we have are independent of the variants. They can handle any variant that comes at us. We just need to get that message out.

Moderator: None of you are against vaccinations in general, meaning the idea of vaccinating, you probably all have vaccinations. Your kids have vaccinations, your family, right? Is that a fair statement?

Dr. Cole: That’s a fair statement. I’ve had all my childhood vaccines as have my children. I’ve had plenty of military vaccines back in the day. I’m not anti-vaccine, never have been, but I am pro good science. And right now there’s science that’s very questionable with something that’s very quick and we’re seeing things that we’ve never seen before. So I’m hesitant in this regard.

Dr. Malone: I think that the vaccines need to be used intelligently. That’s my objection. And as Dr. Cole has mentioned this set of vaccines that we have right now, Moderna, Pfizer and J & J, they’re all gene therapy based vaccines. And they all have a common problem. They only have one antigen: the spike antigen. And when they were developing them, they didn’t realize that spike was biologically active–no fault of theirs. Everybody was in a rush. It was the fog of war and they made decisions on the fly. But now it’s time to take a breath and say, ‘Hey, does this really make sense? And where does it make sense?’ We don’t have to be just left or right. Pro or anti-vaccine, there’s a middle ground. And I’m suggesting, and I think we all are aligned that what we’re talking about is intelligent deployment, strategic and tactical deployment of vaccines. We, as a community, need to protect these people at high risk, not just here in our community, in our states, in my opinion, we need to protect the elders throughout the world. We don’t need to hoard all the vaccine for people that don’t really need it. We need to make it available across the world for all cultures, for those people that are at very high risk.

Moderator: Dr. McDonald, you’ve talked a lot about fear and about how you feel the pandemic has created almost an incurable fear.

Dr. McDonald: I think fear has really been the driving force of this pandemic from the very beginning. I said, as early as may of 2020, that we’re not in a medical pandemic, we’re in a fear of pandemic. I think that it is evolved. However, a bit beyond fear. I think that what’s driving the fear now is propaganda.

Moderator: Your point is it’s really messed kids up. And that struck me the first time I heard you say that, that, that kids, unlike adults, don’t just bounce back. That’s your point kids. And you said, you think an entire generation of kids has been screwed by this, that they will not get their psychological health back, which is really depressing. If that’s true.

Dr. McDonald: I work with children. I see kids all day long. I’m a child psychiatrist. This is happening all the time. Every day in my practice. My concern is that the developmental stage that children need to go through: babies. toddlers, young adults, is being foreclosed on them. Brown university department of pediatrics published a study two weeks ago that found that babies born after January 1st, 2020, which is when this whole pandemic started, have a IQ point drop of 20 points compared to babies born before January 1st, 2020. That’s huge. Why? They don’t see faces. They don’t play, they don’t have exposure to friends. They don’t go to school. They’re basically locked in their homes, looking at their parents for a year and a half. And their brains have not developed. My concern is that we are building a generation of young people who are so traumatized that they will never fully recover from this. And even if we give them therapy and treatment, they’re always going to be damaged. They’re always going to be scarred emotionally. I don’t mean for it to be depressing. I mean, for it to be alarming so that everyone can finally say “stop.” We’ve got to stop the damage and then figure out what to do about it.

Moderator: What does the damage to you guys actually mean?

Dr. Heather Gessling: I’ll speak to that. I think stopping the damage means to acknowledge what we have done wrong. I think that we should reverse all of the measures that have been implemented. I feel like patients, families, and parents should take it upon themselves to feel empowered. We need to get back to the basics because we’ve done this wrong for so long. It’s been so damaging. One of the books that I had in medical school and that we all had in medical school was Harrison’s principles of internal medicine. This is basic medicine. This is what we have forgotten. “Many specific host factors, (That’s us) influence the likelihood of acquiring an infectious disease, age, immunization history, prior illnesses, level of nutrition, pregnancy status, coexisting illnesses, and perhaps emotional state all have some impact on the risk of infection after exposure to a potential pathogen. All we have done is focus on one of those–immunization history. And so the factors level of nutrition, emotional state, as we have discussed can not be underestimated. The ability to provide early effective treatment should make us feel empowered. We should not feel afraid anymore.

Moderator: Are kids more at risk? The numbers don’t seem to suggest that. I mean, the number of deaths of kids from COVID was lower than the number of deaths from the flu. But now people are saying Delta’s more severe. So are kids at risk?

Dr. Urso: I’ll just give a few statistics. There are about 330 children that have died of COVID in a year and a half. There’s typically about 50,000 children per year, who die. Many more have died of drowning and car accidents. So if we look at the relative risks, COVID has killed about 330 children in the last year and a half. So I think you need to look at that as you look forward to the risk to children. Do they spread? No, they don’t spread. There’s at least seven different studies that show that essentially the spread of children to adults is close to zero. So children are not super spreaders and children don’t die from the disease.

Dr. Tyson: I own three urgent cares in the Imperial valley area, which is one of the hotbeds for COVID-19 because Mexicali sits right across from us. That’s two and a half million people. So we see about 200 to 300 patients a day. I don’t do telemedicine. We do straight face-to-face encounters. So one of the things that I wanted to differentiate was,’Are these infections truly COVID?’ because they have the cough, cold and rhinitis and sore throat. Or, are there other viruses going on? So I decided to buy a $100,000 PCR machine, and we’ve been running these PCR tests. And recently I can tell you, we’ve seen 90% of rhinovirus and also RSV in the kids. So RSV typically is a winter illness. It causes pulmonary symptoms. It causes pulmonary bronchiolitis, not bronchitis, but bronchiolitis in the lower, lower airways. And that’s why the kids are having trouble right now. It’s not in my opinion from COVID, but from RSV.

Moderator: Clearly, kids are being hospitalized. I know the CDC recently said it’s actually not a higher proportion, it’s the same proportion, but kids are getting sick.

Dr. Tyson: You’re correct to say, kids are getting sick. And, under that CDC data that Dr. Ursa was talking about, healthy children didn’t die from COVID-19. Okay. It was those children who had four or five risk factors, morbid obesity being number one, diabetes being number two and weakened immune system being number three, kids on chemotherapy and things like that. So, it’s no different than RSV, rhinovirus, influenza, that would normally take out these kids anyway, unfortunately. But yes, we are seeing a higher number of COVID cases in the morbid obese and the severity of illness in the morbid obese in kids is problematic.

Moderator: Do healthy people die of COVID? I mean, is it all comorbidities? Is it obese people? Is it people with, you know, immunocompromised?

Dr. Kory: Greatest predictor for dying from COVID is age. With every decade of life, your risk goes up and it’s a straight line. Then you have to worry about comorbidities, right? So, the diseases that they have make them more prone like obesity and diabetes. However, we are seeing younger people now coming into ICU. We are seeing relatively healthy people die. We’re now seeing people with less comorbidities than before in the first wave last spring, almost everybody was either obese or diabetic. Now we’re seeing much less of that. You know? So when my colleagues said not one healthy kid died of COVID, I would also like to say, I don’t believe that there’s anybody who’s died who’s gotten an effective early treatment.

Dr. Urso: People don’t die of the virus. They die of inflammation and they die of thrombosis. Do we have drugs for inflammation that are not off-label, steroids? There’s a bunch of drugs that are on-label that can be used for the purpose of inflammation in this disease. These are not controversial topics. There are many, many different products we can use: Lovenox, Aspirin, Eliquis, XARELTO® . There’s a bunch of drugs for thrombosis. So when people say they died of COVID, they died of an inflammatory thrombotic disease. They didn’t die from the virus running through their body. Hopefully at some point we’ll have a really good early, early treatment that’s directed to the virus itself. Right now, we have other treatments as Dr. Kory said, they weren’t originally designed for this virus, but they are very effective against this virus.

Dr. Latell: What we’re seeing now is that patients are getting early treatment with medications, such as Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, and a host of other medications because of this free exchange of ideas and this group of physicians and others around the world.

Moderator: One thing I think we’ve all seen, Ivermectin is a great example, where the media has politicized the issue. So depending on your politics, you’re going to see one or two different things. And you’re going to hear, “oh, well, it’s horse medicine. People are taking horse medicine. But Ivermectin is an FDA approved drug for human treatment.

Dr. Kory: It’s how the system is designed, which is largely against the use of repurposed drugs. If you know what a repurposed drug is, it’s generally a drug that’s off patent and not profitable. It’s been approved for use in another disease for which it’s found to be effective. So Ivermectin is well known as an anti-parasite. In fact, the discoverers won the Nobel prize because it eradicated two globally endemic parasitic diseases. I mean, it transformed the health status of good portions of the world. We knew on the ground that corticosteroids were going to work. We knew it because of our experience treating severe lung disease. We started using it. And guess what we started to see? As we started to use steroids, people started to come off ventilators.

People who were needing oxygen were coming off oxygen, getting discharged. The entire landscape changed. And I went into the US Senate, and I testified to the world that it was critical we use corticosteroids in the hospitalized patient. And I did that at a time where every national international healthcare agency was recommending against its use because they thought it would increase mortality. And I got heavily criticized for that. It’s now the standard of care worldwide. Everything else that we’ve discovered, everything that’s in our protocols is because we have used good clinical sense, lots of experience. And we’ve used trial and error using our best judgments of risks and benefits. We don’t want to cause harm, but undertreatment and nontreatment is harm, I think this is a pandemic of undertreatment. Long-haul COVID is only caused by one thing–undertreatment. Hospitalized COVID is only caused by one thing–undertreatment. I’m even going to push the envelope here. Getting COVID is only caused by one thing, which is a lack of an effective preventative strategy. I thought, everyone thought and hoped it was going to be the vaccine. It’s not.

Moderator: You’re saying getting COVID itself is completely preventable?

Dr. Kory: There’s a number of agents that have been shown, if you take them regularly, your chances of getting COVID are far lower. For me the most effective is Ivermectin. There are dozens of trials. We’re now up to 14 trials with thousands of patients. In the trials which you take it the most frequently, you’re nearly perfectly protected from getting COVID. It is a highly effective agent. The reason why Ivermectin is so important in this disease is that it has numerous mechanisms of action. The most important mechanism is that we know it binds tightly to the spike protein. The spike protein on this virus is how it gets into our cell, how it’s allowed to replicate. If you can bind it, you can block it and you can prevent yourself from getting sick. The one caveat though, is what we’ve learned is that in the Delta variant, just like the vaccines, we have started seeing breakthroughs. So we have to change our dosing strategy of all of the trials done on Ivermectin. The strongest evidence is actually in prevention. It is a wickedly effective, highly potent preventative agent. You, if you take it regularly, your chances of getting sick or near nil.

Moderator: Matthew, you’ve done a lot of statistical research, particularly around the success of early treatments and it hasn’t gotten a lot of attention. Why don’t you take a second and talk about your findings?

Mathew Crawford: So early on, I was a little frustrated, not seeing much analysis. And so I started to reach out to doctors that I knew and said,”What do you see? And, numerous doctors told me “I’m using this and it looks good” and there wasn’t much data out. So I kept reaching out to more and more doctors around the world and eventually collected about 20,000 data points. And this is almost a year and a half ago. And it looked like those who were using Hydroxychloroquine, and especially if they included Azithromycin and zinc, or possibly another macrolide other than azithromycin, but with the zinc in particular, it looked to everybody in their communities about a 98% lower mortality rate. And this was across like seven different nations I got this data from, so put all this together and it was tens of thousands of data points by the end of last year. But it’s difficult to get a lot of this data published. I’m working on Dr. Tyson’s data right now, and we’ve had the results for months, but it’s difficult to get it published. Anything that goes against the narrative takes longer in peer review.

Moderator: Is that a valid thing that it would take longer? I mean, is that understandable or is that politics?

Mathew Crawford: “I think there’s some politics involved.”

Moderator: Dr. Tyson you’ve said you have how many deaths out of the 6,000 people you’ve treated.

Dr. Tyson: So with treatment starting from day one to 7, zero.

Moderator: Zero deaths.

Dr. Tyson: Right. With treatment starting from day seven to 14, I have four. Two died the same day they showed up at the clinic and two died in the hospital.

Dr. Gessling: And I want to say, my numbers exactly match up with Brian’s. I’ve treated about 1500 and I have had one death. And it was because there was some delay in treatment. And I know that several physicians who have treated didn’t have any deaths until approximately July, August. And that was with the change in the virus. Within a week or two, all of us were saying the exact same thing–something has changed. What do we need to do to change the protocol?

Moderator: Dr. Gosling, you’re treating vaccinated and unvaccinated,

Dr. Gessling: Absolutely. Vaccinated and unvaccinated. And so I would say in July, the majority of my sicker patients were unvaccinated. And then I noticed in August, it seemed to be about 50-50, and now it’s more vaccinated. And so it happened as a very quick change in my practice.

Dr. Latell: Dr. Tyson, Dr. Gosling and myself are family physicians. Okay. So we are the folks who have been in those front lines, getting the phone calls in the middle of the night from concerned parents. And what you’ve just heard from Dr. Kory is that if you take the right preventive plan of medications, either hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin or both, you’re approaching 0% mortality.

Moderator: I Hear your passion and understand where you guys are out there in the trenches. It’s bizarre that we are facing a pandemic that has left us where we are clearly divided about the simplest thing of treatments. They’re not all going to work. Some are going to fail. You’re going to experiment, but in most diseases, doctors get in there and you figure it out. And in this one, for some reason, we got blocked into this thing where it’s like, no, no, no. And I think you have an opinion, partly why.

Dr. Kory: If we have a solution or we have effective treatments. Why aren’t they being recognized and disseminated across the world? And there’s really two forces that I think we’re up against. The first force is that in general, our health agencies are suffering what’s called regulatory capture. They’re largely driven by financial interests, external financial interests that are really influenced in making sure that the solution to the pandemic is one that is profitable. Vaccines are profitable. The other challenge that we were having, which is somewhat overlapping is that academia, which we call the ivory towers, the big academic institutions in the last 10 years, there’s been this increasing belief into the idea that the only proof of efficacy of a drug has to come out of a large double-blind randomized controlled trial. When you do a randomized control trial, you have to first make the diagnosis. Everyone has to have a positive test. They have to have symptoms. They have to be enrolled consented, randomized, and then the drug is delivered. Each one of those steps takes time. And so by the time they do these randomized control trials, oftentimes it’s very delayed. And oftentimes it’s underdosed because they’re using doses that I was using six months ago. We move with this pandemic because we can’t prove it with the one tool that we need to prove it, we are getting suppressed. And that message is getting suppressed.

Moderator: Who funds big randomized controlled trials?

Dr. Kory: That would be pharma generally. Now there is philanthropy and there is the NIH. But the NIH and pharma are quite tightly linked.

Moderator: Let’s just take a minute and address some of the vaccine related questions that I think people have. And I want to start with you, Dr. Malone, if that’s okay, because you are the one of the architects of mRNA technology. And if I were to ask you Dr. Malone, are you against the vaccine for COVID? I know your answer would be absolutely not, but you do have some issues with this particular vaccine. Why?

Dr. Malone: So thanks for that opportunity to make the point that I’m not an anti-vaxxer. I’m a guy who spent the majority of my adult life developing vaccines and trying to get vaccines licensed. For example, the Ebola vaccine that we call the Merck vaccine. This is a technology platform (m RNA) that I believe and many believe has enormous promise. And right now it’s in its infancy. The safety of the underlying technology is not yet fully demonstrated. It hasn’t been fully characterized and that will come, that’s good news. However, in the fog of war and the need to come up with something, as soon as possible, some decisions were made to move things forward very rapidly. They were based on incomplete information. People did what they did in good faith and focused on a protein that they thought was fully safe–spike protein. But now over a year later, we know that, in the virus, this protein is responsible for much of the disease that the virus causes, the pathology in your vascular endothelial cells, the coagulation. And it’s unfortunate that this particular protein in what appears to be a biologically active form, was used in these vaccines.

Moderator: What is the result of that? What does that mean?

Dr. Cole: This is a thromboembolic disease. COVID is a clotting disease. Now, when we give a spike protein to Dr. Malone’s point, that is an active biologic molecule. We chose the wrong molecule that causes disease. So what do I see under the microscope? You see these COVID skin cases, you know, these weird COVID rashes. What is that? That’s clotting in the skin.

We unfortunately have doctors that say there’s no damage from the vaccines and no deaths from the vaccines. We should use the French legal system. When we have a new product that’s never been used on humanity in the market. It’s guilty until proven innocent.

Every time there is damage or disease from that product, we need to assume that it is guilty until we prove it isn’t. So under the microscope, we see clotting in the lungs. We see clotting and the vessels. We see clotting in the brain, not from the virus, but from the spike, from the vaccine itself. Now consider the numerator and the denominator are most people going to be fine? Yes. And I want to emphasize that in our data, around the world, from the United States, from the UK, from the Euro vigilance in Europe, we have seen more death and damage from this one medical product than all other vaccines combined in the last several decades. In just a short eight month window of time, it has done more damage than any other medical product therapy, shot, um, modality of anything we’ve ever allowed to stay on the market to this point. Do I mean to a sound alarmist? No, I’m being factual. And when I look at it under the microscope, and I see the parts of people or people that are no longer with us, the damage and the disease is caused by that spike protein. It is present.

Moderator: Common sense would tell me a vaccine’s efficacy is debatable, but you couldn’t possibly know if it’s safe because you would need five, 10 years to really know.

Dr. Malone: I love your approach of, ‘let’s just think for a minute, let’s just apply common sense.’ It normally takes a decade or more to produce a vaccine that is safe and effective. And to demonstrate that it’s safe, the usual standard with the FDA is that you allow at least two years after you have administered the phase three material to at least 3000 people for a vaccine. Often the FDA wants many more people than that. And you follow them for two years at least to see whether or not they’re generating auto immune problems, et cetera. And you’re dead on. I mean, you can do the math. Okay. Have shortcuts been taken? Normally it takes three years to evaluate the data. This vaccine was deployed in, you know, eight months. Six months or less after the phase three trials were completed. So it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the common sense that we don’t have the information. In terms of safety in pregnancy, reproductive, toxicology, reproductive risks, potential birth defects. The honest truth is whatever they tell you, we don’t have the data. So whomever is speaking, if they’re telling you that it’s safe, but they haven’t actually done the studies. I think you can figure out that means that they’re not being truthful with you.

Moderator: Were pregnant women even included in the clinical trials?

Dr. Malone: Of course they weren’t. The NIH just funded the study like a week ago on reproductive toxicology and birth defects in children. The major study on potential risks in pregnancy wasn’t started until almost a month after the CDC said it’s okay to go ahead and start taking the vaccine.

Dr. Ursa: For those who don’t know, a good percentage of the COVID vaccine, the spike protein, I’m sorry, the lipid nanoparticles actually goes to the ovaries. They knew this before they started, that this was what happens. So I do think while there might not have been intent, anybody who did that kind of work would know that they [lipid nanoparticles] would actually go to those places. That’s what they do. They go through those very easily. And of course they’re carrying spike protein, and spike protein we know is going to cause inflammation in the ovaries. What do we know about that? Well, as Dr. Malone said, we don’t know what that means. Is that going to affect fertility? We don’t know. We’ve got to hope and pray that it doesn’t because many people have taken that and they now have significant inflammation that has gone to those organs.

And so we literally have pregnant women coming in. One woman had two miscarriages during her 10th week and her OB actually told her to go get the vaccine. And he cannot know that that’s safe. It’s impossible. So she just happened to have miscarriages. She’s at high risk for another miscarriage. It’s a high risk pregnancy. There’s no reason to introduce any new therapeutic of any sort in this patient. So this is what we’re seeing: a one size fits all policy. That makes no sense, and we need to stop it. And we need to adopt early treatment and other measures.

Moderator: What if your COVID recovered? You may be vaccinated, but unvaccinated and COVID recovered is a whole unique group that you actually would argue has actually more immunity and is more valuable than all the others together.

Dr. Cole: A hundred percent true if you’ve had COVID, you’re done with COVID. We don’t need to modify mother nature. And if you think of what a vaccine is, a vaccine mimics a small portion of a natural infection. So to say, a natural infection is not equal to a vaccination is insanity. In vaccinology, we’re trying to mimic a part of nature, whereas mother nature does it right. If you have had COVID you may get it again, but you’re going to get it in a much more mild manner. So as to this two tier polarization of our society–a virus isn’t politically red or blue or purple –a virus is a humanitarian issue.

And when we divide ourselves in thought and don’t listen to science anymore, we’re going down the wrong path. When we look at what’s happened to the children, going back to the children point, half of kids in the U S have already had COVID, we’re not antibody testing. We’re treating everybody with this terrible oppression of you’ve got to wear a mask. It doesn’t matter that you had COVID, you know, you’ve got to stay home. If somebody in your classroom tests positive, it denies basic science. And this isn’t upper level immunology. This is basic immunology 1 0 1. And we are forgetting what our amazing immune system does. How many of you had chickenpox when you were a kid? Probably a lot. Okay. How many have you ever gotten them again? Yeah, no. Did you need a shot? No. Have any of you had a grandma who had measles and ever got measles again? No, because her immune system works.

Dr. Malone: This gets back to common sense. Why are they telling us that natural infection isn’t protective? Why are they telling us that those of us covered still got to get the jab. There is a financial incentive here. And if there are a few examples that make it so abundantly clear one is this crazy labeling of Ivermectin as a horse paste drug. I give ivermectin to my horses, but I don’t take the horse version for myself. You know? Um, and, And the other thing is this crazy messaging about natural infection. Why are they saying these things that make no sense?

Dr. Cole: If you are under age of 50 with no comorbidities your chance of dying from this disease are about nil. And if you get early treatment, they’re even closer to nil. So if you recovered, which half of the young people in North America are, you don’t need a shot and the shot can damage the heart of children. There are more children who’ve had myocarditis, and there’s never such a thing as mild myocarditis. That’s inflammation of the heart. Once you get inflammation, get scarring, those kids’ hearts are damaged for life. There are more kids, like 5, 10, 15 kids now that have died of heart attacks after the shots. 400 plus kids that have had myocarditis, that have damaged hearts for life. That’s more than the kids that have died from COVID. Now the ratio to damaged children is much higher than due benefit. And children survive this virus at a statistical 100%. Age zero to 18 – 99.97% of children survive this virus. So why are we punishing kids for a virus they survive? It’s illogical.

Moderator: There’s lots of people who got the vaccine and are wondering how risky it is.

Dr. Malone: Here’s what I do know about multiple boosters. The immune system is really, really complex. And it’s as complex as the nervous system, which by the way, comes from the same cell type–incredibly complex. And one thing as somebody that’s been in this business and had all this training for 30 years–more is not better. The assumption that another dose is going to boost your immunity, to levels that it was previously needs to be demonstrated clearly. And the safety of that needs to be demonstrated, because as immunologists, we know darn well, there’s a thing called high zone tolerance. More is not better. More can actually suppress the immune response.

Dr. Cole: After the extra shots, we’re seeing the depletion of certain cell types. To your point, we’re starting to document it and are studying it. And to his question, why give a third shot to a virus that was gone in January and February of this year? We’re on to Delta. The booster is not something new. It’s the same shot for the virus that’s gone. Delta’s a new virus, essentially. So is there any logic to boost something that’s not even here anymore? No.

Moderator: So we’re vaccinating for COVID and we’re already on to Delta now.

Dr. Cole: The strain that we made the sequence for the spike against isn’t even circulating anymore, it’s not even here. We’re, you know, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 variants on from that. Delta is behaving as a new virus. The antibodies don’t neutralize it anymore, especially at the end terminal domain of the spike. It’s a wrong approach at this point. It is the wrong protein now, it’s not even a virus that’s here.

Dr. Littell: Everyone in my practice wishes and prays every day that COVID goes away. We don’t want to treat another patient with COVID ever, ever again, to be honest with you, my other patients have been neglected because of COVID. It’s impossible for us to keep up with the displaced.

Dr. Urso: We don’t have to know what pharma’s motives are. It doesn’t matter to me. I’m not interested. What I’m interested in is a comprehensive plan. I’m interested in contagion control. I’m interested in vaccination. I’m interested in prophylaxis. I’m interested in early treatment. The motivation side doesn’t matter. It’s the data that matters in a comprehensive plan that matters. So we don’t have to fight and say, they’re bad. We’re good. It doesn’t matter. It’s a comprehensive plan that we need to emphasize that encompasses everything

The fact of the matter is what really matters is we need to do everything all at the same time, because that’s how we do it. That’s how we’ve always done it. We’ve never done it differently. It was a shock to us to find that people were not emphasizing early treatment. That is just something that is incomprehensible. And we still don’t know the answer and we don’t care. I don’t care. We’re just going to go forward.

Audience question: After 2020 do you think there was an emergency. Is there an emergency, now?

Dr. Kory: I’m an intensive care unit physician. I take care of the patients who come at the end of the line, and I will tell you, we still are having an emergency. This is an emergency situation. If you look around the United States, there are dozens of cities and areas where the hospitals are filling. The ICU’s are filling. This is an emergency of undertreatment. There’s undertreatment early. There’s undertreatment late in the hospital using low doses of corticosteroids when we have immense amounts of data, showing higher doses are lifesaving. Combinations of therapies are life saving. We know how to get these patients better, but we have to be more aggressive at every phase. Everyone is being restricted to following the protocols that come from the top. They’re not working, they’re failing. And that’s the emergency.

Moderator: I think there is a perception because it’s been very politicized. This whole COVID thing has just been exaggerated. Your issue is we’re not treating it. Not that it’s not a real deadly disease.

Dr. Kory: Yeah. I have to tell you my perspective is quite different. I’ve never, ever walked into an ICU that’s full of every patient on a ventilator with the same disease. I’ve never seen 24 patients on a ventilator with the flu at any one time. I’ve never seen dermatologists taking care of patients on ventilators in regular hospital floors. It is getting better. We’re not in that catastrophic phase, but this is the most complex and most violent disease that I’ve seen. And the most difficult to treat in the ICU. The trick is to avoid getting into the ICU.

Moderator: Can we VAX our way out of this? Is that possible?

Dr. Malone: Now, you can run the numbers. In order to get to herd immunity, you have to have a vaccine that’s generally more than 80% effective in preventing infection, not preventing disease. To block the spread in the CDC slide deck that they leaked to the Washington post, they showed clearly, even with Delta, let alone the new variants, we cannot stop the spread of Delta. If we were to vaccinate with these leaky vaccines, which efficacy in terms of prevention of infection is something between 40 and 60%. You could vaccinate the whole world with that and you still won’t stop the spread. What you will do is select for even more potent escape, okay. That are going to blow through those vaccines. And who’s going to die? The people that we wanted to protect in the first place. No, we can’t stop it. Can we make it worse? Yes.

Dr. Cole: Again, I’m going to put it in layman’s terms. You can’t play whack-a-mole with a vaccine with the variant. Because by the time you get vaccinated against the next variant, the new one’s here and then the new ones here, and you’re not going to roll out a new one every time. So to that point, you have to focus on treating early.

Moderator: It’s not as black and white or as simplistic as it seems. We need more than anything in this country right now, in this world right now, to start having conversations we’re not having and be willing to have them. Have the guts, to have them and hear what we’re not comfortable with.


After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author


Allow unvaccinated Canadians to cross U.S. border, Poilievre asks President Joe Biden

Published on

U.S. President Joe Biden shakes hands with Conservative Party of Canada Leader Pierre Poilievre, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau looks on, during a welcoming ceremony on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Friday, March 24, 2023. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says allowing Canadians who are unvaccinated against COVID-19 to cross into the United States was among issues he raised with President Joe Biden. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang

By Stephanie Taylor in Ottawa

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said Friday he asked President Joe Biden to remove the U.S. government’s requirement that Canadians be vaccinated for COVID-19 before crossing the border.

He told reporters after their meeting that American citizens are no longer required to have their shots and Canada allows unvaccinated Americans to visit.

“There are millions of good, decent, honourable people who, through a personal medical decision, are discriminated against at the border,” Poilievre said.

“I encouraged the president to lift those restrictions to allow them freedom of mobility.”

Poilievre won the leadership of his party a little more than six months ago by mounting a vocal opposition to COVID-19 health restrictions, including mask and vaccine mandates, but he has since focused his message on cost-of-living issues.

He met with Biden on Parliament Hill Friday during the president’s 27-hour visit to the Canadian capital, and later shared a photo of the two online.

Michael Ignatieff was the last Opposition leader to have face time with a U.S president. The former Liberal leader met with former President Barack Obama in 2009. It happened at the airport.

Poilievre said Friday he found Biden wants to be a “friendly” and “decent” neighbour to Canada, and on a personal level, he said he told the president they share Irish heritage.

He said they discussed the need for Canada to bolster its defence systems and “bring fairness” to workers by seeing the U.S. exempt Canada from its Buy American policies.

The Tory leader also said he expressed a need for Biden to axe tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber, arguing that the long-standing dispute saw a brief reprieve under Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper.

“I don’t believe that Prime Minister (Justin) Trudeau has pushed and fought on behalf of Canadians,” he said.

Before the meeting, Poilievre had shared some unscripted moments with the leader of the free world.

As he stood in a receiving line of Canadian politicians from all parties who were greeting Biden upon his arrival at Parliament Hill, Poilievre introduced himself as the “Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.”

That prompted Biden to question, still shaking Poilievre’s hand: “Loyal opposition?”

Poilievre assured him that yes, “we believe that opposition is an act of loyalty in our system.”

Biden chuckled, patting Poilievre on the arm.

“We do, too, unfortunately,” he said, chuckling.

Later, while addressing the House of Commons, Biden noted that both he and Trudeau appointed cabinets that were half women, making them the first in their respective countries to do so.

Many in the chamber broke out in applause.

Biden noticed that Poilievre and the Opposition Conservatives were not quick to rise, and quipped: “Even if you don’t agree, guys, I’d stand up,” which Poilievre and others then did.

Asked afterwards about that interaction, Poilievre said only: “We support gender equality for all Canadians.”

Poilievre was on the guestlist for a dinner with Biden Friday evening, along with other government ministers, officials and celebrities.

The invitation process came with a dash of partisanship.

Earlier in the day, staff in Poilievre’s office were left scratching their heads when they said it had not received an invite from Trudeau’s office to attend, and asserted that any suggestion he had refused the invitation was false.

The Prime Minister’s Office confirmed it had sent Poilievre notice of the dinner — but the invitation went to a personal email account that notifies senders it is not monitored.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 24, 2023.

Continue Reading

Brownstone Institute

Eye Protection Wasn’t Misdirection

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute


“If you have goggles or an eye shield, you should use it.” ~ Anthony Fauci, July 30th, 2020

We had heard enough from Fauci by the time this comment was made in mid-2020 to begin automatically tuning out his frequently contradictory advice. What if we had given weight to this comment and explored why he began recommending goggles (yet never donned them himself)?

While I’m not surprised that the inner anatomy of the face including ocular ducts and connectivity within structures aren’t common knowledge, I expected more of a reaction from the medical community regarding Fauci’s push for eye protection. Not only do medical professionals take extensive coursework on human anatomy — they are required to meet annually with an Industrial Hygienist for fit tested, hazard-specific kit for each exposure setting , including ocular protection. This testing process requires going into detail about each exposure setting and required donning and donning practices within the scope of their professional duties.

Instead of elaborating on his recommendation, Fauci just publicly hushed on the issue and folks carried on, obediently masked up yet entirely neglectful of their nasolacrimal ducts. Shame, shame.

These are the structures of the lacrimal apparatus connecting ocular and nasal pathways. Basically, the eye drains into the nasal cavity. None of the talking heads of the medical community ever seem to bring up that these parts of the body connect with one another, and while we hear about masks ad nauseam three entire years after the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, no one is arguing with strangers on the internet about goggles.

Bernie Sanders was recently praised for being the only person at the February, 2023 State of the Union donning a (sub-grade, non-mitigating) respirator, but eye spy something fishy. It was noted that he kept removing his glasses, as they were fogging up.

Those who have donned respirators have experienced that exhale emissions are generally redirected out of the nose bridge (or out of side gaps if improperly sealed). This is the exhale emission plume create by a fitted, unvalved N95 respirator:

This plume of warm, moist respiratory emissions is what causes glasses to fog. This is precisely why I continue to argue that masks are NOT source control for respiratory aerosols, because these apparatuses are not designed nor intended to protect others from your emissions, but solely for protection of the wearer. The ASTM agrees with me on this matter:

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Specification for Barrier Face Coverings F3502-21 Note 2 states, “There are currently no established methods for measuring outward leakage from a barrier face covering, medical mask, or respirator. Nothing in this standard addresses or implies a quantitative assessment of outward leakage and no claims can be made about the degree to which a barrier face covering reduces emission of human-generated particles.”

Additionally, Note 5 states, “There are currently no specific accepted techniques that are available to measure outward leakage from a barrier face covering or other products. Thus, no claims may be made with respect to the degree of source control offered by the barrier face covering based on the leakage assessment.”

So does it matter if your neighbor’s exhale emissions are directed in your face for the duration of your 6-hour flight?

Absolutely. Imagine sitting between these two fine fellas with your eyes exposed, and their emission plumes directed right in your face.

In mitigation of aerosol hazards, eye protection is a standard part of required kit, because those from the correct domain of expertise, Industrial Hygiene, know enough about human anatomy to remember the interconnectivity of facial structures.

Ocular transmission of SARS-CoV-2

There has been a great deal of focus on respiratory protection since the start of the pandemic, but ocular transmission was already established for SARS-CoV-1.

“SARS-CoV-1 has been shown to be transmitted through direct contact or with droplet or aerosolized particle contact with the mucous membranes of the eyes, nose and mouth. Indeed, during the 2003 SARS-CoV-1 outbreak in Toronto, health care workers who failed to wear eye protection in caring for patients infected with SARS-CoV-1 had a higher rate of seroconversion.”

We are beginning to see mounting research on ocular transmission for SARS-CoV-2 emerge, as well, traveling through the nasolacrimal duct from the eye, draining into the sinus cavity.

There is evidence that SARS-CoV-2 may either directly infect cells on the ocular surface, or virus can be carried by tears through the nasolacrimal duct to infect the nasal or gastrointestinal epithelium.”

“The nasolacrimal system provides an anatomic connection between the ocular surface and the upper respiratory tract. When a drop is instilled into the eye, even though some of it is absorbed by the cornea and the conjunctiva, most of it is drained into the nasal cavity through the nasolacrimal canal and is subsequently transferred to the upper respiratory or the gastrointestinal tract.”

SARS-CoV-2 on the ocular surface can be transferred to different systems along with tears through the nasolacrimal route.”

Seldom did ocular exposure result in eye infection, while systemic infections occurred regularly. Ocular exposure cannot always be determined as the point of contact for this reason, as an eye infection does not always coincide with systemic infection.

The nasolacrimal duct is often discussed in ocular transmission research, but this is not the sole ocular transmission pathway discussed.

“There are two pathways by which ocular exposure could lead to systemic transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. (1) Direct infection of ocular tissues including cornea, conjunctiva, lacrimal gland, meibomian glands from virus exposure and (2) virus in the tears, which then goes through the nasolacrimal duct to infect the nasal or gastrointestinal epithelium.”

Additionally, research is being conducted on the usage of ocular secretions in transmitting SARS-CoV-2.

“Then here comes the question, whether SARS-CoV-2 detected in conjunctival secretions and tears is an infectious virus? Colavita et al inoculated Vero E6 cells with the first RNA positive ocular sample obtained from a COVID-19 patient. Cytopathic effect was observed 5 days post-inoculation, and viral replication was confirmed by real-time RT-PCR in spent cell medium. Hui et al also isolated SARS-CoV-2 virus from a nasopharyngeal aspirate specimen and a throat swab of a COVID-19 patient. The isolated virus not only infected human conjunctival explants but also infected more extensively and reached higher infectious viral titers than SARS-CoV.”

According to this study, ocular secretions were highly infectious.

“The ocular surface can serve as a reservoir and source of contagion for SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted to the ocular surface through hand-eye contact and aerosols, and then transfer to other systems through nasolacrimal route and hematogenous metastasis. The possibility of ocular transmission of SARS-CoV-2 cannot be ignored.”

This paper also has a focus on aerosols coming into contact with ocular mucosa.

“Once aerosols form, SARS-CoV-2 can bind to the ACE2 on the exposed ocular mucosa to cause infection. In order to prevent aerosols from contacting the eye surface, eye protection cannot be ignored.”

An additional area explored in this analysis discusses rhesus macaques wherein solely those inoculated through the ocular route became infected.

“If the ocular surface is the portal for SARS-CoV-2 to enter, where does the virus transfer after entering? An animal experiment reveals the possible nasolacrimal routes of SARS-CoV-2 transfer from the ocular surface. Five rhesus macaques were inoculated with 1×106 50% tissue-culture infectious doses of SARS-CoV-2. Only in the conjunctival swabs of rhesus macaques inoculated via conjunctival route could the SARS-CoV-2 be detected. Conjunctival swabs of the rhesus macaques that were inoculated via intragastric or intratracheal route were negative. Three days post conjunctival inoculation, rhesus macaques presented mild interstitial pneumonia. Autopsies showed that SARS-CoV-2 was detectable in the nasolacrimal system tissues, including the lacrimal gland, conjunctiva, nasal cavity, and throat, which connected the eyes and respiratory tract on anatomy.”

An additional macaque study had similar findings.

“Deng et al. showed that SARS-CoV-2 infection could be induced by ocular surface inoculation in an experimental animal model using macaques. Although the researchers detected the virus in conjunctival swabs only on the first day after inoculation, they continued to detect it in nasal and throat swabs 1-7 days after the inoculation. Their findings demonstrated that the viral load in the airway mucosa was much higher than that in the ocular surface. They euthanized and necropsied one of the conjunctival inoculated-animals and found that the virus had spread to the nasolacrimal system and ocular tissue, nasal cavity, pharynx, trachea, tissues in the oral cavity, tissues in the lower-left lobe of the lung, inguinal and perirectal lymph node, stomach, duode-num, cecum, and ileum. They also found a specific IgG antibody, indicating that the animal was infected with SARS-CoV-2 via the ocular surface route.”

While the nasolacrimal route is the primary focus in most current research, the blood-retinal barrier (BRB) is also discussed as a possible pathway.

“Once it reaches the ocular surface, SARS-CoV-2 could invade the conjunctiva and iris under the mediation of ACE2 and CD147, another possible receptor for SARS-CoV-2 on host cells. De Figueiredo et al described the following possible pathways. After reaching blood capillaries and then choroid plexus, the virus reaches the blood-retinal barrier (BRB), which expresses both ACE2 and CD147 in retinal pigment epithelial cells and blood vessel endothelial cells. Since CD147 mediates the breakdown of neurovascular blood barriers, the virus can cross the BRB and enter into blood.”


There has been a push recently to bring back masks for Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), especially in schools, as this pathogen largely impacts youth populations, yet ocular transmission is a proven method of infectivity for RSV.

In this paper, intranasal dosing of the given pathogen resulted in onset of illness for nearly all respiratory pathogens studied. It reviews transmission routes and minimum infective dose for Influenza, Rhinovirus, Coxsackievirus, Adenovirus, RSV, Enteric Viruses, Rotavirus, Norovirus, and Echovirus, including ocular transmission.

“The infective doses of rhinoviruses in the nose and eyes are thought to be comparable because the virus does not infect the eyes but appears to travel from the eyes to the nasal mucosa via the tear duct.”

“Hall et al. (1981) investigated the infectivity of RSV A2 strain administered by nose, eye, and mouth in adult volunteers. They reported that the virus may infect by eye or nose and both routes appear to be equally sensitive. A dose of 1.6 × 105 TCID50 infected three of the four volunteers given either into the eyes or nose while only one out of the eight were infected via mouth inoculation, and this was thought to be due to secondary spread of the virus.”

“RSV A2 had poor infectivity when administered via the mouth but was shown to infect by eye and nose and both routes appear to be equally sensitive to the virus.”

“Bynoe et al. (1961) found that colds could be produced almost as readily by applying virus by nasal and conjunctival swabs as by giving nasal drops to volunteers.”

Would masks save schools from RSV circulation? Most kids have robust immune systems, with a very, very small percentage of the youth population undergoing chemotherapy or taking immunosuppressives, who usually are not on campus for in-person learning. But for those seeming protection and in-person instruction, we must not set them up for immune bombardment by offering a false sense of security while feigning ignorance of other viable transmission routes. Masks are not the answer.


Ocular transmission of respiratory pathogens hasn’t been a focal point of study, but with other pathogens and mounting research on SARS-CoV-2 showing such ease of systemic onset for this transmission route, more attention should be given to this area of research.

Consider all of the people you’ve seen donning masks or respirators over these past three years, assured in the merit of their virtue. How many still got sick? Did you ever once see someone donning goggles? Are we ever going to get around to discussing exhaustion of the hierarchy of controls, or are actual mitigating measures too taboo, too fringe?

TLDR: Ocular transmission is a viable method of transmission for SARS-CoV-2. Masks are not source control. Even N95s aren’t going to fix this. And all child masks are unregulated, untested, unethical, and unsafe, with zero efficacy, fit, term of wear, or medical clearance standards, and with ocular transmission being a proven route of transmission for RSV, masks aren’t going to fix that issue, either.


  • Megan Mansell

    Megan Mansell is a former district education director over special populations integration, serving students who are profoundly disabled, immunocompromised, undocumented, autistic, and behaviorally challenged; she also has a background in hazardous environs PPE applications. She is experienced in writing and monitoring protocol implementation for immunocompromised public sector access under full ADA/OSHA/IDEA compliance. She can be reached at [email protected]

Continue Reading