Pierre Kory MD - Is ”Shedding” the Greatest Scandal of the Jab?

Show Notes and Transcript

Dr Pierre Kory is a doctor who saw the COVID narrative unfold in front of his very eyes as he worked in his hospital. 
He was one of the very first voices recommending the use of Ivermectin which is the subject of his book that was published earlier this year. 
But he joins Hearts of Oak today to discuss shedding. 
Dr Kory has just written a nine part Substack on whether shedding has been the greatest scandal of the jabs. 
In it he shows how everything we were told was in fact wrong regarding the mRNA shots. 
Not only do the spike proteins and LNP's not stay in one place in the recipients body, but they can be transferred, from the jabbed to the un-jabbed. 
We look into the evidence for this and question if this means that the harms and adverse effects can be passed on to those who refused the shot?

Pierre Kory, MD, MPA is a Pulmonary and Critical Care Specialist. 
Co-Developer of effective, evidence/expertise-based COVID Treatment protocols with the medical professionals and science giants of the Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance

Connect with Pierre...
X                        https://x.com/PierreKory?s=20
SUBSTACK         https://substack.com/@pierrekory
WEB                  https://drpierrekory.com/

War on Ivermectin: The Medicine that Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the Pandemic (Hardback, e-book, audio-book)https://amzn.eu/d/9vEv1QV 

Interview recorded 10.11.23

*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.

Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 

To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/

Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/

Transcript

(Hearts of Oak)

Dr. Pierre Kory, it is wonderful to have you with us today.
Thanks so much for your time.

(Pierre Kory MD)

Great. Thanks, Peter. Good to join you. 

Great to have you.
And of course, people can follow you @PierreKory is your Twitter handle and of course, your Substack Pierre Kory Medical Musings dot com.
That is in the description for those watching and also any of the podcast listening on the go that is all available.
And before we kick in, just for the viewers, Pierre is ICU in Lung, specialist, highly published expert in treating COVID -19, all its phases.
And I remember you highlighting the benefits of ivermectin really early on.
You're also the president and chief medical officer of the non-profit organization, Frontline COVID -19 Medical Care Analysis.
And your latest book, War on Ivermectin, The Medicine That Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the Pandemic was published just earlier this year.
And that is available again, all the links are in the description.
Pierre, I want to get into your sub -stack, Shedding. Is Shedding the Greatest Scandal of the Job?
But I think I've come across you quite a bit.
I possibly was back whenever you did that interview with Joe Rogan and with Bret Weinstein. And that was probably, what, first half of 2021, wasn't it?

It was actually June of 2021. They were pretty close together, yeah.

And how, the thing, because I've talked to Robert Malone about how things changed for him slightly after doing Joe Rogan.
I guess it was a similar experience for yourself.

Yeah, I don't know, maybe in good and bad ways.
I mean, it was, my career hadn't ended yet, but I don't know if that was one of the triggers for it. was going to happen anyway.
But I should say my former career didn't end yet.
But, you know, from my standpoint, I think it brought the knowledge of the efficacy of ivermectin to, you know, a significant portion of, I guess you could say, the world.

Absolutely. And before we jump in, obviously people can watch you, you'll be speaking at the International COVID Summit over in Bucharest and we will certainly be putting out the links for that and people can watch the live stream.
So the viewers want to find a little bit more, just days later you'll be there in Romania.
But if I did, on Substack, the issue on shedding, something that's come up a lot.
And you've, I think you've done nine different parts of it, different articles on shedding.
Maybe I could start just by asking you why you believe this is such an important topic, because you put a lot of time, a lot of research, it's all there with the references.
There is a lot of information. I'm wondering why you felt it was so important to focus on this topic at this time.

That's a good question. I mean, I would say is two -fold. Number one is, you know, I have a private practice which specializes in the treatment of long COVID and long VAX, which is essentially a severe chronic fatigue syndrome, been around for decades, but, and it's typically caused by infections.
But with SARS -CoV -2 or COVID -19, it's occurring at a very high rate.
And in our practice of over a thousand patients, I mean, we have maybe a couple of dozen patients where they know that their chronic symptoms will flare or worse, or they'll kind of relapse and go backwards.
And they report repeatedly around exposures to vaccinated people.
And so we saw the phenomenon occurring clinically.
And you know, it's always been talked about because people kind of was like, is shedding possible? I don't think people ever really looked into it.
But when I travel and I speak and I go to conferences or lectures, I will tell you the first question at every Q and A is, is shedding real?
Is it happening? And, you know, there was, there's bits and pieces of evidence that we had to suggest that it could happen.
I think my clinical anecdotes are somewhat unconvincing because people don't have the science for why it would happen.
And so, you know, I finally decided to say, you know, what is known?
What can we find out? And I was absolutely shocked, just shocked at what I discovered.
You know, I work largely off of a paper written by Helene Banoun from a very prominent institute in France, but she did this work independently.
And she covered, you know, the history of regulatory standards for gene therapy products.
So kind of the first points I make in that series is that number one, the COVID mRNA vaccines meet the definition, the FDA's definition of a gene therapy product, right?
Which is anytime you inject genetic material into someone which is then transcribed into a protein, that's gene therapy.
And gene therapies are proliferating. It's not just the vaccines.
And if you look back into the history of gene therapies, You know, the regulatory standards are that shedding can happen with these things.
They define shedding as the excretion of any bacterial or viral product of the vaccine and or protein of the vaccine.
So whatever the protein is, is doing, can that product be, be excreted, right, or shed.
And the FDA has clear statements in regulatory documents from 2015 that all gene therapy products must undergo not only animal but human shedding studies.
So the fact that our regulators knew that this was required had essentially mandated it.
And then to find out somewhat unsurprisingly at this point that those studies were not done because there's many types of studies that weren't done, right, we were doing science at warp speed.
And so I'm finding that, you know, the first thing I found is really concerning emphasis that these things should be studied.
And then actually a colleague of mine, Sasha Latypova, I was talking to her about shedding a few weeks ago.
And she said, you know, I came across a gene therapy product where in its insert, it clearly warns that the gene therapy can be excreted.
It was for an eye disease.
It can be excreted in tears and secretions and dressings and that you should take special care.
They said for seven days and that's an issue we can talk about later is how long can the shedding go on?
But clearly it's a risk. It's a known risk of gene therapy products.
And here we go. We launch a global genetic therapy vaccine campaign without doing shedding studies.
And that's kind of like the first thing that I found. And I was like, whoa, this isn't just hearsay or social media inventions.
I mean, this is really coming out of the regulators framework.

But of course, the passing on of something wouldn't be an issue if it was absolutely safe.
So they're separate to find out whether shedding happens or not, but it wouldn't be an issue.
But yet right at the beginning of, I think, the first article, you highlight that the manufacturers, the regulatory authorities would have seen the the excess deaths and the vaccine injuries from VAERS.
That data was there early on. 

They've ignored this.
I mean, I mean, let's put this all into context. Right.
So the lack of sufficient safety studies is should be unsurprising when you see how this campaign was conducted.
Right. So they were rushed to production and, you know, disseminated and championed across the world.
But you know, the only way and along with that, we saw those of us COVID scientists, we saw unending censorship and propaganda.
So the censorship started very early, right? You start talking badly about the vaccines, you got de-platformed off of Twitter off of any social media.
So there's like no tolerance for anyone questioning or bringing up concerns.
The vaccine injured were not only getting pulled down off social media, but then they were getting attacked by others, right?
Because of this, this propaganda campaign that they're safe, effective, do it for grandma, save all of us.
And then they kind of presented the unvaccinated as these villains, right, that there was a scourge causing all of this.
I mean, it was absurd what they were doing. But the censorship and propaganda has been absolutely shocking to me. And it's on every facet of this vaccine.
And, you know, let's put shedding in the context of all that we've learned about the vaccine. It's just the latest.
I mean, if the story can't get worse, or actually, I should say, I can't imagine how could get worse, because to me, the shedding should also be thought about in terms of what we recently discovered, which is that all the Moderna and Pfizer vials were contaminated with DNA fragments and DNA plasmids, you know, with very scary promoter sequence in there that we know promote cancer and integration into the genome.
So if those can be excreted, and transmitted and absorbed by someone, you know, I have worries, right?
I'm not vaccinated, but you know, I live in a world I travel, I circulate, I meet around 1000s of unvaccinated people a month. What is the risk to me?
Now, I'm not someone who gets symptomatic from being exposed to vaccinated people.
I think that's a small proportion. And I don't know how big or small that proportion is. I think it's a minority.
But it really is quite troubling. All that we're finding out about the vaccines, you know, the life insurance industry exploding with, you know, huge spikes in the healthiest members of society.
You know, the death claims being paid out going into the billions.
And, you know, the life insurance industry is weird. And put that in the context, right, whereas literally, our public health authorities are saying nothing to see here safe and effective.
And those of us are screaming, look at the life insurance industry data.
And, and that that's only some parts of the data, the disability roles, right?
Government data showing an explosion of people landing on disability who were employed, right? They were employed.
These weren't people who were unemployed and disabled and finally got disability.
They went from full employment to disability. And we saw that all temporarily related to the proliferation of mandates.
So, so that seems really bad, but to go back to shedding, Peter, you know, so the two things, right, is that there are regulatory standards.
The shedding should be done because they are a possibility. They're in inserts of similar products.
But how do these things shed and the, you know, although I've said, you know, these should be understood as a gene therapy product, I think it's much more important to categorize them for what they are, which is they're a nanoparticle technology.
So nanoparticles are these tiny little sacks with a fatty membrane, the lipid nanoparticle, and they enclose the mRNA.
And when you inject those lipid nanoparticles, they're supposed to be able to enter the cell and then deliver the genetic instructions to the cell to make the protein.
The problem is they don't stay locally in the arm, right?
So in order to shed from someone, you'd have to get it to distribute to either other organs, tissues, or fluids in the body.
And all of the nanoparticle technology or the review papers, and, you know, it's probably 10 or 15 years now that nanoparticles have been studied as a therapeutic delivery mechanism, all of the papers say over and over more studies need to be done to ensure safety or to evaluate the potential toxicity because the nanoparticles disseminate widely throughout the body. We already know that with these COVID mRNA vaccines.
We have FOIA documents that we've discovered where regulators flat out said that they knew that the lipid nanoparticles were distributing, but once it enters the body, it starts to produce spike.
Now spike protein can also be taken up by the natural counterpart of the synthetic lipid nanoparticles, which we use two different terms.
So the LNP or the lipid nanoparticles is a synthetic thing. That's how they enclose the mRNA.
But in our bodies, we also have nanoparticles, which are called exosomes, which are essentially the kind of function as hormones.
They direct cellular activities and function. and so they circulate widely in our body and exosomes can enclose the spike.
So what's injected into us distributes widely, the product spike protein also distributes widely and can be enclosed in exosomes.
And then when you talk about these exosomes or LMPs, essentially these nanoparticles, the most salient thing to know about them is that they literally can pass through almost any physiologic barrier.
So they can cross into breast milk, they can cross the placenta, they can be inhaled into the lungs and exhaled in the breath.
They can enter through skin, through skin follicles, excreted into sweat.
So they're literally almost...
I wouldn't say that they can. Yeah, I guess I would say they literally can distribute and disseminate widely. And so so the picture gets worse.
It just gets worse and worse. The science is absolutely shocking that we're using nanoparticle technology, where when you look at, you know, kind of landmark papers in the field, they're all crying out for more studies.
And actually, one of the most shocking things I discovered in one review paper, they literally state that currently there's 1 ,814 consumer products using nanoparticle technology.
So this is an example of the human race proliferating a technology where they don't even know the short term or the long term risks.
In fact, in these vaccines, they're purposely not looking for those short term and you can bet they're not looking for long term risks.

There's a lot to unpack there, the passing over from blood, placenta, I think it was I first came across that name, Naomi Wolf, I think it was Dr.
Thorpe had done it and others have have highlighted this.
The information is out there and yet it's just business as usual.
I thought whenever it came out that it was passing over breast milk, passing over through placenta, passing over to the unborn child, then suddenly there'll be a wake -up.
And that really has shocked me that that hasn't woken up people.

No, I think the waking up, although we're all trying to do it, we're censored either overtly in terms of major media, mass media ignoring us, with exceptions.
I would say conservative or right -of -centre media, at least in the US, seems much more open to discussing all of these issues, but it's what we call the mainstream or corporate controlled media, which definitely has a liberal tend, but they tend to support the government, the agencies, and these prevailing narratives.
So it's very hard for us to get our word out to the masses.
So one of the things that myself and a colleague would talk about is that, you know, the group of scientific experts that have really studied COVID openly, objectively, debated, brought forth the data, you know, we're still a small circle of the population.
And so that all of this knowledge resides in what we call private knowledge.
And our entire efforts are trying to bring this private knowledge to common knowledge.
It's impossible. Because you have this iron dome of the media sphere, which doesn't allow anything adverse to be disseminated.
And in return, you know, shoots at us nothing but disinformation, right? which is information, it's basically propaganda, which is, you know, a story or a message to get you to think or act in a certain way.
And you're seeing these constant messages of safety and efficacy, and the need to get more and more of them.
And we're sitting there screaming, looking at the toxicity and lethality data. And it, it's very difficult, but I do think that there might be a shift going on.
I do think the answer is in independent and alternative media that are not influenced by, you know, the pharmaceutical industry and their advertisers.
And that's really where I think the truth can be found. But you're not going to find it in major newspapers.
You're not going to find it in high impact medical journals.
They will not publish this stuff.
So it's a really strange world we live in. I mean, it's quite dystopian, to be honest, especially when you're aware of everything that we're aware of and that we've deeply studied, and no one will listen, I won't say no one, we do reach a certain portion of the population, I don't know what number that is, but we want that number to grow.
We're really just trying to do the right thing here. We want the average citizen to be fed accurate information upon which to make decisions, and instead they're being fed with truly manipulated and propagandized information that's trying to direct their actions.

A lot of the terms you've mentioned have become more and more discussed, shedding or gene therapy or ivermectin.
There are lots of terms that we've come across and I think for me as just a non -medical person, member of the public, it is shocking to hear that these have been talked about. There have been papers on these.
It's not as if this has just appeared, these concepts have just come up with a group of people who are speaking misinformation, which is the term used.
These are part and parcel, these terms are part and parcel of medical understanding.

Yeah, and you're right, so you brought up misinformation because that was actually the point I wanted to make, is that not only is the censorship overt in which, you know, they don't interview us, they don't give us a platform, they don't give us an opportunity to even debate on a show or bring forth our evidence.
So that's like literal censorship. But the other form of censorship is the labelling and attacking of our credibility, right?
So they dismiss us as misinformation, as disinformation, as un-credible. You see all these whenever I'm mentioned in the media, you see all of these descriptors like controversial fringe, I've heard quack, right wing, which I didn't used to be.
I am now but I don't want to get into politics. But um, you know, and it's always attacking our credibility.
And that is a form of censorship, because as soon as they make you appear un-credible to the public, guess what, the public doesn't want to listen to, who wants to listen to some controversial doctor who is a misinformation is whose papers have been retracted, you know, all of the things that they've done to us, formerly highly credible academics, like, if you look at my non-profit, right, the FLCCC, you know, I should say the flcc .net.
That's our website, if you look at us, in In our specialty, we're five of the most highly published, highly respected experts in our specialty.
Paul Marek, who helped found the organization, is the most published practicing intensivist in the history of our specialty.
So you look at the five of us who've published, cumulatively, I think something around 1 ,500 peer -reviewed articles throughout our careers.
We have a cumulative 120 years in academic medicine, and suddenly we're fringe, quack, right -wing anti -vaxxers? I mean, it truly was shocking.
And all of our careers, academic careers, have ended. We're not employable in the system anymore.
I'm just trying to describe just how bad the state of science is.
And science is still science. Science is good, but it's the influences and the corruption of science.
The power of the pharmaceutical industry is absolutely immense.

And of course, you're on the front line. I've talked to many who are academics, who are researchers who look at this, but you were there.
I don't know whether you still, I've read about you being punished for speaking up, but you would have obviously seen things happening as this progressed through your own eyes, through your own practice.
And it wasn't just what you were hearing, it was what you were witnessing.

Oh, yeah.
I mean, we've we knew things. And that's that's been maybe it's been so chronic now that I'm sort of used to it.
But I can go back to those first few months and the things that we knew when I say we, meaning the group of us five, right?
Because when we first started the organization and started our work building protocols, we really focus on the ICU phase of the disease or the hospital phase of the disease. We weren't focused on early treatment.
We were buried in ICUs, drowning in COVID patients, reading papers incessantly, talking to doctors who had survived the New York wave, that first surge in New York, which I was part of.
I landed there April. I did five weeks in my old ICU in Manhattan.
We talked to doctors in China and Italy. We learned things so quickly about steroids, hydroxychloroquine, any number, you know, use of anticoagulation.
So our protocol from early on was not only mature, but there's not one element that we put on back in March of 2020 that we've taken off.
All of them have stood the test of time, but we knew that clinically just based on our experience, expertise, knowledge of pathophysiology, and treating patients.
And I want to bring that up because, you know, I listened to an interview with Bobby Kennedy maybe like a month or two ago.
And one of the things he said, because I think someone asked the question, you know, what would you have done differently?
And one of the things he said is he says, I would have immediately brought together a forum for clinicians, community physicians to share insights, develop, and that's real medicine, right?
Especially in emergency, you want to know what people are doing.
Is it working? Is it not? and we can share your experience.
You know, we'll say, you know, we tried this, doesn't seem to have an effect.
This seems to be really important.
You can figure things out without these ridiculous randomized controlled trials, especially in a severe acute illness.
I mean, it's pretty easy to tell when something's having a positive impact.
So, you know, when I look back to those times, and that's just continued, the knowledge that we have gained, we're always in front of the system.
And another reason why we're always in front of the system, not because we just have direct experience and observations, but we're doing research that they're not doing.
They're wilfully not doing. I mean, like for instance, the shedding studies.
I do wanna make one thing before I forget, Peter, that...
And I kind of get uncomfortable talking about it because I don't want to betray my colleagues, but I know a group, a team of researchers who actually did do a shedding study.
It's very close to publication. They didn't want to share it with us.
But from what I understand is they took 100 unvaccinated women and exposed them to other vaccinated women.
And then they look for the outcome of reports of abnormal menses.
Right. And so apparently they were blinded. They didn't know, you know, exactly who they were up against.
And I'm not even sure. Again, I haven't read the actual methods of the paper, but I do know that they're reporting highly positive findings.
Meaning positive, meaning they are seeing and measuring a correlation between exposures to the vaccinated and then the development of abnormal menses in the unvaccinated.
And that study, I would argue, should be done. And I think it's important you do it in a controlled fashion, but it does not advance our knowledge.
We already know, and that was known within weeks of the rollout.
You know what's happened on social media.
Women all over the country reporting sudden, really disturbing changes in their menstrual cycles, many of whom did not get vaccinated.
It was just as their colleagues and other people in their orbits were getting vaccinated.
These women said, you know, I've been regular with uncomplicated menses for decades, and suddenly I'm having, you know, cramping, strange blood clots, heavy bleeding, irregular bleeding, long periods, you know, so many different disturbances were happening.
And I'm going to tell you that has to be the nanoparticles that are getting absorbed.
Either they're containing spike or the mRNA, which, and those things are inflammatory.
They're disturbing something in the female body. So, but at least here we have a controlled study or will have a controlled study showing definitively cause and effect.

Because it is a requirement for the FDA to have those studies on shedding from gene therapy.
I think in one of your Substack you mentioned Pfizer did a study on some rats, but it never was published.
They literally haven't followed what they're supposed to follow.

No, and there's, you know, maybe this is another good thing we can talk about because, you know, for a long time in COVID, I couldn't understand why the government and its health agencies were behaving in the way I mean, pretty quickly figured out that obviously, they're under regulatory capture, the pharmaceutical companies are directing their behaviours.
I mean, if you look at the policies that are being issued, every single one benefited a pharmaceutical industry interest.
But what I couldn't understand was what was happening in society, which was the disappearance of biomedical ethics, respect for bodily autonomy, on putting a supreme emphasis on fully informed consent, right, you know, the famous pictures of the, the insert for one of the vaccines that it's blank, right.
And so like, we're literally, you know, injecting people with things that we don't even know what the risks are.
And, and then the disappearance of natural immunity. And I saw all of these strange things that I thought were bedrock principles, which guided our behaviour, especially as a medical system, they just disappeared.
And it finally clicked to me why that happened. And what I discovered was based on the work of Todd Calendar, Sasha Latypova, Catherine Watts, right, they did this kind of legal investigatory work, where they look back over like a century of public health laws, other legislative laws around research.
And they discovered that what these vaccines are labelled under or categorized under legally, is that they are a countermeasure.
And I'm going to put the word military countermeasure in front of it.
Because if you look at Operation Warp Speed, the COO in charge of Operation Warp Speed was a general from the military.
We know that, number two, the pharmaceutical companies were all under contract with the Department of Defense, they didn't just bring their own, you know, come up with their own mRNA product, say, hey, we figured out a vaccine, and we're going to produce it and sell it.
No, that the military contracted them to do it.
And then, you know, when was the last time you've heard of two different pharmaceutical companies coming out with the same product at the same time, right Pfizer, Moderna, same exact time, they suddenly produce these barely tested products.
And so you have to understand it as a military exercise.
That's the only way I can understand all the behaviours and that's why we like...
That's why the ethics of everything that happened change is because it was, I believe, it was a wartime mentality that we there was a perceived or actual attack by a bioweapon.
And this was a countermeasure. And this is how you counteract a bioweapon is that you disseminate and launch this countermeasure in order, purportedly in order to save the population. Now, that's a whole other discussion with which is what they knew, did they make mistakes?
Like, was this humanitarian catastrophe that they unleashed with the dissemination of a toxic medical product, was that an accident or was it wilful?
And that those are discussions that it's very hard to get to but the results are the same. There's a humanitarian catastrophe.

No it's huge and we're actually seeing a lot of stuff on AstraZeneca here in the UK which is a whole other issue but doesn't fit into this and I don't want to get side tracked. One of the other headings, one of your other articles was can you absorb lipid nanoparticles from being exposed?
And I get, it's a question you said you got asked about the spike proteins, about the LNPs, about the mRNA passed over, does it stay in the body?
Does everything get passed over? Does it still have the same potency, the same danger when it gets passed over?
How have you answered some of those questions?

Yeah, but I think your question is a bit more specific because, So we definitely know that the lipid nanoparticles can be absorbed in any number of routes, right?
And the reason why we know this is because there are numbers of studies of biomedical or biopharmaceutical companies developing these nanoparticles and delivering them through those routes.
So there's one company developing a product that they're trying to deliver a gene gene therapy to a foetus and then so they're actually delivering it so it crosses the placenta.
So we know it crosses the placenta because they've successfully done it.
We know that there's a number of these products that can be administered to the skin, nebulized through the lungs, and so all of the routes can be done.
Now here's the difference.
When you're doing it as a therapy, right, there's probably an increased dose concentration, you know, instilled into the nebulizer, delivered as vapor, or administered as a cream. So those are probably high doses.
So can just ambient exposure to the shedding of a vaccinated human, is there enough dose there to exert biological effects on the recipient?
And we know that from all of those products, all of those delivery routes did lead to measured biologic changes in the body.
That's how those therapies are working. And this whole area of nanoparticle therapeutics is expanding and exploding.
And so we know that they can do it therapeutically and now can it happen accidentally and the evidence that I'll put for that is the many dozens of clinical anecdotes which again are these are just like very specific ones and if you look at the clinical anecdotes they're really interesting because the first part that I presented were ones that Scott, my partner in our practice, we observe, you know, just in taking histories and following our patients and caring for our patients.
And we have a small cohort of patients who really had to make changes in how they're living their lives.
They avoid big crowds. They avoid having people in their home who are vaccinated.
And because each time they get ill, and some of them, the descriptions are just outlandish.
I mean, And there's one woman who wrote to me from Australia who was probably the worst case.
She is so physiologically sensitive that she put a whole list of insights, like of things that who sheds more, who shed less. There's also secondary shedding.
Now, if you don't know what that means, secondary shedding is someone who gets exposed to a vaccinated, develop symptoms, and then is around like their partner, wife, or a family member, and then they get symptoms.
And so there's a number of reports of even, so it's literally can go from a vaccinated to one and then to the other and both getting ill.
And so the possibilities are limitless, but we started with our own clinical observations, very detailed from case notes and histories.
And then I also had a couple of early treatment experiences with, I'm gonna call them shedding victims.
Back in like March of 2021, two different women came to me after encounters with a practitioner. I think one had seen a massage therapist, the other one had seen an acupuncturist, and they had highly abnormal changes in their menstrual cycles.
And they were really concerned, and they were convinced it was shedding.
And in those two cases, they both actually normalized with treatment of ivermectin.
There's very good reasons why ivermectin would do that.
Basically, because it binds to spike protein. It's one of the most tightly binding medicines to spike protein.
So, I think it mitigated those effects. It's also very anti -inflammatory.
And so, you know, we know, and you can see it in a lot of the anecdotes that were submitted as many people report relief with taking ivermectin either singly or in frequent dosing.
But the other thing about those clinical anecdotes that are submitted, many are submitted by physicians, microbiologists, different scientists.
And so when you see their descriptions, I mean, it's very serious objective, they put in all of like the relevant variables that you'd want.
And when you take a history to kind of rule in or rule other causes for the phenomenon and so when you read the Sontoli anecdotes it's overwhelmingly, if not compelling, it's convincing.
I mean this is a real phenomenon that's happening. But again...
What proportion of the population is capable of becoming symptomatic from being exposed to a vaccinated person.
I think it's a small proportion that are physiologically sensitive, you know, like as a physician, you know, there's kind of three types of patients that you see, which is there are some which are like, you can call them almost like an ox or a bear, like nothing hurts them.
Like, you can give them any pharmaceutical at any dose and they don't ever get side effects, they don't complain, and they just seem very resistant to, you know, outside exposures, pharmaceuticals, environmental.
And then there's the great middle, which is, you know, variable sensitivities to environmental exposures.
And then, you know, there's a distinct set of patients that I've had challenges treating with a cure because you have to use such low doses, you have to change doses slowly, you have to choose medicines carefully because they're so sensitive.
And I think the vast majority of shedding victims, as it were, are the physiologically sensitive, but there are exceptions to that.
There are definitely exceptions.
I definitely have clinical anecdotes of people who got sick after close exposures who don't have that history of sensitivity.
So I don't know what the true numbers are.

And of course, it's difficult to get the data, I assume, because people have been told safe and effective, therefore it can't be the jab I had.
But then similar, if they even share that with the doctor, then the doctor has to listen and be respectful of that concern and not just shut it down.
So even if those concerns are there, even if they're being raised, it's a big step to actually that data coming together and getting out and being open to the world to see?

Yeah, I would say, you know, I don't know if you've seen some of these, you know, Rasmussen, the polling group, right?
They're very highly respected as some of the top pollsters in the business.
And, you know, their polls and surveys of the American population have been pretty astounding, right?
They've asked certain questions, like most recently, you know, they asked a 1100 sample,
do you know anyone who you think died as a result of the vaccine?
And it was shocking. 25 % of the country said they did.
And that number was evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.
So the Republicans was 25%, Democrats were 24%. So it wasn't like a political bias against the vaccines.
It's literally on an average sample, it was that many people thought someone died.
Now I would love to see a survey because that's the only way we would know how many people truly are effected.
I mean, you'd have to ask the question, like, do you believe you've ever gotten ill as a result of being exposed to either a vaccinated or recently vaccinated person?
And I would love to know what that number is.
I'm not affected. I mean, I'm around hundreds of unvaccinated all the time, I get nothing.
I mean, actually, by the way, I'm one of those first categories, I'm pretty resistant to pharmaceuticals, even intoxicants, like, it's very hard to get me drunk and all that stuff. So I'm not kind of surprised that, you know, a spike protein, you know, it doesn't bother me.
But, but you know, that DNA plasmid thing is what worries me, because that can be asymptomatic and subclinical.
And if those lipid nanoparticles containing DNA plasmids with those promoters are capable, I'm capable of absorbing them, and they theoretically have the capacity to maybe integrate into my genome.
Now, I'm getting some really uncomfortable areas, Peter, right? Because this affects everyone on earth.
And we don't know the long term effects. And that's why I don't even know what to say about these vaccines anymore.
It's dystopian. 

It is and I guess the industry does not want the information to get out that because people were told you get a jab in the arm and it stays there and suddenly if this is getting passed on it's moved from the arm and that changes a lot of the conversations and all the information that we're given to the public.

100 % and I don't know when or how that's going to change but I guess my hope and belief is that the data on the toxicity and lethality is so immense that I don't know that they keep this under wraps forever, you know, and you are seeing cracks in this wall of censorship, you know, and this suppression of all this adverse information, I think you're seeing cracks, I think you can see more cracks with all the legal efforts that are happening, some of the discoveries around those legal cases.
But again, even when you find something, it doesn't make headlines, it doesn't make the news, no one's, you know, no one's disseminating these new troubling discoveries that we're making.
You know, it's funny, like, if you look, you know, I'll tell you about my experience that since I posted those sub stacks, I wasn't surprised, because I kind of knew that shedding was a real void of information.
And like I said, a common question, so I knew there was general interest in it.
But after I posted, I mean, who's reached out to me to learn more?
It's folks like you, it's independent podcasters without financial conflicts of interest towards the information that they want to present.
And so I'm in the usual media sphere that they've assigned us to, right, which is kind of walled off from the rest of society. But it's okay.
I mean, I think there's a large audience that are in, you know, this sphere of, you know, listening to independent podcasters, deeply studied people, who like nuanced discussions, where you can ask questions, you can challenge me, you can say, well, how do you, why do you say that?
What's your evidence for that? And like, so we can have these just, I think, really good scientific discussions.
But yeah, but you know, Washington Post didn't come call me, New York Times didn't come calling, you know, you know, the big television stations didn't.
And so it's not surprising. 

I guess talking about shedding is, that really does rubber stamp your misinformation to that group of society.
You could have gone down a different avenue, but you went for, you've written on Ivermectin, you go for shedding.
You go for those important issues.
I'm wondering as you were looking through, putting this together, were there surprises?
Did you see things you didn't expect? or were there any specific things that stuck out with you?

Yeah, I would say the FOIA discovered reports of, events that happened to breastfeeding infants that you like, I already knew that there were studies finding mRNA and spike protein in breast milk.
I knew in a general sense that there had been breastfeeding reports, but when you actually find the document describing what happened to some of these infants, things like strokes, paralysis, respiratory arrest, seizures, you know, after a breastfeeding of a recently vaccinated mom, I mean, it was truly shocking.
And then we have published papers showing that mRNA is present in breast milk for up to 48 hours.
Where's the recommendation to breastfeeding women to not breastfeed for 48 hours after the vaccine?
You know, not that that's an easy thing to do, but I mean, there's published evidence that they are ignoring.
But yeah, I think it was the descriptions of the breastfeeding events.
You know, the pregnancy data I'm already quite familiar with.
The problem with the pregnancy data that I presented is that although we know that these vaccines are extremely dangerous for pregnant women and their foetuses because of the overwhelming, reports, and we have sudden increases now in maternal mortality, infant mortality, dropping birth rates, massive explosions, reports of miscarriages, stillbirths, you know, to VAERS.
So we know it's a catastrophe, but I can't prove that it's directly a result from the passage of an LNP to the baby, because there's a lot of other things that the vaccine causes in the mother that could explain some of those phenomenon.
But it truly is alarming, because it's in what we call the differential diagnosis of all those events happening to pregnant women.
Is it because, or the loss of the baby, is it because those LNPs are getting to the baby and making them sick in some way?
Or the spike protein is. My guess is that it's spike protein from the mom that's being shed or, you know, the word shed, you could also use the word transmitted or passed.
I do think it's a spike protein being passed to the child that's causing a lot of the things that's being measured.

Just can I finish off by asking you about the response?
I think the latest part on your part nine, I think, is the response that you've had, cases coming forward.
Can we just maybe touch on that? And then if there are people watching, listening to this, and they realize, actually, I've experienced this, is there a way for them to pass on that information to you?

Yeah, I would say you can make a comment on my sub stack.
And I actually, I'm wondering, Peter, how much value it is for me to keep collecting the comments and then making new posts. because like each one of my posts in the series, if you look at the comment section, and that's what I did.
So for my last two posts, I just pulled the most compelling and convincing descriptions that different subscribers or readers of mine posted.
And, you know, to your question, what I found interesting about the post is that a few sentiments were expressed by the readers and subscribers.
One, the one most satisfying was one of extreme gratitude for the work that I did, and the way I explained and presented all the science and evidence, people were just saying over and over, you know, how much they appreciate that work, so that they because they've always wondered about this, right.
And I think I presented it in a rather, you know, somewhat succinct, although people could argue about that with nine posts on it.
But in a clear, logical, marshalling and presentation of the evidence, I think people really felt grateful that they where, they felt themselves educated. That's one.
The second sentiment I saw is the kind of what you kind of mentioned is that people after reading that, they started thinking of different symptoms and events and illnesses that happened to them.
They said, you know what, now I realized I was shed upon.
Now, there could be some recall bias, and those aren't the most compelling because the other parts of the comments, the ones that I know is that the people that read it, and they were like, yeah, not news.
I knew this was real, because and then they would relate events that they have, they'd already made the diagnosis of shedding already.
So these people already knew that it was real.
And I think they just appreciated that I marshalled the science that supported what they were claiming was their reality, right?
So it's now it's not an invention that you're making up, hey, I think I was shed upon and there's no science to support shedding.
And so it was really just, you know, repeated, sort of thanks, appreciation and gratitude for me bringing up the topic.
Researching the topic and supporting, you know, what they've found.
And, and then the other is the anecdotes, which describe people who've had to under undertake rather dramatic changes to how they're living their lives. Right.
Avoiding grocery, you know, some of the more sensitive ones, avoid grocery stores and crowds and try not to bring unvaccinated into their homes.
And, you know, that's, shocking, right.
And it's really impacting the lives of some of the population in that now they can't circulate in a general population.
I mean, that that's coming at like out of a movie, right?
Like, I don't want to bring up like the zombie movies or anything, but literally if you, you're, literally suddenly now you feel yourself at risk of getting sick by being around others in our society.
I mean, I don't even know how to describe that.

You're completely right. Let me just remind the viewers again, it is PierreKoryMedicalMusings.com, the Substack, the links are in the description.
And again, his latest book, War on Ivermectin, The Medicine That Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the Pandemic.
And of course, everything is on his Twitter link there.
Dr. Pierre Kory, I appreciate you coming on. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading through that substack and following you over the last two, two and a bit years, I think. So thanks so much for giving us your time today.

Pleasure to meet you and look forward to Romania next week. 

Absolutely. Thank you. 

See you then. Awesome.