JAN JEKIELEK
“The spike protein is probably one of the most toxic proteins the human body has ever seen. … If you have long COVID, you absolutely want to avoid being vaccinated.”
Today I sit down with Dr. Paul Marik, one of the most highly published critical care physicians in the world. He’s a co-founder of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.
“If we had adopted, as a number of countries have done, early, widespread, early treatment, we could have controlled and ended this pandemic in the middle of 2020,” says Marik. “But they don’t want you to know about this. They want you to stay at home, get sick, and then go to the hospital. It’s an outrage.”
We discuss Marik’s views on the corruption of medicine, from the suppression of off-label drugs to the manipulation of safety data to the gaslighting of the vaccine injured.
“I used to think that what you read in the medical journals was the truth… We know now that that’s completely false.”
Jan Jekielek:
Dr. Paul Marik, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.
Dr. Paul Marik:
Thank you, Jan. It’s an honor and a pleasure to be here today.
Mr. Jekielek:
Well, it’s an honor and a pleasure to sit down with you. You were one of the very earliest people who were doing early treatment of COVID. This is back in March of 2020, when you were leading the ICU at the hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. Why don’t you tell me what was happening at that time?
Dr. Marik:
Yes, so obviously, I was in Norfolk. New York’s not far away. This was March, and we knew that COVID had come to the U.S. and had come to the eastern shore, and that we were going to get COVID. If you remember, at that time in New York, the standard current of care was really—no care. The NIH and the WHO said there was no specific treatment. It was supportive care, and if you couldn’t breathe, you were intubated, put on a ventilator, and you died.
That’s completely and utterly preposterous. It just goes against the basic foundation of medicine, that you would have a disease which had a high fatality rate, and you wouldn’t try something just to treat these patients. We thought, this is extremely bizarre. What the NIH was saying at that time is, “There’s no treatment. If you get it, just stay at home and see what happens. If you go blue and you can’t breathe, go to the hospital.” I mean, this was absurd.
So, what we did was, it was myself first, and then a number of colleagues, Dr. Cory, Dr. Varon, Dr. Maduro, we said, “You know what, let’s come together with a treatment protocol based on our understanding of the disease.” So, this wasn’t random. It was basically based on our understanding of the disease at that time and clinical observations.
What we figured out was there were two major components of COVID pneumonia, because this COVID attacked the lung, and these people died of lung failure. The two components were inflammation. Patients were developing profound pulmonary inflammation. The second is, they were developing clotting. We knew that then, and we absolutely know it now. It wasn’t rocket science.
What we decided is that we needed a drug for the inflammation. The most potent anti-inflammatory drugs we have are corticosteroids, and the best corticosteroid for the lung is Methylprednisolone. So, we added Methylprednisolone and Heparin, which really formed the foundation of our protocol. We developed what was called the MATH+ protocol for the treatment of the hospitalized patient.
People thought this made sense and adopted it around the world. At that time, we were heavily criticized, first for using corticosteroids, and then Heparin. People said, “You can’t do it. It’s a viral disease. You’re going to kill people.” They were outraged. But we saw that it worked. We were at the bedside. There’s nothing like being a doctor at the bedside and seeing what happens.
Of course, six months later, the recovery trial came around and showed, believe it or not, that corticosteroids save lives. Unfortunately, in that study, they used the wrong steroid and the wrong dose, but steroids are so potent that it actually was able to reduce mortality, so we were vindicated.
It’s absurd that the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine said publicly in response to this that we got lucky. It wasn’t luck. We understood the disease. We were bedside clinicians who were observing what was happening, and we used common sense and basic science to treat these people.
Obviously, we know that the spike protein activates clotting, causes profound activation of clotting, and that’s why we added an anticoagulant, Heparin. And it took maybe a year before there were really good studies proving that Heparin saved lives.
Looking at my data, and people can argue about the data, which my hospital has done, but in my hands, and even using conservative data, our hospital mortality was around 10 per cent. It was probably a little bit lower. Dr. Varon, who had complete control of his hospital in Houston at that time, his mortality was about 6 per cent.
The hospital mortality, and we know this because we’ve published data on it, around the world was around 20 per cent, sometimes up to 30 per cent. So, conservatively, we had the risk of people dying. And so, that’s how we got involved in this.
What was frustrating was the enormous pushback we got, and why people couldn’t see what was happening. This was so obvious. You didn’t need to be a rocket scientist or a Nobel laureate to actually see what was going on. This is basic clinical medicine. You have a problem, we have a solution. Just treat the people. Stop the nonsense.
Even to this day we are being attacked, even though the data is overwhelming that our protocol saves lives. And ours wasn’t the only one. There are similar protocols across the world, using very similar approaches, which have shown the same thing.
Mr. Jekielek:
Before we continue, why don’t you tell me how you came to be running the ICU at the hospital in Norfolk, and your background.
Dr. Marik:
Yes. I’m a critical care doctor, or intensivist. I trained in South Africa. I did a critical care fellowship in London, Ontario. Basically, I’ve been in an academic setting in various teaching hospitals since the mid-1990s.
My interest is, obviously, ICU. One of my particular interests was sepsis, which is one of the biggest killers on this planet. Maybe 40 million people die each year of sepsis. And so, there were very obvious overlaps between sepsis, which is a profound inflammatory disease, and COVID. That’s maybe how we got onto our protocol, because we adapted our sepsis protocol to COVID.
Mr. Jekielek:
Tell me a little more, because what you’re describing to me is a little bit understated. You were already very well known before COVID hit.
Dr. Marik:
Yes, for two reasons. One is, I challenge the status quo. That’s just what I’ve been. The way I was taught is not to believe everything you’re told. Science is about challenging the status quo, pushing the bar forward, and sometimes asking inconvenient questions. Many of the procedures and protocols which we followed were completely bogus.
Mr. Jekielek:
And this is before COVID. This is looking at the various protocols in different realms of medicine.
Dr. Marik:
Yes, this is all pre-COVID. Probably one of the most interesting is that there’s a thing called the central venous pressure. People measure the pressure in the right atrium, and somehow this was used as a standard of care to direct fluid therapy in ICU. It was completely bogus, and based on completely bad information. But it was a standard of care, and many protocols insisted that you measure this parameter and direct therapy.
I wrote a pivotal paper on this, basically questioning this and saying, “This is completely bogus.” And in fact, the only study to support this was a study of seven standing horses. That was the scientific basis of this widespread maneuver done in almost every single ICU.
People thought I was a rebel rouser, but I follow the science and I follow the truth. Wherever it takes you, it takes you. Sometimes I’m wrong, sometimes I’m right. But I think science is questioning. You can’t just follow blindly. You have to question everything.
That’s become even more important now with COVID. Science should be based on challenging the status quo, asking questions, having a debate, looking at the data, looking at opposing data, and then coming to some kind of consensus. And it’s self-correcting. That’s the nice thing about science, is it changes, and it evolves as our understanding evolves.
Mr. Jekielek:
This is quite an amazing thing. I’ll be honest, I didn’t fully grasp the significance of this “don’t treat until the disease is extremely serious” approach, which was initially taken. You also developed what’s called outpatient treatment, treatment before people come into the hospital. It’s just so strange that there was no directed effort to figure out what that would be, and how to keep people out of the hospital. Because once you’re in the hospital, that dramatically lowers your likelihood of a good outcome, right?
Dr. Marik:
Yes.
Mr. Jekielek:
There’s lots of theories about that, but tell me, what do you think?
Dr. Marik:
We obviously figured out pretty soon that by the time patients come to hospital, they’re pretty bad off, and your risk of landing in the ICU on ventilator is high. We realized very soon that the key to controlling this pandemic, and the key to ending it, was early treatment. It’s such an obvious thing that’s what you want to do; treat people on day one, day two, day three of their illness, with repurposed drugs that work.
This is common sense, because it prevents the disease progressing so that they don’t get sick, they don’t go to a hospital, they don’t die, and they don’t use hospital resources. Secondly, they don’t spread it to their family members. And thirdly, they don’t spread it to the community.
If we had adopted, as a number of countries have done, widespread early treatment, we could have controlled and ended this pandemic in the middle of 2020. That was the only way out, and currently it is the only way out.
As we know, there are lots of repurposed drugs. People have focused on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, but if you look at the data, there’s a group called early C-19. There must be 20 repurposed drugs that work very effectively in reducing the disease, the severity of the disease, the risk of hospitalization, and the risk of death. But nobody knows about it, because they don’t want you to know about it. It’s part of their agenda. There’s no question or doubt, if we had adopted a policy of early, aggressive treatment, this would have been in our rear view mirror. We wouldn’t be discussing this today.
Mr. Jekielek:
That’s a bold thing to say, given the the mainstream consciousness around COVID. So, justify it for me, please.
Dr. Marik:
Yes. The obvious thing to do is to treat people early, because it prevents the spread of the disease, and it prevents the transmission. There are multiple drugs which work, and there are examples.
For example, in Uttar Pradesh, they have a very progressive administrator. Uttar Pradesh is a very big province in India, about 200 million people, so it’s really the size of a country. For reasons that are truly astonishing, he decided to adopt a treat and spread policy, where they basically treated everybody in this province with ivermectin and a number of other drugs.
They abolished COVID-19. The mortality plummeted. There are many other examples in the world, in certain provinces in Mexico, in South America, and in Asia. So, we have very good epidemiological data showing that if you aggressively treat early, you can get rid of this disease.
What’s also astonishing is, the U.S. has one of the highest mortality rates from COVID, if not the highest. We are the most progressive country. We have more resources than any other country. We have all of this brainpower. Yet, if you look at countries in Africa, their risk of dying was infinitesimally small, and there are many reasons for this.
One of them is, which is fascinating, ivermectin is used for prophylaxis of parasitic diseases. Much of the population is exposed to ivermectin. There’s very good epidemiological data, maybe four or fives independent studies that have shown that those countries that have mass distribution programs for ivermectin actually have a much lower mortality.
Secondly, people mainly live outdoors, not indoors like we do. They get something called sunshine. Believe it or not, sunshine is such an important curative factor, in terms of improving your general health, your immune system, and your vitamin D. Obviously, they don’t have the enormous crowding like we do, or did have, in New York City, or maybe in Italy.
There are multiple factors that led to this anomaly. But why didn’t we look at the epidemiological data to see, “Okay, what countries are doing well, and what countries are doing poorly?” We did really badly, and there are multiple factors that led to this.
Mr. Jekielek:
I can think of a couple. Probably these are younger countries also, I would guess. And also, the rate of obesity is probably a lot lower. Those two are highly correlated with bad outcomes, age and obesity.
Dr. Marik:
Yes, you’re absolutely right. Astonishingly, over 30 per cent of the American population are classified as obese, and obesity is a major risk factor, if not the most important risk factor, for getting severe COVID and dying from COVID. Many of the young people who actually died from COVID were obese, and it seems to be that fat tissue has a high concentration of ACE2 receptors, so that may be one of the reasons,. The fat tissue acts as a source of these inflammatory proteins.
You’re right, it’s our terribly unhealthy lifestyle. Americans, not only are they overweight, but they are sugar and starch addicts, so they have uncontrolled blood glucose, which again increases your risk. We have this combination of obese people who are unhealthy, have unhealthy lifestyles, and then whom we lock down. So, instead of letting them go outdoors to get some sunshine, get some exercise, we lock them down indoors, where all they would do is eat. We perpetuated this problem of poor diet and starch addiction.
Mr. Jekielek:
There is another element. You’re talking about sunshine, right? I was reading quite a bit, and I think our mutual friend, Dr. Ryan Cole, actually put me onto this first, maybe a year ago, that basically, a vitamin D deficiency was also correlated with bad outcomes. It seems like the most obvious thing that you could do as a public health measure would be to tell people, “Hey, just make sure your vitamin D is good.”
Dr. Marik:
Yes. There’s overwhelming data concerning vitamin D. The federal government and state agencies do not want to admit it, just because it’s such an obvious intervention. It’s so obvious. The data actually shows that if your vitamin D level is above 50, that your chances of dying of COVID are close to zero. Zero.
We know who is at highest risk of vitamin D deficiency. It’s elderly people, people in long term care facilities, because they’re indoors, and they don’t get outdoors. Obese people. People of color. It was such a simple and obvious intervention. Just let them take vitamin D, and also, tell them to go outdoors. If they live in a part of the country where there’s sunshine, get sunshine every day.
Sunshine has enormous curative properties, both in terms of making vitamin D, and also, sunshine has infrared rays that are enormously curative. The best thing is to just go outdoors and walk. You get exercise, you get sunshine, it’s good for your mentation. And supplement with vitamin D. If we had done that simple intervention, we could have saved tens of thousands of lives.
Mr. Jekielek:
But we still can, at this point, do some of these things, right? Because, at the moment, while many people would argue this is absolutely not an emergency anymore, it is still with us.
Dr. Marik:
Yes. COVID is here, and it probably will be here for a long time, so people need to empower themselves. They need to do what they can do to improve the immune system, first, so they don’t get COVID, and second, if they do, it’s a very minor infection.
There’s some very simple things that people can do, vitamin D being the most obvious. There are other things, such as vitamin C, melatonin, sunshine, nasal spray. We know where the virus replicates. Where? In your nose. So, if you want to kill the virus, it’s simple, use a virucidal nose spray. If you were exposed, or in a crowd where you are in a situation where you’re exposed to a lot of people, just spray your nose with a nasal spray. I particularly use povidone iodine, a 1 per cent solution, which kills the virus in seconds. It kills it in seconds.
This is not made up. There’s a very good study, a randomized controlled trial, where they randomized people with COVID. They had COVID. These were people who were scared of going to a hospital. Imagine such a thing, people with COVID being scared. They randomized them to a nasal spray or placebo, and the nasal spray significantly reduced their time of viral shedding, reduced the hospitalization rate, and reduced death. Reduced death.
This is such a cheap, simple intervention, and yet nobody wants to talk about it. It’s an outrage. We have many different forms of prophylactic, which is prevention, and early treatment protocols to limit this disease, but they don’t want you to know about this. They want you to stay home, get sick, and then go to hospital. It’s an outrage.
Mr. Jekielek:
You do have an early treatment protocol that’s been honed over the years now. A number of people I know have taken it and kind of swear by it. Why don’t you just briefly tell me about that?
Dr. Marik:
Yes, so we have a prevention protocol, and then we have an early treatment protocol. For the early treatment protocol, we use ivermectin, which is not a horse dewormer. That was a propaganda campaign which was orchestrated by the FDA, and is a complete and utter lie. They claim it’s a toxic horse dewormer.
Let’s be clear, 3.7 billion doses of ivermectin have been given to human beings. After penicillin, it has had the greatest influence on the health of humanity on this planet by almost eradicating a whole number of parasitic diseases. It is completely safe. I don’t know how to stress this enough. It is completely safe. You’re more likely to die from Tylenol. You’re more likely to die from Tylenol than you are from ivermectin.
We could argue about its efficacy. We believe it’s an effective drug, but if you have very few options, what is there to lose? If you have a sick patient, you have a drug that’s completely safe, a drug that is cheap, what in the heck have you got to lose by trying this drug? There are studies that are designed to fail. But recently, there was very big study out of Brazil, over 100,000 patients for prophylaxis, showing that there was a 93 per cent reduction in the risk of getting COVID.
People say that I’m cherry picking. Well, you know what? I think it’s a good study. What we do is, we speak to patients, believe it or not. Patients tell us over and over and over again how their disease changed course completely once they started ivermectin. So, our early treatment protocol involves ivermectin. We sometimes use hydroxychloroquine. We use a number of nutraceuticals, and it seems very effective.
The biggest problem, though, is that we are using these drugs off-label, and there’s a big misunderstanding of what off-label actually means. When a drug company develops a drug, they then apply to the FDA for licensing, but it’s for a specific indication. For example, if you have psoriasis, the drug will be approved for psoriasis.
However, many drugs have applications beyond what they are originally licensed for, and that’s called off-label. About 20 per cent of drugs used in the hospital are used off-label every single day. It’s common practice. In fact, the FDA itself, if you go to their website, promotes the use of off-label drugs. What they say is that doctors are fully entitled to use FDA-approved off-label drugs at their own discretion, at the discretion of the physician.
But suddenly, with COVID, the rules changed. You couldn’t use an off-label drug, and you have to ask why. Obviously, they don’t want people to use off-label drugs. They want you to use, first, their expensive drugs, and it obviously would compete with the mandate for the vaccine. Because if there were cheap, effective drugs that could treat COVID, why would you want to be vaccinated with an experimental vaccine whose safety has never been established? So, it was a valid alternative for people who wanted a choice. It’s called personal freedom of choice and consent. People could have chosen, “I don’t want to have the vaccine. I’d rather be treated with this protocol.” But this was denied.
Mr. Jekielek:
You’ve recently made me aware of a number of papers that were published, one I believe in 2004, another one in 2014, about the use of repurposed drugs for related diseases, SARS and MERS. These studies were funded actually by the NIH itself, amazingly enough. That was shocking to me.
Dr. Marik:
In 2004, there was a study from Belgium looking at the use of chloroquine for SARS-1. In a culture medium,it was shown to be highly effective in killing the virus and limiting transmission. In 2005, there was a paper by the CDC, the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, America, which showed exactly the same thing, that chloroquine was very effective for the control of SARS-1.
And then, astonishingly, in 2014, when we were having the MERS outbreak, there was a paper published by the NIAD, which is the NIH controlled by Fauci, which was entitled, “The Use of Repurposed Drugs for the Treatment of MERS.” They listed 26, I think, repurposed drugs. Number two was chloroquine.
So, the scientific community and the NIH were perfectly aware that there were repurposed drugs, and that repurposed drugs could be used for SARS and MERS and SARS-2. But somehow, when COVID-2 came around, that didn’t apply anymore. You must ask why. Clearly, there were severe conflicts of interest. It was inconvenient. It was inconvenient for it to be a repurposed drug.
Mr. Jekielek:
Not only does it tell me that these agencies would have been aware, but it also tells me that the doctors who tried these drugs had a really good basis to do it on, wouldn’t you say?
Dr. Marik:
Absolutely. There was a good biological premise of why these drugs worked. That’s why they did the studies, which actually showed there was a whole host of drugs that worked. Think about a pandemic, what you want to control it are repurposed drugs, because by their very nature, these are cheap, inexpensive, and easy to manufacture. Since this is a global issue, it is then very easy to distribute these drugs around the entire world and control the pandemic, which was the obvious answer—the use of cheap, repurposed, effective, safe drugs.
You know what I mean. Hydroxychloroquine is safe if you use it in the right dose, which is really important. Ivermectin is exceedingly safe. You could use 10 times the recommended dose and it’s safe. Vitamin D, vitamin C, Nigella sativa; there’s a whole host of medications, including melatonin, that are highly effective as repurposed drugs for controlling this disease. But it went against the narrative.
Mr. Jekielek:
I’ve been recently looking at this new Lancet Commission report looking at the response to COVID-19, and it points out some huge, huge flaws. But one thing that’s starkly missing is this issue of repurposed drugs. What are your thoughts?
Dr. Marik:
We now know that the WHO, the NIH, the CDC, the FDA, all these agencies are captured by Big Pharma. Big Pharma controls the agenda, and it’s obviously not in Big Pharma’s interest for cheap, effective, repurposed drugs to have a role in this disease. It’s just never going to make money. Unfortunately, you have to follow the money.
COVID has shined a bright light onto the mischievous behavior of Big Pharma. Let’s be clear, Big Pharma is not in business to save lives or improve the quality of people’s lives. They’re in business for one thing, to make money, even if they sell a drug which they know is harmful. You just have to look at all the multiple, multiple lawsuits that have been filed against them.
Mr. Jekielek:
Now that we’re talking about this issue of Big Pharma, we’re going to have to talk about these genetic vaccines, and the response to them, and the harms associated with them. In fact, we’re here at this conference to discuss treatment of spike-related disease, I think is how it’s called. Before we go there, this is something I’ve just been made aware of as well. I’ve been reading Dr. Joseph Ladapo’s book.
He said that the way they are taught about vaccines in medical school is just very, very different than the way they’re taught almost everything else, including other types of drugs and treatments. He describes it as almost like an indoctrination, which he himself was in at one point. What are your thoughts?
Dr. Marik:
Yes, so he’s a very smart man. I have the utmost respect. And he’s absolutely right. I was taught that vaccines and vaccination were the most important developments, the most important medical interventions ever, and that they changed the natural history of almost every infectious disease. We were taught this blindly. We’re never given data to prove it. It’s just assumed that vaccines are highly effective and very safe, and have changed the natural history of almost all the infectious diseases.
But when you actually look at the truth, it is very far from the truth. If you look at most diseases, measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, almost all of these diseases had declined significantly before the introduction of vaccination. This is because of simple things like clean water, sanitation, and better hygiene. Those interventions had a much greater effect on infectious diseases than vaccination.
Sure, I think the smallpox vaccine did make a difference. There are some vaccines which were very important. But now our kids are exposed to, I don’t know, maybe 30 different vaccines. We know many of them are not effective. Many of them are not safe. What is truly remarkable is none of these vaccines have ever been tested in a randomized placebo controlled trial, so their safety has never been evaluated. Never. What they have in the vaccine is aluminum compounds. The reason they add aluminum is that with many of these dead vaccines, if you inject them, they don’t mount an immune response.
Mr. Jekielek:
You’re talking about just traditional vaccines?
Dr. Marik:
Traditional vaccines.
Mr. Jekielek:
Before we continue, you’re telling me no vaccine has ever been tested this way?
Dr. Marik:
No. Well, yes.
Mr. Jekielek:
In the gold standard.
Dr. Marik:
In the gold standard of randomized control. There are actually two studies. One is the Gardasil vaccine, but they lied. What they said is that patients were randomized to the active vaccine and the adjuvant, which was aluminum, or the placebo, which had saline. So, that’s what people thought.
But what they actually did is the placebo group got the aluminum adjuvant. They didn’t get the true placebo. It’s the adjuvant which causes all of these autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. So, when you then look at the side effect profile of the active Gardasil versus the placebo, the side effects are exactly the same. Why? Because they’ve both got aluminum.
Merck used a novel kind of aluminum compound that had never been used before. There’s very good data that it actually is the aluminum in the vaccine, which is profoundly toxic. There is one completely randomized controlled trial in which they gave participants the active vaccine, the adjuvant, versus saline. One trial. This was done in a hundred sheep. Okay, this is sheep.
Mr. Jekielek:
And which vaccine was that?
Dr. Marik:
This was a special vaccine for sheep. It had to do with blue tongue disease. So, they wanted to actually see the effects. Basically, it was to test the aluminum in the vaccine, and what they found was the aluminum was toxic. These sheep became very sick sheep. Their behavior changed, they became unsociable. Many of them died, compared to the sheep that got placebo, the real placebo.
As far as I know, that’s the only true randomized control trial ever done with a vaccine in sheep. It’s an astonishing thing. People think these vaccines are safe and effective and have been tested. That is not true. The presumption that the aluminum in these as the adjuvant in many of their vaccines is safe, is just unfounded. It’s never been tested. It’s got to the point where the FDA and the CDC just assume it’s safe, but it’s never been tested.
Now, we’re talking about the previous vaccines. We’re not even talking about these new experimental jabs, let’s call them. The problem with those is they were not adequately tested for side effects, for ability to cause cancer, their effect in pregnant people, their effect in children, their effect in people with multiple medical diseases. They just bypassed every single safety measure. There were no good animal studies.
We don’t even know what’s in the vaccine. This is the most astonishing thing. We’re not sure what’s in the vial, because it’s a secret. It’s a secret. It’s astonishing. As a physician, when I prescribe ampicillin, I know exactly the molecular structure. I know how it works. I know its kinetics. I know its pharmacodynamics. I know its side effects. I know everything about it. But with these vaccines, it’s a secret. They don’t want to tell us. We are not even sure what’s in the vaccine.
There was a group in Germany that actually looked at them and did electron microscopy. They found all kinds of heavy metals, which shouldn’t be there in the vaccine. We have no idea what people are being injected with, nevermind their safety. We absolutely know now, categorically and definitively, that they are not safe, and they are ineffective.
Mr. Jekielek:
There was this recent bombshell admission in a EU testimony where a Pfizer official basically said no to the question of whether their genetic vaccine had ever been tested for transmission. What’s your reaction to this?
Dr. Marik:
They’ve lied about everything, in terms of the vaccine. We were told that when you get the shot in the arm, it stays in the arm. We now know that that’s completely false. It distributes throughout the whole body. A recent study actually showed mRNA present breast milk. We know it goes throughout the whole body, so that was a lie. We were told that it prevents transmission of the disease, which we know is not true. We were told it reduces the risk of hospitalization, which we now know is not true.
Mr. Jekielek:
Wait a second. This is the one thing I thought was true, reducing the risk of hospitalization. No?
Dr. Marik:
If you actually look at the data now, it’s part of the lie. If you look at the national health system, if you look at the data in Scotland, the double-vaccinated, the triple-vaccinated and quadruple-vaccinated, they’re at higher risk of being hospitalized than the unvaccinated. This is truly astonishing, because of its effect on the immune system. This is data from Israel, this is data from European countries, this is data from the UK—the more you get vaccinated, the greater your risk of getting COVID and being hospitalized for COVID. And I’m not making this up.
Mr. Jekielek:
Sorry, I was aware of this negative efficacy in terms of contracting the disease, getting the disease. But severe outcomes was supposed to be the last thing that these vaccines actually did, in the way they were supposed to be effective.
Dr. Marik:
Yes. We don’t know. The bottom line is that, maybe with the original Wuhan variant, in those with severe comorbidities, maybe it did have a benefit, which we don’t know. But now, this vaccine is completely ineffective. It’s the ancestral strain. They’re using a virus which is gone. It doesn’t exist. They’re vaccinating you against a virus which doesn’t exist. And the idea that it reduced mortality is highly questionable.
Mr. Jekielek:
But now there is this new bivalent vaccine, which is supposed to work on the Omicron variant.
Dr. Marik:
Yes. Fortunately, it was widely tested, in my understanding, on eight mice. And in fact, all the eight mice got Omicron. It caused an antibody response, but it didn’t protect these eight mice from getting Omicron. That’s the extent of the scientific evaluation of these vaccines.
Mr. Jekielek:
How is this even possible, that this new vaccine platform, that hasn’t been tested thoroughly, that we apparently don’t know the contents of, is approved based on the injections of eight mice?
Dr. Marik:
Yes, if anything tells you that these agencies are captured, this tells you that basically the agencies do what Big Pharma wants them to do. I can give you another example. There’s a drug called Remdesivir. Remdesivir doesn’t work. We know it doesn’t work. We know it’s highly toxic. The WHO recommend against its use. So, they just bend the rules to follow their master, which is Big Pharma. This is why we have to change the structure of these regulatory agencies, because they’re meant to regulate the industry that’s actually controlling them, and this needs to change. There needs to be complete financial disclosure, and no conflicts of interest.
Mr. Jekielek:
Dr. Ashish Jha, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, has said, “There have not been any serious side effects of the vaccines.” That’s a direct quote. What’s your reaction?
Dr. Marik:
Yes, which is astonishing. That somebody of that statue could actually provide such misinformation is astonishing. I’m considered a misinformationist, because I’m trying to tell the truth, and that’s obviously a lie.
How do I know it’s a lie? Actually, from Pfizer’s own data. Under the Freedom of Information Act, the release of the data that was hidden for 75 years, with the first release, we know that in the first 90 days, there were 1,124 deaths directly related to the vaccine, and over 42,000 adverse events, many which were serious adverse events. They list the conditions associated with the adverse events, and it’s eight pages long. So, to claim that there no adverse events is a lie.
We knew three months into the rollout of the vaccine that they were neither safe nor effective, with very serious adverse events. At that time, there was enough information to shut down the program, which is what they have done previously with vaccines which proved to be harmful. But yet, this data was hidden. Now there can be no question of doubt. This data now is in the public domain for anyone to see. The data is there, categorically, the number of deaths and serious adverse events related to the Pfizer vaccine.
Mr. Jekielek:
What are the most common harms that you’ve been seeing?
Dr. Marik:
Yes. That’s actually a very interesting question, because the adverse events from the vaccine differ somewhat from long COVID. There is a commonality, in that it’s mainly due to this persistence of the spike protein, and the spike protein is probably one of the most toxic proteins the human body has ever seen. We have really good data from a number of groups, firstly from Pfizer’s own data, plus there have been two independent surveys looking at vaccine injured, both in the U.S. and in Germany. Over 80 per cent of the adverse events are neurological, which is what makes this such a devastating disease.
These people are neurologically impaired. The most common is overwhelming, severe fatigue and tiredness, then brain fog. It interferes with the ability to think clearly, to do cognitive tasks, and to function normally as a human being. It is this overwhelming fatigue, overwhelming tiredness, and brain fog. Then, they get what’s called a peripheral neuropathy, in which they develop antibodies against the nerve fibers. They get terrible shooting pains, paresthesias, numbness in their legs, terrible pain, and burning pain, which can be enormously disabling. And that seems to be pretty common.
And then, obviously, we have the myocarditis. They can’t hide that. We know this particularly affects young men, who seem, for whatever reason, to be particularly vulnerable to developing myocarditis. And then, there are a whole host of other diseases. Patients get a severe ringing in their ears called tinnitus. They get visual problems. They get problems with walking and ambulation. So, it’s a spectrum.
In fact, there are over 2000 published peer-reviewed papers describing different medical conditions associated with the vaccine. But unfortunately, the most serious ones are the neurological, which interfere with people’s ability to work, to function normally, and to ambulate. These are really serious complications.
Mr. Jekielek:
From what I’ve heard, some of these symptoms of long COVID, as it’s called, are also brain fog and fatigue, so there’s an overlap. There is this potential interactive effect, where people that are vaccinated are now more likely to get COVID. So, it could be a double whammy. I don’t know if this is something you’ve observed, or if there is a way to measure it.
Dr. Marik:
Absolutely. You’re absolutely correct. It’s basically related to the load of spike protein you have. The more spike protein you have, your greater your risk of complications, organ failure and death. So, how do you get more spike? The more you’re vaccinated, the more spike. But obviously, if you get COVID, and you’re already vaccinated, you get spiked some more.
Basically, the bottom line is, don’t get vaccinated. If you do get COVID, be treated early, because one of the reasons for early treatment is that if you treat early, you limit the load of spike protein. So, it’s the spike protein, the load of spike protein that determines the complications.
You’re right, there was this misinformation that if you had long COVID, you should be vaccinated, but that’s the worst thing to do, because it further increases your load of spike protein. If you have long COVID, you absolutely want to avoid being vaccinated.
Mr. Jekielek:
Okay, this is fascinating. Explain to me the body of evidence that exists that shows it’s the load of spike protein that’s responsible for all of this disease.
Dr. Marik:
Okay, so what does spike protein do to the body? It does a number of horrendous things. One thing is, it’s profoundly pro-inflammatory. It’s taken up by what’s called phagocytic cells. These are cells in the brain, cells in the heart, cells throughout the body, and it causes profound inflammation. It’s taken up by the cells lining the blood vessels.
Dr. Cole, who’s already an outstanding pathologist, who’s going to be at our conference, has obviously done pathology specimens. What he finds is that if you look at the endothelial cells, the cells lining the blood vessel, they’re absolutely packed with spike protein. Packed. The cells are packed with spike protein. So, this idea that the spike stays in the arm is false.
The spike circulates, and it goes to to what they call professional phagocytic cells, the microglia cells in the brain, and it causes inflammation. It goes to the endothelial cells and it does some really bad things to the endothelium. The endothelium lines blood vessels.
What does it do? It causes the blood vessels to constrict, and it causes clotting. It interferes with blood flow. When you interfere with blood flow, you have what’s called infarction. It kills the tissue which the blood vessels supply. We know that people who have been exposed to spike have micro infarcts in their brain if we do high sensitive MRI. That’s one of the mechanisms.
The other is, believe it or not, they manufactured spike to have two foreign proteins. One is an amyloid protein, and the other is a prion protein. Prions are mad cow disease. When they designed this vaccine, they added a prion to the receptor binding domain of the spike protein, and they did that because it then binds more avidly to the ACE2 receptor. So, people who get the vaccine are at much higher risk of getting prion disease, which is mad cow disease. And indeed, there have been many cases of mad cow disease being described.
As I said, it has amyloid protein. What we know about these clots that form is that these are very mysterious clots, because they are very fibrous. They are very resistant to breakdown, and they have amyloid, and this is likely from the amyloid within the spike protein. So, that’s one of the mechanisms.
The other, which is very common in the vaccine-injured, is what’s called autoimmunity. Some of the domains in the spike protein look very much like the host’s antigens. It’s called molecular mimicry. So what happens is, when the host mounts an immune response against the spike, at the same time, it causes antibodies to be directed against the host’s own tissues, so the host is attacking itself.
You can see that this is a complete onslaught. You have the spike causing inflammation, the spike causing clotting, the spike causing amyloid and prion disease, and you have the spike causing all of this autoimmune disease. It’s a total onslaught from every angle, and that’s just the beginning of what spike does. It seems the more spike you have, the more inflammation you have.
The pathologist never lies, because they can see the tissues. I’ve seen the slides that Dr. Cole shows, and it’s astonishing to see the spike protein. It’s just packing the endothelial cells, which means it affects the blood vessels.
We also know, and this is frightening data from Dr. Patterson, who has looked at circulating white cells. He’s found that 18 months after long COVID or vaccination, circulating white cells still have spike protein within the cell—at 18 months. The effects are devastating and long term, and we don’t know.
It goes to the ovary and it probably kills off ova. Women are born with a finite number of ova. It’s not like sperm, which divide. You’re born with your set of ova, and that’s it. And we know from well researched data, the fertility rates in 2022 in multiple European countries have plummeted significantly, a 20-30 per cent decrease. It’s a sudden decrease in fertility rates and live births, presumably because of the effect of spike on the ovary.
So, the spike goes everywhere. It goes to every organ in the body and it does devastating things.
Mr. Jekielek:
How many vaccine-injured people, and how many long COVID patients has your group treated at this point?
Dr. Marik:
Yes, I personally don’t treat it. The FLCCC (Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance) is an informational, educational organization. Our goal is to inform patients and inform doctors and educate doctors. We don’t treat patients directly, but we have colleagues associated with our group who do treat patients, Dr. Cory being one of them.
If you actually look at conservative statistics, and this is why it’s frightening, first, the federal government doesn’t recognize the vaccine-injured as an entity. So, these poor people who are vaccine-injured, there’s no question that they have limited resources. Most doctors will say, “I don’t know what’s wrong with you. It’s puzzling to me, but I can tell you, it’s not the vaccine.” That’s what they’re all told. They’re denied the healthcare, they’re denied compensation, and they’re denied treatment.
The numbers are difficult to know. If you look at the VAERS data, we are looking at over a million. If we look at Pfizer’s data, we are looking at over 2-3 million. There was a survey called Pollfish, which independently looked at vaccinated people to see the incidents. It was 6.8 per cent. So, if you extrapolate that to the number of people vaccinated in this country alone, we talking about 10 to 15 million vaccine-injured people.
This is a humanitarian catastrophe. Whether it’s one million, or 10 million, we are facing a massive medical catastrophe, because there are these massive numbers of vaccine-injured people who are ignored and shunned by the medical community. Most of the time they told, “It’s all in your head, there’s nothing wrong with you,” even though we have objective evidence that they are injured. So, the consequences of being vaccine-injured are going to far exceed those of long COVID.
Obviously, long COVID is a big problem. Long COVID generally gets better and is self-limiting. As I said, most of the vaccine-injured are severely neurologically compromised, and many of them are wheelchair bound. That’s why we’re putting on our conference. Our conference is basically designed to teach physicians how to manage spike-related diseases.
We go across the board. Obviously there are no randomized control trials. Much like our MATH+ protocol, we’ve taken basic science, clinical observation, patient responses, and put together what we think are a rational approach to the treatment of the vaccine-injured. Obviously, this will evolve with time as we get better data.
But you can’t ignore these people. How can you do nothing? How can you say, “Well, you know what, I don’t know what this is, we can’t treat you.” That’s inhumane, and that’s just cruel. We have to treat these people. These people took the vaccine without true informed consent, believing that they were actually doing a service to society, and these people have now been injured. Society owes them some kind of compensation, and owes them treatment.
Mr. Jekielek:
At the very least, acknowledgement that what is happening to them is real.
Dr. Marik:
Yes, absolutely. The comment of Ashish Jha, that there are no vaccine injuries is laughable and it’s disgraceful. We have to face the truth. These people are not faking it. They’re not making this up. These people are severely injured, and we have objective measures to test them. We can just look at all the autoantibodies that they develop. Normal people don’t develop all these weird antibodies, so there’s something very sinister and bad happening. And then, of course, they’ve got all the spike protein in their body.
Mr. Jekielek:
As we briefly discussed earlier, this brings us full circle to early treatment protocols, because as it would happen, there’s a lot of commonality. These early treatment protocols that you designed back in March of 2020 and have been honing since then inform a lot of the treatment today.
Dr. Marik:
Yes. Part of the problem with early treatment is inflammation and the virus. As I said, with the vaccine-injured, inflammation and autoantibodies is a big deal. Fortunately, ivermectin is a remarkable drug. People pooh-pooh it, talk about it as horse dewormer, which is completely absurd.
If you had to design a drug for COVID, it would look exactly like ivermectin. It has all the properties that any drug would want. It’s antiviral, so it works against a whole host of RNA viruses. This is indisputable. It is anti-inflammatory. We know this. There are multiple studies showing that ivermectin is a very powerful anti-inflammatory drug. We know that what it does is, it stimulates a process called autophagy, which is very important in the process of healing. It’s one of the main mechanisms that we use to help patients get rid of spike protein. And ivermectin, believe it or not, stimulates autophagy.
The other thing it does, which is important, is it changes and improves the microbiome. We have all of these bacteria in our gut. What happens is, COVID in the vaccine changes your microbiome in a very unfavorable manner. Very unfavorable. It causes profound changes in the microbiome, and this in itself has serious consequences. Ivermectin helps restore the microbiome.
It truly is a multifunctional drug, which is safe, and it works both for early COVID and it also is very effective for the vaccine-injured. And we are not making money selling ivermectin. No one’s going to make money. People ask, “You’ve got a conflict of interest. Are you selling ivermectin?” No, this is a cheap, generic drug. The WHO actually had access to ivermectin at two cents a tablet. Two cents. How can you possibly make money off such a cheap drug?
Mr. Jekielek:
As we’re talking here, you paint a very disturbing picture of the medical establishment. I could ask a number of questions. One is, why is there so few doctors thinking along the lines that you are?
Dr. Marik:
Yes. It’s a very puzzling question to me. Why? I have no reason but to tell the truth. What do I gain by promoting misinformation? In my entire career, I’ve sought the truth, and that’s what we do. We tell the truth, as best as we understand the truth. It is astonishing to me why there are so few physicians who are actually prepared to open their eyes and see what’s going on.
I do think about this often, because why is it just a handful of doctors? It’s perplexing to me. Maybe we’re in an era of medicine where doctors just follow. This is part of the training at medical school, they become lemmings. They’re just followers. They’ve lost the process of independent thought. I see this in our residents. They can’t think. The material between their two ears is not utilized. They just regurgitate what they’re told. They follow protocols. They don’t think. So, that could be part of it.
Also, there may be an element of fear. Maybe they suspect that something is wrong, something isn’t right, but they’re fearful for their career. We know that the agencies and medical boards have gone after people that have spoken up against the narrative, and physicians have lost their license. Obviously, for a physician to lose a license, it basically ends their career. So, it may be an element of fear.
And then, it could be just ignorance. They just don’t understand, and don’t want to know. They’re also misled by the medical journals. I used to be in that category. I used to think that what you read in the medical journals was the truth, and that the highly revered medical journals spoke the truth.
We know now that that’s completely false. You really can’t believe what’s in the medical journals. This is a terrible statement I’m making, because if you can’t trust the medical journals, who can you trust?
Physicians have to have an open mind, and have to begin to think critically. What they often do is just read the concluding paragraph of the abstract of the paper, and that’s what they base their assessment on. The conclusions are always contrived, and don’t really reflect the paper. You have to be very suspicious of what’s published, particularly when there’s a conflict of interest.
We know pharmaceutical companies manipulate data. They hide data. They have ghost writers who write these papers. You really can’t trust the medical journals. Marcia Angell, who I think is a hero, was the editor of the New England Journal for many, many years. She wrote a book in 2004, basically saying that you can’t trust the journals. You can’t trust the medical committees and organizations, because they’re captured by Big Pharma, which is a terrible indictment of the system.
It’s a combination of factors why so many doctors are so silent, but they need to face the truth. They need to speak the truth, and they need to stop hiding behind this facade of misinformation.
Mr. Jekielek:
What sorts of consequences have you faced for stepping out very early, probably not even realizing what you were getting into?
Dr. Marik:
Yes, what you say is absolutely true. When we started this in March, 2020, I have to admit, I was completely naive. I had no idea what was going on and where this was going. But obviously, with time, it became obvious that there were other agendas, and that there were some evil forces. For me, I was silenced. Eventually, I had to quit my job. The American Board of Medicine was going after me. The Virginia State Board was going after me. The medical journals were going after me. If you try to speak the truth, they will go after you. I’m considered a misinformationist, and my only goal is to speak the scientific truth.
Mr. Jekielek:
I have to ask about how you imagine this state of affairs is reformed, because there has to be a way out.
Dr. Marik:
I think there are few avenues. We need to spread the truth, so that more people, the people of the world, our fellow human beings, know what’s going on. We need doctors to be educated as to what’s going on. What’s going to emerge is an alternative healthcare system, because this one has completely failed. It’s failed in so many ways. There are going to be alternative ways of providing healthcare.
The most important thing is the way the agencies are run has to be completely reformed. Congress has to change this, these profound conflicts of interest. The rotating doors between pharma and the agencies has to stop. These agencies should do what they meant to do, which is to regulate, not be controlled by the agencies they’re meant to regulate. If there are any perceived conflicts of interest, that should disqualify you from working for any of these agencies.
It has to be multi-pronged. We need to educate humanity. We need to educate doctors. We certainly need an alternative healthcare system, which is more designed for promoting health and welfare and wellbeing, rather than being driven by pharma. What’s astonishing is, the U.S. makes up 5 per cent of the world’s population, yet we consume 50 per cent of the world’s prescription medication. 50 per cent. We consume 80 per cent of the opiates.
We have an obsession in this country with the use of prescription drugs, which do not cure disease, let’s be clear. What they do is keep people chronically addicted to medication. Rather than focus on lifestyle changes and healthy eating and healthy living, which can make a major impact on disease, we are obsessed with using medications which do not work, which may have side effects, and which people are addicted to for their lifetime. We need to change the way medicine functions.
Mr. Jekielek:
Yes, you mentioned sunshine early on, right? And it’s not just about vitamin D. There’s a mitochondrial activation that happens with the infrareds, and I’ve just recently learned about that. It’s amazing. My mother was right about the sunshine. You’ve raised some very, very profound issues here.
Dr. Marik:
We have to get back to basics. Eating whole, real food, not processed food. Getting exercise. Walking outside. Walking in the sun. Being kind, compassionate human beings. We need to restore humanity, and we need to get back to the basics, and that seems to have been lost. There’s simple lifestyle changes you can make. Just hug somebody. Just show affection. Social distancing is an oxymoron. How can you be social if you’re distant? We need to show love and caring and affection, and care for our fellow human being.
Mr. Jekielek:
Finally, if there are people who believe they are vaccine-injured or know somebody who is, where should they reach out? Who should they reach out to?
Dr. Marik:
Yes, so what I would say is that on our website, FLCCC.net, we have a whole protocol for the treatment of the vaccine-injured, and that’s a starting resource. They need to find a clinician who will be receptive to treating them. That’s most important. Most of these patients get shunned. They get dismissed. They’re told, “Okay, this is not due to a vaccine injury.” So, we need to educate physicians. That’s the biggest goal of this conference, to try and educate physicians as to the breadth and the depth of the vaccine-injured and how to treat them.
Like most things in medicine, the longer you wait, the more difficult it is to treat. Many patients, it’s truly astonishing, do not make the connection between the vaccine and the change in health status. I had a colleague I was speaking to whose wife was vaccinated, and he’s telling me, “You know what, her thinking process and her thought process is just not the way it used to be. I think she’s becoming demented.” And I said, “Well, do you think it followed the vaccine?” And he says, “You know, if I think about it, yes, you’re right.”
Many people have health problems, cardiac problems, and mental problems, that they really don’t associate it with the vaccine. People need to look at the temporal trend between the change in their health status and getting the vaccine, and they are more than likely vaccine-injured.
Mr. Jekielek:
Is there a way for someone who doesn’t have access to a doctor who might understand these details to be connected with one?
Dr. Marik:
We don’t treat patients directly. But on our website, FLCCC.net, we have links to many physicians across the country who will manage long COVID and the vaccine-injured. What I would recommend is to go to the website and look at the links for physicians in their area, to try and find a physician who’s prepared to manage the vaccine-injured. That’s probably my best advice. There are a number of groups. React19 is probably the most active in this country. React19 is a nonprofit to help the vaccine-injured. That’s what they do. React19 can help you link with a provider.
Mr. Jekielek:
Dr. Paul Marik, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show.
Dr. Marik:
Thank you kindly, and thank you for understanding the issues involved. It means a lot to us that we could even have this discussion, because you know what? I don’t know everything, and I may be not right on everything, but at least we can have an open discussion, and I think that’s what’s important.
Mr. Jekielek:
Thank you all for joining Dr. Paul Marik and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek.
