DR. PAUL MARIK: Only “about 5% of all cancers that are actually curable with chemotherapy.”

Why I never chose chemo or radiation. ☢️ https://t.co/Z9J286RgIH

— Wejolyn 🇺🇸 (@Wejolyn) June 24, 2024

Dr. Paul Marik Exposes the Truth About Cancer Only “about 5% of all cancers that are actually curable with chemotherapy.” For the remaining 95%, “Chemotherapy is palliative at best” and comes with several nasty side effects: • Nausea and vomiting • Hair loss • Anemia • Infections • Bruising and bleeding • Skin and nail changes • Cognitive changes • Sexual and reproductive issues • Peripheral neuropathy • Edema • “Knocks out the bone marrow” • Et cetera So, are conventional cancer treatments working? Despite advancements in chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and surgical treatments over the past 30 years, the overall life expectancy of a cancer patient has been extended by a measly 3.9 months.

As such, Dr. Marik advised cancer patients to ask this question: “Is this [chemotherapy] going to cure my cancer, or is it just going to palliate and extend my life a month or two with terrible side effects?” 

"the technology on which the [mRNA] platform was based has now been shown to be functionally defective."

"There's no one reading this paper who couldn't understand what a fundamental disaster this actually is, because it challenges the whole premise of the mRNA platform." - @drpaulmarik1 of @Covid19Critical on a new study published in Nature medical journal.

🔴WATCH on… pic.twitter.com/QxzTzVtpbR

— Jan Jekielek (@JanJekielek) December 19, 2023

In this clip, Dr. Paul Marik talks about ribosomal frameshifting.

What the ribosome does it's a little structure that reads the messenger RNA and then it makes the protein.  So the mRNA carried the code to make the protein, and it's . . . there's a very specific sequence of nucleotides that the Ribosome reads to determine the order of the amino acids, and then amino acids make up the protein.  So normally, mRNA has uridine, that's the way that the body was made.  But for this technology to work, they had to substitute the uridine for pseudouridine, and what the study shows is that when you put a pseudouridine where uridine should be, the ribosome jumps or misreads the mRNA.  As a consequence of this, it results in a bogus protein being made.  Instead of making spike protein, it makes a nonsense protein that is possibly toxic.

The problem is if you used a normal mRNA it would be broken down by the host very quickly and it wouldn't work and you wouldn't make the spike protein.  So to overcome the problem they came up with the idea of using pseudouridine.  In fact, the Nobel Prize was awarded to two physicians, Katalin Kariko and Drew Weissman, for this discovery.  So in a way, they kind of shot themselves in the foot, because the technology on which the platform was based has now been shown to be functionally defective.  After all, it doesn't do what it's meant to do.  And it applies to the entire messenger RNA platform because this whole technology is based on pseudouridine.  So it means that whatever vaccine or whatever protein that they want to make is going to be defective based on this problem.  

JEKIELEK, 2:57. So there I mean if I read this right, and please correct me, like 25 for 30% of the time, which is a frankly a lot, you get this error, this junk protein I think is you described it that's created instead of the spike protein.  And so I mean, what are the implications of that?  I think the paper also says that those proteins have an immunological response that creates an immunological response.

MARIK, 3:21. Yes, like much to do with this vaccine we don't really know.  But obviously, it's making a protein that shouldn't be there; it's a foreign protein to the host.  The spike protein is foreign.  The host sees it as foreign and is going to mount an immune response.  So the likelihood is the host is going to see this protein as defective and he's going to mount an immune response, but it may have other more sinister, toxic effects that we don't know about and this can have adverse consequences on the patient.

JEKIELEK, 3:57.  You mentioned something about amyloid proteins . . . . 

MARIK, 4:04. We know that the vaccine, the spike protein itself has a sequence of amyloid protein in the spike protein.  We know that there has been an increased deposition of amyloid and in patients who have received the vaccines amyloid is the protein that collects in patient's . . .  in the brains of patients with dementia and Alzheimer's Disease.  So the fact that you have these foreign proteins in the cell, you know, the nanoparticles, cross the blood-brain barrier quite easily.  So these proteins may form in the brain and may have serious consequences.

JEKIELEK, 4:44. The way the paper is written they say "Well, this is a great technology an . . . ," However, there is this kind of problem that we have found, and the problem, as you have found it, seems to be foundational.

MARIK, 4:57.  Exactly.  The premise on which it is based has failed and it's causing an end result that was unexpected and should not happen so this technology has essentially failed.

JEKIELEK, 5:13.  Do you think the reviewers of this paper understood the implications?

MARIK, 5:18. Oh, absolutely, yeah.  There is no one reading this paper who couldn't understand what a fundamental disaster that actually is because it challenges the whole premise of the MRNA platform.

The entire interview is here behind a $.25/week paywall.  

Don't have sex with vaccinated people

Don't have sex with vaccinated people pic.twitter.com/PxFM5re3Oq

— illuminatibot (@iluminatibot) September 26, 2023

"The FDA is not your doctor. Their job is to approve drugs to the market and that's it. They should not be prohibiting drugs. They shouldn't be endorsing drugs. That's not their role, and that's the point of our lawsuit"

purpose of our lawsuit, to remind everybody that the FDA is not your doctor.  Their job is to approve drugs to the market and that's it.  They should be neutral.  They should not be prohibiting drugs.  They shouldn't be endorsing drugs. That's not their role, and that's the point of our lawsuit.  --Dr. Mary Talley Bowden.

“Overwhelming and irreversible damage.” We can’t fix the past but are hoping to prevent this from happening in the future. Thank you @EmeraldRobinson for having us on to talk about our lawsuit against the @US_FDA. @drpaulmarik1 https://t.co/Ga4lOo8nZY

— Mary Talley Bowden MD (@MdBreathe) August 14, 2023

Three doctors who were fired for prescribing or promoting the cheap therapeutic drug, Ivermectin, for the treatment of Covid-19, asked the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to revive a case that a federal judge dismissed back in December 2022.  

[The judge in this case is The Honorable Priscilla Richmond she's the chief judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  The date of the hearing was August 8th 2023.]

During the hearing, a justice department attorney named Ashley Cheung Honold tried to defend the FDA's strong campaign against Ivermectin including this tweet where they tell people to just stop it to suggest that the only form of ivermectin comes as horse paste listen

They did not purport to require anyone to do anything or to prohibit anyone from doing what about when it said no stop it why isn't that a command that seems to me that if you were in an English class they would say that is a command stop it that is different than we are providing helpful information.

Your honor, the language that was used in these tweets were merely quips, and I don't think these quips change the substance of the FDA's statement as plaintiffs concede.

Is that a command, "Stop it"?

The tweets about the horse Ivermectin were intended to advise consumers that they should not use Ivermectin intended for animals and that this could be unsafe.

Here is the manipulative ad in question.

You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it. https://t.co/TWb75xYEY4

— U.S. FDA (@US_FDA) August 21, 2021

I'm sorry, can you answer the question, please?  Is that a command, "Stop it"?

Senator Ron Johnson took to Twitter about the about-face of the federal government when confronted with the actual law.  Senator Johnson pointed out that the government admitted in court that the doctors indeed have the authority to prescribe Ivermectin off-label.

Here the FDA was not regulating the off-label use of drugs.  These statements are not regulations.  They have no legal consequences.  They don't prohibit doctors from prescribing Ivermectin to treat Covid or for any other purpose.  Quite to the contrary, there are three incidences that I'd like to point the court to in the record that show that FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe Ivermectin to treat covid.

So then why are your patients still facing backlashes like this at the drug counter?  "Hi.  I had the same prescription filled at the other store."

Joining us now to discuss these huge developments in the case are two of the plaintiffs Dr. Paul Merrick and Dr. Mary Bowden.  Welcome to you both.  It's good to see you.  This was really big . . . the line of questioning and the struggle to answer from the government lawyer was just amazing.  I'll start with you, Dr. Bowden.  The main argument here is that the FDA admitted to regulating big Pharma.  It doesn't have the authority, though, right, to tell doctors what they can and cannot do, which they acknowledge in court, but if you talk to a doctor, which I did, some of them pretend as if their hands are tied, that they couldn't prescribe Ivermectin.

4:15. There's a misconception that the FDA has more power than they do I think.  The Judge pointed that out quite nicely.  She said, you know, "People believe that the FDA has this power, this right," and that's sort of the purpose of our lawsuit, to remind everybody that the FDA is not your doctor.  Their job is to approve drugs to the market and that's it.  They should be neutral.  They should not be prohibiting drugs.  They shouldn't be endorsing drugs. That's not their role, and that's the point of our lawsuit.

I was quite struck and I played this for my audience on Friday about the argument of sovereign immunity Dr. Merrick.  Essentially the FDA says that we can put out information that's not exactly correct, or that could even harm American citizens and that they have sovereign immunity.  How did you feel about that statement do you believe that's true?

5:19. Yeah, clearly that's absurd.  It means that they are allowed to do anything illegal under the pretense of sovereign immunity.  So let's be clear that the FDA has been on a campaign, a vigorous campaign to deface and dehumanize the use of Ivermectin, which is a safe effective medication, and as a result of this, as you saw in that clip, patients are being denied access to Ivermectin.  Physicians are losing their licenses because they prescribed Ivermectin.  So the misinformation that is being perpetuated by the FDA continues, and as Mary said that is beyond their jurisdiction.  They should not be interfering with the patient-physician relationship.  Their role is to approve drugs they are not in the business of practicing medicine and from the clips that you saw it seems that they're doing a rapid 360 about turns because clearly they made a mistake.

6:30. Yeah, clearly and it seemed like based on what I heard from the hearing, Dr. Bowden, that the judges will likely rule in your favor.  Where do you see this going?  Is the case going to be reinstated?

6:45. Well, unfortunately, the purpose of the lawsuit is basically to have them take down their tweets and take down the misinformation that they put on their website.  Our attorneys don't anticipate that we will get any sort of retraction, although I feel like that is warranted.  We are not seeking damages. Where this goes from here is at the appeal was over sovereign immunity so what may go back to the district court where then we have to prove standing so it's a little up in the air.

7:20. But the damage is already done.  Look if the information is out there. I tried to get Ivermectin for a different purpose than it's used for off-label and the doctor who was willing to prescribe it told me, "Look, don't take this to a local pharmacy.  You got to tell me what pharmacy you're going to take it to because I don't want to hurt my relationship with a pharmacy that I prescribe other medicines, you know, to my local patients."  And that's just absurd.  The damage is done.  If they don't issue a retraction or put out a statement, do you see this war on Ivermectin, Dr. Marick, ever ending, especially as we're we are being warned this other wave of Covid coming? 

8:00. So to speak, the horses are out of the barn already.  They have caused enormous damage.  As Mary said, the purpose of our suit is to prevent them from doing this going forward.  We can't have the FDA interfering with the practice of medicine and that's really the basis of our suit.  But you are correct: the damage that's been done is overwhelming and irreversible.  As you say there is this profound misconception that Ivermectin is horse paste, that it's made for horses, and that it's an unsafe medication.  And those two premises are completely false.  It is one of the safest medications on this planet.  And over 3 billion doses have been given to humans safely, so this is a highly effective medication.  It's exceedingly safe and the notion that it's a toxic horse dewormer is really complete Lee false and misinformation and so the FDA themselves are perpetuating false information and they're interfering with the patient physician relationship.

9:10. Dr Bowden before we end what can people do to help you all fight? 

9:15. Well we're in an information War so keeping the dialogue alive continuing to talk about it continuing to put the heat on the FDA to correct this continue to put the heat on our legislators.  If we lose this case it really emboldens the FDA so it's important and we need to keep talking about it. 

Dr. Paul Marik on Vaccines

Full Interview: https://t.co/rXysyCfBVz

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) April 5, 2023

Remdesivir increases the risk of death by 3%, the chances of renal failure by 20%, and costs $3,000/course. Ivermectin reduces the risk of death by 50% and costs the W.H.O. two cents

It should be clear by now that when you put your trust in doctors using hospital care, those doctors are not using their best tested, studied options or practice.  No.  Unfortunately, they're merely following the orders from on high, even from international bodies, far removed from local knowledge, local, standard, and tested care.  So when you think you are under the care of an expert, ah, your doctor is only an expert at following the orders of outside agencies.   

Remdesivir is bad. Fauci was so thrilled to push it. pic.twitter.com/8WWh7AKtpH

— Broken Truth 🐭 (@BrokenTruthTV) November 1, 2022

If you look at the 4 independent studies, including the large studies by the W.H.O. it shows the opposite effect.  Remdesivir increases the risk of death.  Let me say that again.  Remdesivir increase the risk of death by 3%.  It increases your chances of renal failure by 20%.  This is a toxic drug.  But just to make the situation even more preposterous, the federal government will give hospitals a 20% bonus on the entire hospital bill if they prescribe Remdesivir to Medicare patients.  [Oh, so the federal government is trying to kill elderly patients.  Huh.]  The federal government is incentivizing hospitals to prescribe a medication which is toxic.  So it should be noted that Remdesivir costs about $3,000 a course.  Dr. Kory spoke about Ivermectin.  Ivermectin reduces the risk of death by about 50%.  It costs the W.H.O. $0.02.  Two cents.  So as regards Dexamethazone,  This is the wrong drug in the wrong dose for the wrong duration of time yet every clinician in this country will absurdly use this homeopathic dose of Dexamethazone.  Why?  Because the NIH tells them to do this.  So what the NIH and other agencies have ignored are multiple FDA-approved drugs.  These are FDA-approved drugs.  These are not experimental drugs, which are cost-effective, and safe, and have unequivocally, unequivocally been shown to reduce the death of patients in the ICU and in hospital . . . .

Remdesivir increases the risk of kidney failure at least 20-fold based on the World Health Organization data

“Remdesivir (the only drug Fauci would approve) is a toxic drug…they tried it for Ebola…but actually had to abandon the study…because of the increase risk of death…” -Dr. Paul Marik pic.twitter.com/xr4zPoH9pC

— Liz Churchill ™ 🇨🇦 (@liz_churchill7) October 29, 2022

"The more the spike protein that you have, the greater your risk of complications"

“The spike protein is probably one of the most toxic proteins the human body has ever seen.”

Dr. Paul Marik explains the dangers of a buildup of spike protein in the body, from inflammation to autoimmune disease.

🎬PREMIERE 10/25 at 7:30pm ET on @AmThoughtLeader! pic.twitter.com/rpLFRfMNzM

— Jan Jekielek (@JanJekielek) October 24, 2022

An interactive effect where people who are vaccinated are more likely to get COVID.   So it could be a double whammy.  I don't know if this is something that you've observed or some way to measure it.  

MARIK, 2:43  Absolutely.  You're absolutely correct.  It's basically related to the load of spike protein that you have.  The more the spike protein that you have, the greater your risk of complications, organ failure, and death.  So had 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 spike some more.  Basically, the bottom line is, don't get vaccinated.  Avoid getting COVID if you're vaccinated.  And if you do get COVID to be treated early.  

"And you know what, the average hospital bill is about $400,000 to $500,000 per COVID patient. Hospitals get 20% bonus on the entire hospital bill"

The speakers are Dr. Paul Marik [more here] and Steve Kirsch.

And you know what, the average hospital bill is about $400,000 to $500,000 per COVID patient.  Hospitals get 20% bonus on the entire hospital bill. 

5:30  If you don't go along with their protocol, you'll be terminated, and they'll find anyway to terminate you.  And we should know, that there are probably financially incentives.  If you're diagnosed with COVID, you get a bonus.  If you're intubated, you get a bonus.  If you prescribe this ridiculous drug, Remdesivir, which increases your risk of death, you get a 20% bonus.  So there are enormous financial incentives for them

. . . just for prescribing a drug?

5:55  Yes, for prescribing Remdesivir, you get a 20% bonus on the entire hospital bill.

Who's paying that, the U.S. government?  Yes, so these are Medicare patients.  If you're a Medicare patient, you get a 20% bonus . . . 

On the entire bill?

On the entire hospital bill . . . .  And you know what, the average hospital bill is about $400,000 to $500,000 per COVID patient.  

6:27  Wow, so we're talking a significant incentive for the hospital to say "follow the protocols."

6:35  Yes, there's a lot of small chain involved.  And that's why they don't like troublemakers who are going to interfere with their bottom line.  I mean the patient outcome, whether the patient lives or dies, is completely irrelevant.  It's all about the bottom line and profiteering and making money.  

7:02  So, a lot of people think that we should be incentivizing hospitals to save lives and that hospitals should get $100,000 if they saved a COVID life.  If someone checked in and is suffering respiratory distress, and the hospital is able to save that patient, they should get like a $30,000 bonus.  They should incentivize the outcomes that you want, right?  

Boy, is that a telling remark! 

7:26  Yes, so it's upside down.  You actually get incentivized if patients die, which is completely opposite of the traditional Chinese Medicine.  In fact, if patients did badly, these practitioners weren't paid.  They weren't incentivized if they patient did badly.  We actually have a system where the hospital actually profits when a patients gets intubated, going on a ventilator, and dying. 

7:52  So, what woke you up, what made you realize that the vaccine that you were asked to take and that you willingly took, what caused you to shift from being a believer in the safety of the vaccine, of the COVID vaccine, to now speaking out against the COVID vaccine?  What was the moment that did that, or did that happen over time?

8:14  Yeah, so when the vaccines came out, I was vaccinated in December 2020.  Firstly, I had no option, because I would have been terminated.  Secondly, at that time, I believed the narrative.  What can I say?  I am like most doctors who've been brainwashed and indoctrinated, so I did believe the narrative.  And then with time, it took time, Pierre figured this out much quicker than me.  I was still a little bit on the fence, but with time it became clear.  First, we had no idea what's in these vials.  We have no idea what's happening.  They were inadequately tested and they lied to us, and it became clearer with time that this was one big massive lie, that they were neither safe, nor effective.  And as more and more data came out, and we saw from the VAERS data and multiple databases that they had lied to us and then it became clear.   

9:20  So was it the accumulation of data that you were observing and instead of just reading the conclusions of the paper, you were looking at the underlying data.  And were you seeing that first 

14:05. Like, can you practice medicine today?  Did they take away your licenses, or what did they take away from you?  

14:10. Yes, so you know, this all happened independently, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Brian Tyson, Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Urso, it's not like we conspired together.  We just independently came to the same conclusion.  If you look at the data, there's no other conclusion to see.  My end result was basically the hospital [Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia] terminated my career for good. 

14:40. You can't go to any other hospital because you're essentially blacklisted at this hospital which means you can't get into any other hospital?  

14:47. Yeah, so they reported me to the National Practitioner Data Bank, and once you get into the data bank as a devious, deviant, bad-actor doctor, it's almost impossible to get out of it.  Also, they reported me to the Board, and then the Board of Medicine came up with their own concocted charges against me.  So, this is the problem if you try to speak out, try and speak the truth.  The Board of Medicine accused me of prescribing Ivermectin to a bunch of patients who were injured.  The truth of it is I've actually been able to prescribe Ivermectin.  Ever.  And the patients they claimed I treated are non-existent patients, so that tells you how far the virginia Board of Medicine will go to accuse me of prescribing Ivermectin to non-existent patients.  I mean I never wrote a scripp for anyone.  

15:50. So how did those non-existent patients actually do?  Did they show you the medical records of those patients?  

15:58. No, no what they do is the same thing as sham peer review.  They accuse you of a crime but they don't give you the evidence.  So in my sham peer review they accused me of 7 outrageous charges but they were unable to provide any evidence, any evidence actually to support the charges that they made.  One of the charges was that I forced a nurse to give a patient a medication to which the patient was allergic.  Now, I mean can you imagine something that outrageous?  They were unable to provide any evidence that I'd actually done such a thing but I was assumed guilty as charged and I had no legal representation, and based on these bogus charges they withdrew my hospital privileges.

16:48. Is there a public record of this so that the public can get this record and look at the name of the patient . . . and maybe it's redacted.  Is there a way that this can be verified independently by a 3rd party or is it all done behind closed doors?  

17:07. So, if it's done behind closed doors, i was never given the name of the patient.  So believe it or not, I was accused of this crime but the name of the patient was never disclosed to me, nor was I given any information regarding the patient.  And it's meant to be privileged and confidential but obviously I am not going to hide it because it's an outrage, it's immoral, it's evil.  So, no, I have written a little story about this because it's an outrage.  I have shared this story with a number of representatives in the Virginia Legislature who know about this.  And Robert Malone knows about it too.  He's actually . . . he's doing a book and in his book he's going to cover this whole nasty episode.  But this thing, it's not unknown.  I was ignorant and never knew about it, but if you actually look unto it there's this thing called sham peer review, it's well-known.  And it's what hospitals do to get rid of doctors they consider to be troublemakers.  

18:17. So there's no public record, no record at all of who your charges, who your patients were supposedly?  And why did they not reveal to you the name of the patient who you prescribed the ivermectin to because that's your patient. There's no confidentiality there, so why would they not want to reveal that name to you?  

18:40. That was the Board.  The Board of Medicine 

DR. PAUL MARIK: REMDESIVIR INCREASES THE RISK OF DEATH

AZT 2.0. https://t.co/TXYJbQtWuD

— James Lindsay, watching narratives crumble (@ConceptualJames) January 24, 2022

Crowd outside Norfolk’s courthouse supports Dr. Paul Marik suit against Sentara Healthcare for banning the use of Ivermectin

Quite the crowd outside Norfolk’s courthouse in support of Dr. Paul Marik. @WTKR3 was the first to report last week that he’s suing Sentara Healthcare for banning the use of #Ivermectin

He’s expected in court at 1pm https://t.co/VDd6dAwxE0   pic.twitter.com/jJFgjpxJoL

— Erin Miller (@Emiller_reports) November 18, 2021

DR. PAUL MARIK: COVID19 Critical Care

The Art of Medicine versus inept and toxic bureaucracy.

This is painful to watch because the harassment of the virtuous is morally difficult to countenance.@drbeen_medical ♥️ @sentarahealth💔https://t.co/TYEVZ1yIBD

— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) November 18, 2021

You should know about his organization, FLCCC, which stands for Front Line COVID19 Critical Care.

MATH+ Protocol Dr. Paul Marik

BREAKING NEWS
In a press release today, the FLCCC announced that its Co-Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Paul Marik filed suit against Sentara Healthcare System for instituting a policy preventing him & other physicians from using proven, life-saving treatments. https://t.co/fsX7CdEAbw

— FLCCC—Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (@Covid19Critical) November 10, 2021

What is this MATH+ Protocol by Dr. Paul Marik? 

The letters stand for components Methylprednisolone, Ascorbic Acid, Thiamin, and Heparin with the "+" indicating a few other medicines, such as melatonin, zinc, and vitamin D3 to be added on based on the high safety, low-cost, and emerging scientific data suggesting efficacy.  

from the FLCCC's Covid19CriticalCare website, it reads

Mid-April, 2020. Throughout April, the doctors read and share studies, modify the dosages and care for more patients. Dr. Kornfeld sets up the covid19criticalcare.com website for the group hosted by Malik Soomar of webconsuls.com. Joyce Kamen interviews and edits videos of the doctors talking about the new protocol for the website, and for social media platforms. During the group’s second Zoom meeting, Joyce talks about the benefits of naming the protocol with an easy-to-remember acronym. During that meeting, Fred Wagshul scribbles out the names of the key medicines (see photo), and MATH+ is born — the letters standing for components Methylprednisolone, Ascorbic acid, Thiamin, and Heparin, with the “+” indicating a few other medicines, such as melatonin, zinc, and vitamin D3 to be added based on the high safety, low cost, and emerging scientific data suggesting efficacy.