So, it's really about how this is not being talked about. And I don't really know when this censorship is going to change. I don't know what's going to make it . . . if a drop in life expectancy is not a story, our media has failed. Dr. Pierre Kory
Dr. Pierre Kory's website.
The FLCCC's Total19CriticalCare.
His Substack page.
And Twitter page.
This makes me weep.
The fraud committed to drive propaganda giving people a narrative to think a certain way or take a specific action temporarily kills my spiritual battle, my raison de etre. It's one thing to have a sense of the general fraud, but learning about the specific fraud committed by institutions that have traditionally been associated with helping people recover is almost too much. Initially. But new information helps to set new resoluteness. That is where we are at.
This talk is about excess deaths, but the reasfarcicvau surprised me. Yes, all roads point to the vaccines, but what paved the various roads was the censorship, and that censorship is ongoing. The censorship helped create the narrative that vaccines weren't all bad, that, in fact, they can save lives. They don't. They ruin lives, and then kill you.
WOODS: Trying to reconcile with this problem, namely this excess deaths problem that seems to be popping up in country after country.
KORY: The data is screaming from so many sources and so many countries with massive amounts of death, and it's just not talked about. And that's an extension of what I've seen in COVID, right? If it goes against the policies, and therefore the narratives, it's suppressed. And I could never imagine such censorship of such an important topic [excess deaths] that is so pervasive, that it's global. You know the communication media systems, and I've read one article that said that most of all media is owned by 1 of 6 companies, so there's this huge consolidation in media, and I don't know if they send out memos throughout those corporations, but the level of censorship is astonishing. And so on the topic you're asking me about, I mean I don't even know where to start.
I would say one of the most shocking and first explosions of data was when the CEO of One America, which is a 200-year-old life insurance company with $100 million in assets or even more, the CEO, J. Scott Davison, went out in public and gave an interview and said that they've had an unprecedented rise in life insurance claims from the ages of 18 to 64, so working age Americans, on a year-to-year basis that a 10% rise in that age group is a 1-in-200 year event. And he was reporting a 32 or 38% rise in life insurance claims of young working age people. And if you look, an investigative journalist did a follow-up on that CEO and reached out to that company, they were very forthcoming, and they were very communicative, and they even provided the journalists with a mortality chart from the CDC. From the CDC, you can see what the mortality was in 2019, 2020, and then 2021, at the end of Quarter 1, you see this sudden rise, a steep slope in mortality of 18-64 year-olds, and all you have to ask yourself is "What happened at the end of Quarter 1, 2021?" I have seen coverage of this issue, but the articles all bring up alternative explanations. I'm referring to the vaccination program. There's nothing else that could match that historic rise. It can't be deaths from alcoholism, addiction, and suicide: we've had those for years. I don't know why it would suddenly rise at the end of Quarter 1, 2021. I've seen people try to blame it on lockdowns. Lockdowns were largely over in most places. Especially in the U.S. We weren't locking down in 2021. So that's just life insurance.
There's another piece of data that is even more shocking: the life expectancy in the United States, this is census and publicly available data, it was 79-years-old in 2019. Average life expectancy of every American was 79 in 2019. Now, it's 76. Even a 1/10th or 2/10th change in the average life expectancy indicates a lot of deaths. Now, you have 3 years that have been shaved off of the pandemic. In 2020 and 2021 were massive, and yet the other thing to consider is how do you drop the average life expectancy from 79 to 76? It's not the dying off of the elderly. They would not impact that average very much. It has to be young people and very young people. This is an unprecedented change . . . really a barometer of the health of our country: 3 years average life expectancy and no one is talking about it? And then you can go into [the data sets for] the pilots and the athletes, cardiac arrest thing, out-of-work, you know, it's a scary idea that they vaccinated a whole generation of pilots and with the instance of heart disease, I mean it's really worrisome . . . what if they have an accident in the air. So, I think the bigger story is not about the data--you can pull data from anywhere. Even in the UK, in their publicly available health data, you can see the all-cause mortality in the vaccinated is far higher than the un-vaxxed. So, it's really about how this is not being talked about. And I don't really know when this censorship is going to change. I don't know what's going to make it . . . if a drop in life expectancy is not a story, our media has failed.
WOODS: As a non-expert, how am I to adjudicate when I haven't studied any of the relevant subjects, I have no credentials, and most of the people who have are telling me the opposite of what you're telling me, so why should I believe you over what they're telling me?
KORY: Here's my advice to that person. I totally appreciate that situation, because as a self-described expert . . . if you want to know what the truth is, you need to look at who is speaking that supposed truth. At this point in the pandemic, given the colossal and historic amounts of fraud, and the evidence of capture of the regulatory agencies, and the silencing of academia. No doctor can speak out against these policies. If they have concerns about theses vaccines, they will lose their job. Now you have California passing legislation that's going to punish and literally take away the license of a doctor who publicly disagrees with supposed scientific consensus. So, in that environment, I think you can only listen to those without a conflict of interest. What does that conflict of interest look like? If you're employed by a media organization, if you're employed by a healthcare agency, a hospital, or a university. Those are conflicts of interest because just by the way society is now structured they cannot speak freely. So whatever they say is going to be highly palatable to the narrative and to the policy. So for someone to speak freely, you need to listen to someone with no conflicts of interest, who is expert in the topic area or at least appears knowledgeable, they have to be able to debate, and to be able to share and cite data. The person who wrote that, should think about what the agencies are doing. The agencies are willing to share data. The problem is that it's actually corrupt data. And it's also on record with the New York Times, and other papers, that the CDC admits that they haven't been sharing and withholding data, and so I really do feel bad for the average citizens because you really do hear two very different conclusions, particularly on the vaccines--everything is rosy, it's "safe and effective," you can give it to pregnant people, and, yes, we think it's smart to give it to toddlers. And then on the other side, we are calling it a humanitarian catastrophe of massive deaths directly related to the vaccine, and I have a lot data to back that up. So, let's say you're looking for a neutral party. Recently, I've been giving the example of Denmark. So here in the United States we have gleefully vaccinated toddlers. Thankfully, very few parents are brining their toddlers in for a vaccine. I think it's something like less than [2%]. But look at Denmark. They do not recommend vaccination for anyone under 50. And they long ago banned Moderna for anyone over 30. And in this country, we don't care. Any of the vaccines are good for anybody. Denmark is the leader in the world for pulling back from this vaccine: they still offer the vaccines, but they're not pushing them; in fact, they've outlawed them for certain sectors of their society. We have to realize that it's a war of information.
The other side has mass powers of censorship. And really what's worse is propaganda. The ultimate source of all the propaganda and censorship, and I think it begins at the medical journal level. And I have a lot of evidence to show, particularly on the topic of Ivermectin, but you can apply it to the vaccines. In fact, vaccines are the converse of Ivermectin. So, these journals have suppressed the evidence of efficacy of Ivermectin, and Hydroxychloroquine, and at the same time they've suppressed the evidence of the toxicity of the vaccines. I think if it wasn't for the collusion of the medical journals rejecting positive studies of Ivermectin, retracting published studies of Ivermectin, so that the only thing that appears in the high-impact journals are trials where Ivermectin is tested with no significantly statistical benefits that are shown even though there are benefits. So the headlines race around the world that Ivermectin doesn't work, yet we know that there are 92 controlled trials with 125,000 patients in them and it shows repeatedly reduced death, hospitalization, time 'til recovery, time 'til virus clearance, yet if you just look at those high-impact journals, you would never know that. So, I'm calling that the fraud begins at the medical journal level because if you don't have that curated science, that really manipulated science that shows up in the journals, you can't launch these narratives. You can't launch a narrative that Ivermectin doesn't work because if they were really freely and openly publishing submissions of good quality that show benefits to any medicine, not just pharmaceutical products, you would have a much more balanced view of what's therapeutic here, but they don't do that. There are frightening papers, all on preprint servers, showing the massive toxicity of these vaccines. And you can just see it in VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. You don't even need a newspaper then. But I would also recommend that your friend, or the newspaper, ask themselves, why our health agencies, our government is not talking about VAERS? It was built to look for toxicity signals. They started skyrocketing within weeks of the rollout and they're at unprecedented levels. And we know that the only thing wrong with VAERS is its under-reporting factor. We've had almost 2 million adverse events, 40,000 deaths reported in the U.S., and that under-reporting factor is probably on a scale of 30x to 40x. I think it's pretty easy to tell who's lying and who's actively suppressing really important information, and I will tell you, it's all to one goal: it was to support the vaccine campaign. And when that started, that censorship, that ignoring, that curating, literature that gets published that only shows that they're "safe and effective," that was done with the noble lie, where they withhold information from you for your own good, so that it will prompt you to get vaccinated because they're afraid that if they show all the data, it would increase vaccine hesitancy. And vaccine hesitancy was known as probably one of the main barriers to the planned pandemic response in the simulation exercises that were done in the years leading up to the pandemic. You can look at the records, you can look at the documents. Vaccine hesitancy appears multiple times. They always had a plan to create a pandemic and to vaccinate the world, and their one worry was vaccine hesitancy. And in my experience, from where I sit, the two main things that would absolutely crush vaccine hesitancy is information about the efficacy of generic repurposed drugs, because if you know there's a safe, available alternative you will turn to that rather than the experimental vaccine. And the other thing that has been censored is any mention of the toxicity, and now it's farcical, like that spoof headline. I think it's somewhat funny but what I find terrifying are the real headlines where they literally try to explain these incredible amounts of sudden cardiac arrests, athletes on the field, the pilot issues, and all of the data screaming about all cause mortality, and then you see headlines about climate change being the cause of it. I've seen ridiculous ones that you would think are spoofs but they're real [headlines].
WOODS: Or you're sleeping on the wrong side.
KORY: Interesting connection is that you do see articles about this condition called, SADS, right, Sudden Adult Death Syndrome. I happen to be somewhat of an expert in cardiac arrest as an ICU doctor for years I trained teams on how to respond to cardiac arrest and I've given lectures about the history of CPR, you know, the incidents of cardiac arrest in the community and they're nowhere near the numbers now. And so a really disturbing analogy is that with this vaccine campaign, suddenly we're seeing unprecedented numbers of people dropping dead--athletes, broadcasters, many of them are on television! Totally healthy people, they're at a podium, they collapse. They're at a broadcast desk, they collapse. They're at a wedding, they collapse. Even in the stands at football stadiums. I remember there was one game where I watched. There was one Saturday where they're all playing, there were 4 cardiac arrests: 2 on the field, 2 in the stands. And some of the coaches actually spoke out, and in their decades, they had never seen 2 cardiac arrests in a game on the same day, and then 2 others in the field. A number of games were stopped because people were arresting, and that's not a story? And so the thing about the SADS story is that there had been people for years . . . . Remember SIDS, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome? Well, that kind of started in the 80s and it tracks very well with the explosion of vaccines. So if you look at this weird syndrome called SIDS, which has happened to so many babies, and the system and the public Iiterature officially does not have a cause, I would argue that vaccines look like the cause of SIDS and I definitely know that the vaccines are the cause of SADS.
WOODS: I got to ask you that so many people want an answered and you hinted at it when you said it must be difficult to be a layman when on the one hand you've got propaganda 24 hours a day, "these things are safe and effective." And you have just the exact opposite coming at by people who are just as qualified and who seem just as passionate saying something really, really terrible is happening because of these very things that somebody just told you were safe and effective. And so what I want to know is somebody like Scott Atlas . . . I feel like Scott Atlas is a good guy. I had him on my show. I think he did a lot of good things and he stood up to a lot of idiots and took a huge amount of abuse, but he came on this show and said "that the data show that the vaccines do have an effect on lowering severe illness and death." He said "that's what the data shows."
KORY: He's wrong. He is wrong. He needs to share that data on which he's sharing that opinion. If you look at the granular public health data from any country that is transparently sharing--UK comes to mind, Israel comes to mind--for a long time per 100,000 more patients who were in the hospital were vaccinated than unvaccinated. So that's one data source that can very quickly refute what he said.
WOODS: It's just that we heard for so long that the unvaccinated are killing themselves in the hospital.
KORY: Thomas, let me finish because here's something that I can guarantee you he doesn't know and only a few people do, and I am one of them. Why am I one of them? I am an ICU doctor. Particularly in 2021, I was working in an ICU up until November 2021. And what I noticed, and I found very curious, was that nobody in the ICU was vaccinated. And you'd open up their chart and look at their medical record and right there under demographic--name, location, age--you saw their vaccination status, and there were two categories: one was VACCINATED, and the other was UNKNOWN. Everybody was UNKNOWN. So I'm sitting there with these two realities: seeing the data from other countries where the vaccinated are filling the hospital ICUs, and I am looking at the US and nobody in the ICUs was vaccinated. And I discovered what it was. The way they documented the vaccination status on the admission to the hospital was completely unprecedented. In the past, if you brought in a vaccine card, right, for your childhood vaccinations or you just got a vaccine and had a card, it was immediately entered into your record, and there would be a record there and anyone could look up your record and anyone could see the vaccine. During COVID in most of the major health systems, and I validated this with colleagues and other people I talked to in other large health systems is what happened with COVID when a patient arrived the hospital, they did take a history, they did ask if you were vaccinated. However, if you were vaccinated anywhere but in a system physician's clinic, guess where that information went? It went into the Nursing Admission note and that's where it stayed. It did not dhow up. It did not trigger a vaccination status and that is demonstrably now. I've talked to a number of nurses who've told me that in their systems the same thing was true. The vaccination status showed up in a Nursing Admission note and then on that first screen . . . it did not register vaccine. The only way to be vaccinated was if you got your shots in a clinic within that health system. In the entire year of working ICU in 2021, only one patient ever was admitted to my ICU with fully vaccinated status. Every single other one was UNKNOWN. if you look into their records, dig deep into the Nursing Admission note, you will find that they're vaccinated. So what I would tell Scott Atlas is that if he's using the U.S. data to make that assumption, he has no idea of the core of the fraud and the rot. That is corrupted data and it's used to fuel a narrative. Wouldn't you think, Thomas, if you're trying to propel a vaccine campaign, don't you think that it would be in your interest to not have the vaccinated show up in hospitals so that you could falsely present the vaccines as protective against outcomes and death? And I'm sorry. He's not aware of the depth of the fraud on that data.
WOODS: I'm just flabbergasted at the whole thing, and I'm somebody who's not exactly been naïve, you know, in the past about the way the world works. But I think anybody, no matter how cynical, has to be left aghast at what may, in fact, be happening here. There had to be some people who innocently believed what they were told within the medical establishment, and they were told that the experts say, "You got to give this thing to people, and it's going to save their lives and put an end to this thing." There had to be a lot of innocent people who didn't know any better. But on the other hand, innocent is a funny word. It was kind of their obligation to look into the information and not just take people's word for it.
KORY: I want to say I identify with you. I have to say that when the pandemic started, I had no knowledge of how controlled and corrupted the high-impact journal was. I always looked them throughout my career as an example of what the best science is and had always assumed that they would evaluate the merits of trials and only put the best quality and important trials. I didn't know that it's a completely censored environment. I didn't know that it's controlled by the pharmaceutical industry, and the depth of that control is absolutely terrifying. I did not know that 2 years ago. I will tell you where I started, Thomas. Up until the pandemic, I read the New York Times everyday, believed every word . . . I thought that the New York Times was the paper of record, literally the pinnacle of journalism, and if I wanted to get the straight dope, an accurate assessment of a situation, the New York Times would provide that for me. Just like what I now know about the journals, I had to learn that the New York Times writes narratives, and those narratives are in service of very powerful forces. I cannot read the New York Times. And how did I find that out, Thomas? I found that out because I became an expert on Ivermectin. And I had to watch lies, clear lies being written all over newspapers coming out of mouths of broadcasters, they were fed lies, mistruths, half-truths, and distortions. And what I saw was that there's no such thing any more as a science reporter. There's no such thing. They will present whatever science, however they want as long as it furthers a narrative, and once I started seeing that happening in the New York Times, I was terrified that the population believes this narrative that's just spewing from everywhere. That was my first awakening, Thomas, was that they lie. And then the next lie I had to witness was with the vaccines. And I just saw repeated lies, "safe and effective," "safe and effective." I saw newspaper articles well into 2021, which literally had this statement, "There's not been one proven death as a result of the vaccine." I would literally read that in the newspaper, knowing then at that times that many tens, if not, hundreds of thousands had died at that time.
