Dr. Pierre Kory Explains COVID-19 Vaccine Shedding

[FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW] For years now, we’ve heard rumblings about COVID-19 vaccine shedding. Unvaccinated women talk of menstrual abnormalities after coming into close contact with vaccinated individuals. Some recently vaccinated mothers report babies experiencing bad reactions after breastfeeding. So what is this phenomenon? Is it real? And if so, what kinds of people are most affected?

In this episode, I sit down with Dr. Pierre Kory, co-founder of the FLCCC Alliance and former chief of the Critical Care Service at the University of Wisconsin.

He has been researching COVID-19 vaccine shedding, and he’s written a nine-part series on his Substack of what he’s uncovered thus far.

Note: mRNA genetic vaccine contamination in breastmilk was first identified by War Room/DailyClout volunteers searching through primary source Pfizer documents released under court order by the U.S. FDA.

Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Jan Jekielek:
Dr. Pierre Kory, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.

Dr. Pierre Kory:
Thanks, Jan. It’s absolutely an honor.

Mr. Jekielek:
Congratulations. We’re here at the FLCCC [Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance] conference and it is sold out. It’s remarkable how far FLCCC has come in just a few short years.

Dr. Kory:
It is astonishing, and it’s really uplifting. We have struck a chord. We’re doing work that is widely appreciated, and you can see it in the spirit and with the attendance. The conversations that I’ve had are really good for the soul. We are doing the right thing. We’re trying to be open, honest, transparent, and trying to give sound guidance. There is so little of that out there that people really appreciate a place they can come to.

Mr. Jekielek:
I also appreciate that you have been telling your people about The Epoch Times. There hasn’t been a conference where so many people have been thanking Epoch Times for their work. I’d say 8 out of 10 have actually been medical doctors. A number of them said that some of the things that we’ve brought out in our reporting, they are applying in their practices. I wasn’t aware that was even a possibility.

Dr. Kory:
First of all, your health section is great because it’s wide, it’s not curated, and you do deep dives on any number of promising therapies. Beyond that, The Epoch Times is actually the only functioning newspaper in the United States. I literally mean that, because I find your reporting to be very objective, and you look at both sides.

I wouldn’t call myself biased, but there are certain things that I know to be true. You don’t immediately go there, because you want to be evenly measured, and you want to make sure you have the evidence first. I have very strong opinions where I actually don’t have the evidence to support them, but I know they are right. You can’t do that in a newspaper. You are being true journalists, and I appreciate the even-handed and accurate reporting that you do.

Mr. Jekielek:
I appreciate those kind words. With FLCCC, I’ve also noticed that you put a strong focus on avoiding conflict of interest, and that’s compatible with our mission as well.

Dr. Kory:
It’s so important. As soon as you inject money into what you’re doing, it just starts to influence what you do, and then you can’t be objective and transparent, because you have to work for a financial interest.

Mr. Jekielek:
We always have to navigate this, but the idea is to set it up as best as possible. Today, let’s talk about something very controversial, the shedding of these Covid vaccine products. People who have been close to people who have taken the vaccine seem to get similar symptoms. This has been anecdotal, but there has been discussion about this. I don’t know how rigorously this has been treated. Initially, I did not think this could even be possible.

Dr. Kory:
Yes, and I would probably agree with you on that. When the vaccines rolled out, that’s the first thing that happened. Social media started to make noise and it was really driven by women, and there’s very good reasons for that. They were reporting sudden menstrual abnormalities after years or decades of regular cycles. They were noticing that it started to happen. They were talking among their friends and these women started to notice that their cycles were off with heavy bleeding, painful periods, and missed periods.

They hadn’t been vaccinated, but everyone else around them was getting vaccinated. There were social media groups where they started to talk about this and share it. There was one group that started a website called My Cycle Story, where women were able to relate these things. But you know when there is truth spoken, that is when the fact-checkers come after you.

Those Facebook groups were disbanded and deplatformed. There were articles saying how ludicrous this was and that it was just a social media craze. Unlike you, I kind of listened to it, and I didn’t know what to make of it. I really didn’t know what shedding was and how that could be possible. But finally, I did the scientific research.

Here is my evolution. The first patient I treated was in March of 2021. It was a woman who got to me through a podcast I had interviewed on. She had gone to a massage therapist who had gotten boosted the day before. She came home that night and missed her period within two days. She had tender, swollen breasts, and she was cramping.

She was 43-years-old and had been having regular periods for the last 20 years. She said this was totally abnormal, and she related it to that very close exposure to the massage therapist. I really didn’t know what to do for her. I knew ivermectin binds spike, and I thought maybe there was some shedding of spike. I put her on ivermectin, and she got her period back.

She hadn’t had her period for about six or eight weeks by the time she talked to me, and she was still very uncomfortable. About five days after ivermectin, she got a period back. I had one other anecdote very similar to that, but then I didn’t have any more for a long time. I then opened my practice. My partner and I started to see this phenomena in our patients, and some of them were vaccine-injured patients.

Everybody thinks that with shedding, it’s only the unvaccinated who are screaming, these anti-vaxxers who say they are being shed upon. That’s not true. I have vaccine-injured patients who are sensitive to being exposed to other vaccinated people. It’s not just the unvaccinated who are at risk. We saw all these phenomena.

It’s actually a small cohort that is sensitive to the shedding phenomenon. Shedding is very common, but how often does it actually affect someone else? That’s quite variable. Our best insight, after doing a lot of research and talking with a lot of clinicians, is that it tends to happen to people who are very environmentally sensitive or pharmacologically sensitive.

They can’t handle pharmaceuticals or certain environments, and they have allergies. Some of them are really quite sensitive and that’s why I think most of us are unaffected.There is a cohort out there who are sensitive and they just don’t know what’s happening to them.

I’ll give you a great example. Two weeks ago I was seeing a vaccine-injured patient for a follow up who had made significant progress. During the visit he’s telling me all the things that are bothering him spontaneously. I was really disappointed because it was clearly a regression or relapse. He just said, “Dr. Kory, there’s this other thing. I can’t go into grocery stores anymore. I go into Trader Joe’s and after about five minutes, I feel so terrible that I have to leave. Yesterday we were at a farmer’s market and it was really crowded there. I felt terrible again and had to leave.”

I asked him, “Do you know what that is?” I had written this huge series on all of my research on shedding, and many of my patients read my Substack. He said, “No, I don’t read your Substack.” I said, “That’s shedding,” and I explained it to him. There are people who don’t know what is making them sick. He’s much better now, because he knows to be cautious.

Here’s where we should start, Jan. I do want to say that shedding is real. The reason why I’m saying it’s real is the FDA [U.S. Food & Drug Administration] knows it’s real. The vaccines are not traditional vaccines, and that is clear to everyone. There is something different about them and they are defined as gene therapy products.

There is an FDA definition of a gene therapy in their document on shedding from 2015. That document states that gene therapy is when you inject genetic material and that material then produces a product. Clearly, that is what these vaccines are. We inject the mRNA, and then the mRNA makes spike protein. That is gene therapy.

In that document, they state that all gene therapy products should undergo shedding studies, not only in animals, but also in humans. However, no shedding studies have been done on these gene therapies. But looking at the market for gene therapies, I have evidence on at least four products that are out there. In the product inserts of each one, they note that the product will shed.

One is for an eye disease, and they say it sheds into the tears and the drainage for up to a week. There is another gene therapy product that will shed into the feces and stay there for 30 days. Another one says it stays for two weeks. With all of these products that are on the market, this is clearly stated in the product insert.

There was no product insert for the mRNA vaccine. In fact, what’s even more astonishing and scary is that we embarked on a global vaccination campaign with a gene therapy, which is in a category of a therapeutic, which is known to shed. All these other products in the market are shedding. Yet there never was a discussion about the vaccine shedding.

If you ever bring it up, or if it ever shows up in a newspaper, you are fact-checked to death. You will see articles coming out on shedding. Then you will get the usual quotes from the experts with all the letters behind their names that say , “Shedding is impossible.” Then they will do a sleight of hand trick, because there are two definitions for shedding.

The word shedding has been used in relation to vaccines for a long time. It’s usually from the somewhat deactivated vaccines which are the live virus vaccines, those older classes of vaccines. It is known that when you inject someone, like with polio for instance, some polio virus can then shed. That’s something they have studied. But that’s a virus they’re injecting that can then shed, not the product of the genetic material that then sheds.

But the problem is that this is a gene therapy. They told us it would stay in the arm for a few days and not go anywhere else, and that the spike protein antibody production would shut off. We are drowning in evidence that neither of those statements is true. Now, you don’t have an endpoint on the production of antibodies. This is quite scary and we’re doing this repeatedly. It’s not like a gene therapy where you give it just once. How many boosters are we up to now?

Mr. Jekielek:
Not only is it not staying in the arm, but through this delivery device of the lipid nanoparticle [LPN], it can go absolutely everywhere, into the brain, and into the ovaries and testes. Now, you’re saying that it is actually exiting the body.

Dr. Kory:
Yes. You just brought up the second piece to the puzzle. The first piece is that we have to understand that gene therapies shed, the FDA knows they shed, and that they want studies to be done on shedding. The other thing we need to know about these vaccines is that they belong to another category of therapeutics. Not only do they fit under the gene therapy category, but they also fit under nanoparticle technology. That’s the key to your question.

The mRNA is delivered in lipid nanoparticles. Lipid nanoparticles are synthetic. They’re made in the lab, but they’re the counterpart to something natural in our bodies called exosomes. Exosomes are part of how our body does cell-to-cell communication. They’re almost like little hormones. Lots of communication is done with exosomes.

But when you inject the lipid nanoparticle, those nanoparticles can traverse almost any physiologic barrier. That’s why that story about staying in the arm is a lie. There’s no nanoparticle technology that’s ever stayed where you put it in because it naturally traverses all boundaries. It spreads throughout the body.

We have knowledge of that from EMA [European Medicines Agency] documents, from FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] documents, and from autopsy studies. You can see that it disseminates throughout the body. In order for something to shed, you would need to inject genetic material into the body to make spike antibodies. The spike antibody would then have to be taken up by natural exosomes, and that’s the key.

In my document, I did a summary of all the research I have done. There is an affinity of exosomes for the spike protein. We have a number of papers showing spike protein within exosomes circulating in the blood, and you can actually find spike protein in breast milk. Both exosomes and LNPs are known to cross the placenta. They are rapidly absorbed in the lung and exhaled through the lung.

We think the predominant form of shedding is via the exhaled breath, and then someone close by is inhaling. Once you inhale, they absolutely can attach to lung tissue, diffuse across the cells, and traverse through the body. We have the science, and we have the evidence for all of it.

Again, there are other products that do the same thing. We know the science is there, but the fact is there were no studies done about the extent of it. This topic is highly censored when you bring it up because the implications are vast.

In fact, my collaborator and I, who is an anonymous researcher and physician who goes by the handle, A Midwestern Doctor, did a lot of work on this. We think that if knowledge of this is understood and disseminated, it would probably be the greatest driver in this campaign to stop this global mass vaccination with gene therapy. We have over 1,000 clinical case testimonials that we have been able to compile and review, and it’s all part of that document.

Mr. Jekielek:
Is it related to shedding?

Dr. Kory:
Absolutely. We put out a public call on Twitter, and the first tweet for that public call got over 500,000 views. My retweet got 200,000 views, and then they started to pour in. I wrote my first series just about the science. There were so many comments on my post of people relating their personal experiences of getting ill after close exposures to recently vaccinated people.

It just filled up my comment board. They were so compelling and disturbing that my later posts in that series were really just a review of all those testimonials. We then did it more aggressively. My collaborator, A Midwestern Doctor, spent many, many hours collating and compiling the general patterns, and the reproducibility of this shedding phenomenon.

Mr. Jekielek:
I want to mention A Midwestern Doctor. It’s a fantastic Substack that anyone interested in this subject matter would enjoy reading.

Dr. Kory:
Absolutely. In my opinion, he is one of the best writers on Substack.

Mr. Jekielek:
Is the virus transmitted through water vapor?

Dr. Kory:
Yes.

Mr. Jekielek:
It is in the air, which is interesting. That leads people to ask, “How six-foot distancing could have made any difference? How could masks have made any difference?” Those kinds of questions come up. Are you suggesting that this synthetic spike protein is also transmitted through these natural exosomes?

Dr. Kory:
It is transmitted through the natural exosomes, those tiny particles that can float in the air. The synthetic lipid nanoparticles can also traverse the skin. There’s a number of nanoparticle therapeutic products which actually do transcutaneous administration. We don’t have evidence that natural exosomes cross the skin, but we do know that they can be inhaled and then diffused into the lung tissue.

Mr. Jekielek:
Effectively, the transmission is similar. Is that what I understand?

Dr. Kory:
Yes, it is similar. It’s just not on water vapor.

Mr. Jekielek:
Okay, it’s just in the air itself.

Dr. Kory:
Yes, it’s not just on a water droplet. An exosome is a lipid sac, a little fatty membrane. Inside, it has different sorts of enzymes, growth factors, and genetic material. They’re actually somewhat mysterious. Exosome science is quite new, actually. Originally, when they saw exosomes through electron microscopy, they thought it was cellular debris. In fact, for a long time, scientists didn’t know what exosomes were. Now, they understand that they are hugely important in the physiology and maintenance of our homeostasis and in repair mechanisms for inflammation. It’s a whole new area of science.

The scary stuff about the LPNs is that they traverse physiological barriers. They can disseminate anywhere, and we can absorb them readily. For instance, in one paper that I cited which is really shocking, they looked for antibodies in children of Covid-vaccinated parents. These children hadn’t had Covid, and yet they found IgG antibodies to the spike protein.

In their conclusion, the authors hypothesize that the parents transferred antibodies to the children, and that’s why they were measuring antibodies in the children. Now, that’s their hypothesis. That would suggest that I can get humoral immunity from my parents after birth. We know that some immunity is transferred to the fetus trans-placentally. But I didn’t know that when I was born, I got immunity to all the infections that my parents had suffered in their life.

That’s not true. We don’t absorb their antibodies. The way I interpret that paper is that spike protein was being released in exosomes. The children in the household were absorbing those exosomes and then making antibodies to the spike. Either the authors truly believe their conclusion, or they couldn’t really hypothesize what the case was.

Mr. Jekielek:
There was a very interesting paper that talked about ribosomal skippage. It basically talks about the huge failure of this technology, but also implies that this technology is fantastic.

Dr. Kory:
Whatever you find with your research, you also have to say, “This is very, very rare. It’s not a big problem.” People will literally write the most troubling findings in those scientific papers and then say “We know that these vaccines are safe and effective. We found this little problem, but luckily, it’s just a little problem and rare, because they’ve been so safe and effective.” That’s just circular reasoning.

Mr. Jekielek:
At the same time, the authors know exactly what they are doing. They’re just trying to get published and this is their strategy.

Dr. Kory:
That’s what you have to do to get published. You can’t say the plain-spoken truth about these vaccines and how dangerous they are. But Jan, going back to my point about why I think this would have the greatest power to stop the proliferation and dissemination of this dangerous technology, because you’re talking about informed consent.

They start to mass-vaxx an entire population, and then you are at risk from the intervention that you took, and now you’re at risk of being exposed to a spike protein that your body is making which can make you sick. The thing that troubles me the most is the multifaceted fraud of these vaccines, with each layer that we uncover.

My shedding work came on the heels of all the work of McKernan. They’re finding DNA plasmids, and those plasmids can go into exosomes. Here’s my issue. I have never gotten sick from shedding and I’m not sensitive to shedding. I’ve been around many vaccinated people.

But what if I am getting DNA plasmids in those exosomes, which have those promoter sequences that could potentially cause cancer? Now, my prognosis and my health is now being affected by that vaccine. Do we still care about medical ethics, bodily autonomy, and informed consent? I haven’t seen any evidence of that in the way society has behaved.

Mr. Jekielek:
The Epoch Times recently published that the CDC had prepared an email to talk about the myocarditis signal they were seeing, and then held it back because it might cause panic. This speaks directly to your question of informed consent.

Dr. Kory:
If they had released that memo, someone would have paid for it. Their masters would have been very angry. We know why they didn’t release the memo. The response of this country was to have vaccines and more vaccines. They had to promote and protect that campaign as much as possible, even with all the danger signals coming out that they have ignored.

It’s interesting that Epoch Times found evidence that someone was about to release a memo. I don’t know how it happened, but someone higher up came in and said, “No, you’re not doing that,” and they didn’t do it.

Mr. Jekielek:
What does that say about informed consent?

Dr. Kory:
There is no informed consent. The studies weren’t done for these vaccines because they were doing science at warp speed, so there’s no way you could even come close to articulating the true risks of this product. We also know that they are totally misstating the benefits. We know that.

That ruse has already been uncovered from the fraudulent trials and these astounding claims of a relative efficacy of 95 percent. We know that people have been bamboozled into taking a vaccine they thought was safe and effective. They’re not being provided the full evidence.

I’m part of a large network of physicians in this country and around the world who have taken an objective and scientifically appropriate look at the safety of the vaccines. Are they effective? Every time we try to answer that question, we come up with an answer that is in direct contradiction to what our agencies and experts say.

It’s a very troubling time, and science is in a really bad place. It’s extremely sick. It has been sick for a long time, and Covid had such a dramatic impact that it exposed itself to really be a corrupt exercise.

Mr. Jekielek:
Let’s go back to shedding for a moment. What studies are being done around this now? You see this through your clinical work.

Dr. Kory:
I am aware of a study that is nearing publication. It’s deep into the peer review process. I don’t know the full methods or the sample size, but I do know that they did a study of shedding. They looked at unvaccinated women that were exposed to vaccinated women.

The most common symptom of shedding is actually menstrual irregularities. They looked at that, and all I’m told is that it’s positive. I don’t want to say anything more about that, but apparently, the author group is really confident that it will be published very soon.

Mr. Jekielek:
I keep saying in multiple interviews that we should be studying this deeply.

Dr. Kory:
This is a private group. They work for a health freedom organization. A couple of them are experts on the lack of safety of vaccines. This was one troubling aspect, so they sought to study it. You’re not going to get an academic medical center getting an NIH grant to look at shedding.

This has massive implications for everybody, but I don’t know who else is going to study shedding. But what is clear is the FDA recommends shedding studies for all gene therapy products. That’s a problem, because they were not done.

If anyone claims that shedding is not happening, show me the study that found that it is not happening, because I have a wealth of clinical evidence to show that it does. Now, we’re going to have a clinical study to support it. We have lots of other supporting evidence to show that it’s shed in breast milk. The reports on the breastfeeding adverse effects are astonishing.

There were babies with strokes and facial paralysis and respiratory arrest and seizures after breastfeeding. We definitely know it’s happening through breast milk. I believe all the pregnancy problems are because of trans-placental crossing of the spike protein. But again, we’re living in a state of science right now where anything negative about these vaccines is almost universally censored.

Mr. Jekielek:
I’ve heard about many of these pregnancy-related scenarios, but with these breast milk cases, can you explain that to us?

Dr. Kory:
The document that I compiled will be on our FLCC website. There are hundreds of post-surveillance reports that have been submitted by women who were vaccinated who then reported a problem with their breastfeeding. Some of the reports are just astonishing, like anaphylactic reactions in a baby after a breastfeed, and these were actually reported to Pfizer.

Pfizer clearly states in their documents that these reports are irrelevant because they involve a passive exposure to the vaccine. This isn’t a problem with the vaccine because it didn’t happen to the woman, it happened to the baby. Do you understand their circular reasoning? They actually don’t include those reports as a true adverse event to the vaccine because it wasn’t the baby who was vaccinated.

Mr. Jekielek:
Even though they know about these cases?

Dr. Kory:
Yes. This is the fraud that we’re talking about. They’re doing this right in their own documents, and a number of people have written about this. Sonia Elijah, an investigative journalist, wrote an astounding article. In fact, quite a few of the references for that section were from the investigative work that Sonia Elijah has published in the Children’s Health Defense news site.

If you dig deep into those documents, what was uncovered is absolutely alarming. I’ve never heard of anaphylaxis after a breastfeed. I’ve never heard of respiratory arrest after a breastfeed, a stroke after a breastfeed, or a seizure after a breastfeed. Those women had been vaccinated early. They saw that these reactions were temporally associated with breastfeeding. The child immediately became ill because there was something in the breast milk that was toxic.

Mr. Jekielek:
Are there exosomes in breast milk?

Dr. Kory:
Yes.

Mr. Jekielek:
We’re coming full circle here.

Dr. Kory:
You will find mRNA is in breast milk. This is the scientific part that’s critical to understand. When I first started thinking about shedding, I asked, “How can breast milk be a problem?” Even if it has an exosome or has spike in it and the baby then swells, it goes into the environment of the stomach, which is very acidic and degrades everything.

I thought, “An exosome or spike protein can’t survive the stomach acid.” Lo and behold, we have studies which have shown that the exosomes can pass through the GI tract and get absorbed into the body, so the stomach is not a barrier to those exosomes. That shows why those babies got ill.

Mr. Jekielek:
The impact of shedding in its myriad forms is intense, but not really clear. We don’t know the rate of occurrence. But some number of people are having their lives profoundly altered, especially these extra-sensitive people.

Dr. Kory:
Yes, and within those sensitive people, it’s really a small cohort. It’s a distinct minority, maybe 5 or 10 percent of those people. They got lucky because it is that small a percentage. But within that cohort, there’s a proportion of them who are sensitive to everyone that is vaccinated, even if they were vaccinated two years ago. I believe that because of some of the testimonials.

By the way, we didn’t define what shedding exposure is. It’s not only the transmission of the product of the gene therapy, but it’s also the development of typical vaccine adverse event symptoms in someone who wasn’t vaccinated. That’s how you know that a shedding event has occurred.

The people who are capable of getting adverse effects from an exposure to someone vaccinated are small, but there are those who really can’t be around the vaccinated. Luckily, it’s a very tiny number, and they really have now isolated themselves from most exposures. With the rest, it’s more temporally associated with the most recent vaccine. Most reports are about after the boosters rather than after the primary shots.

Even though the primary series caused that explosion on social media, it seems like booster campaigns really caused a lot of those symptoms. The different people who reported shedding have put their own numbers on it from their own experience. Some will say, “I think it’s mostly within the first two weeks of the vaccine.” Others say it was longer, but we really don’t know how long.

The longer it has been for someone since their last vaccine, the amount of people that they can affect does decrease. With my patients, they have to reorder their lives. They have to worry about who they invite over to visit, even family members. You can see the true real impacts in the social functioning of some of these patients who are sensitive.

This has also had a dramatic impact on relationships. It has ended relationships for any number of causes. Some have found when the husband or spouse comes home, they become violently ill upon close exposure. When the husband comes to bed and it’s not even sexual intercourse, with just lying in bed, one woman reported that she got severe headaches. It happened time after time, and that relationship is now over.

There are reports of relationships that ended because they suddenly recoiled from their partner. If your partner’s presence makes you physically ill, there’s no relationship anymore, so it’s really sad. It has affected some people severely. Luckily, it is rare.

Mr. Jekielek:
In these instances, how do you know that it’s not long Covid? Long vax has similarities to long Covid. How do you know it’s not just a Covid exposure?

Dr. Kory:
Long Covid and long vax are chronic syndromes and difficult to treat. They have a myriad of symptoms. Yes, they can have their ups and downs. I’ve had patients that improve. Generally, what I see is that when patients relapse, it’s usually another spike event, meaning they get Covid.

If it’s a vaccinated patient, they will get sick after they have another Covid episode. With a long Covid patient who gets Covid again, the majority will get worse, but not all. I have long Covid and long vax patients who can get Covid. We treat them and their disease doesn’t change.

But these are clear development of adverse effects, sudden spikes, and the worsening of how they feel. There’s no Covid event, they didn’t get sick, and they didn’t have typical upper respiratory symptoms. The only thing they can relate it to is a close exposure to someone else. That’s when we think it’s more of a shedding event. But what’s central to all this is that the protein is a pathogen.

Mr. Jekielek:
There are also many people that get Covid totally asymptomatically, correct?

Dr. Kory:
Yes, but I’m still confused on that one.

Mr. Jekielek:
How so?

Dr. Kory:
I just don’t know what asymptomatic effect means. If you have no symptoms and your PCR test says that you have Covid, I don’t know what that means. It’s not an illness, it’s just a positive test result.

Mr. Jekielek:
I got an antibody test years ago now because I was going to a funeral and I didn’t want to expose elderly people to Covid if I had it. I was told that I had robust antibodies.

Dr. Kory:
But you had never been ill?

Mr. Jekielek:
I imagined that I was losing my taste at one point, and I thought it was in my head, that kind of thing.

Dr. Kory:
That could be an asymptomatic infection or it’s just an exposure. This spike protein is being transmitted. It’s in the air and it’s in exosomes. Like in the study with the children, they developed antibodies. That paper didn’t report that the kids got sick. We’re capable of producing antibodies to the spike protein without getting sick, which maybe is a fancier way of saying an asymptomatic infection. I don’t know.

Mr. Jekielek:
Or conferring immunity, the way you’re saying it?

Dr. Kory:
Yes, conferring immunity without having to go through the illness.

Mr. Jekielek:
There is so much more to be learned about all of this.

Dr. Kory:
Totally.

Mr. Jekielek:
How far do you think we’ve come to getting some kind of broader research being done? I’m not talking about the shedding now. I’m just talking about this whole complex sphere of illness.

Dr. Kory:
I’m quite demoralized by this. It seems like there are intentions. Back in December, 2023, there were a couple of articles that came out talking about the current state of research for long Covid and long vax. In one of the articles, journalists cited that $1.2 billion had been earmarked for research into long Covid. Long vax doesn’t exist. Everything falls under long Covid.

They said $1.2 billion has been earmarked for research, but not one patient had been entered into a trial yet. Apparently, there were four trials that had been designed for what they planned to conduct, but only one trial was ready to enroll. At that time, they had not enrolled anyone yet. They were studying Paxlovid, and I think that says everything. That is my answer.

If you ask me how far we’ve come or where we’re going to go, our present system has decided that the best drug to study for long Covid or long vax is Paxlovid, which is an antiviral. We have almost no evidence to suggest that this is viral persistence. We know it’s immune dysregulation and it’s damage from spike, which causes a number of inflammatory mechanisms, but they want to study Paxlovid. This is not real science.

Mr. Jekielek:
What other things like endotoxin from this DNA contamination?

Dr. Kory:
They don’t want to look for DNA plasmid integration. The real science that needs to be done with this is not going to be funded or published, even if it was done. I’m cynical and my cynicism has no bounds. This was a complete fraud.

These vaccines were rushed out. Their immediate toxicity, and later their lethality has been roundly censored and ignored by literally major institutions and governments around the world. They want this to go into the past. They’re hoping this can go under the bridge.

The problem is that we have legions of people that are sick from these vaccines. It’s still a major problem for many of us. They can wish it will go away, but it’s not going away. We have a major problem on our hands.

We have excess mortality rippling around the world. We have huge spikes in the disability rolls in this country. Our labor force has been decimated. Those of us who work in this space now have many patients coming to us. They’re all coming to us after journeying through the system.

They have been to the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic for million-dollar workups. They’re very reluctant to blame it on the vaccine. They offer no treatments and it’s just endless testing. Patients are really suffering. People and patients have suffered immeasurably since Covid broke out, and I don’t see that suffering stopping anytime soon.

Mr. Jekielek:
Part of the issue is that many doctors just simply don’t know they should look for this.

Dr. Kory:
Yes. They don’t even know the spike protein is a pathogen. They don’t even know that. I told an anecdote this morning in one of my talks. I recently had a conversation with a system pathologist. He knows what I do, and I was just talking to him. I said, “Are you guys staining for the spike protein on tissue samples and biopsies and cancers?” He looked at me and said, “What’s the spike protein? ”

My jaw dropped. This is literally the most prominent, damaging pathogen on the planet right now, and he asked me what the spike protein was. His second question was, “Does that have something to do with vaccination or something?” He said, “People who have been vaccinated are sick for two days. The unvaccinated are sick for two…” Again, it was the usual propaganda.

I don’t know why all these people are screaming to vaccinate everyone. People are so misinformed. Even physicians and pathologists in the system are not aware of one of history’s most damaging pathogens. There is no science being done around spikeopathy.

There’s a comprehensive paper on all of the pathophysiologic mechanisms written by a guy named Peter Parry, who’s famous for calling out previous pharmaceutical frauds like with SSRIs. He’s an Australian guy that I’ve been able to converse with. He and a large group wrote an extremely compact paper with 270 references.

It’s like the foundational paper proposing a new field called spikeopathy. But yet I meet with this assistant pathologist who doesn’t know what the spike protein is. We live in a very strange polarized world right now, especially in science.

Mr. Jekielek:
You said that randomized control tire trials became the gold standard, but their fundamental problem is that they can’t overcome the bias of the funder.

Dr. Kory:
The bias of the funders. Because the trials are so big, they require millions. Unless it’s a philanthropist, if someone is going to invest millions in a randomized controlled trial, don’t you think they have an interest in the result? But you know what’s strange about that?

It’s hard to rank the most fraudulent trials in ivermectin, but I would say the first ACTIV-6 and the TOGETHER trial done in Brazil are probably the biggest frauds that were used to take down ivermectin. What’s interesting about the TOGETHER trial is the Rainwater Foundation. They are a really great philanthropic research organization, they donate millions to funding research and mostly neurological diseases, but they became active in Covid and they started funding trials.

You would think that a philanthropist wouldn’t have a vested financial interest in the outcome. You would think that they would bring some sort of objectivity. The problem is the people who they hire. They literally hired people whose main clients are the pharmaceutical companies. They literally hired crooks, but I don’t think they knew that. In fact, I’ve talked with some of the philanthropic organizations who made that mistake. They gave out good money, but they gave it to bad people and bad outcomes resulted.

I don’t even think philanthropy is the answer. At some point, if you want to have an important study that makes an impact, you will have to use some major academic medical center, but they’re all captured. They’re all under the control of the funding by the government and pharma.

Mr. Jekielek:
It would be very valuable if a public interest group would focus entirely on establishing the conflicts of interest concerning any research group or corporation or person you’re going to hire. Many would pay good money to have that established if they knew it would produce a real independent view.

Dr. Kory:
I don’t think that would work, because ultimately, conflicts of interest have become normalized, especially when you get to a high level in the biomedical sciences. I was not a guy who won big grants from NIH, and I never applied for an NIH grant. I did observational studies with medical students and fellows. That’s the kind of stuff that I like to do, answering simple questions using crude tools. It’s nights and weekends work, sweat work producing sweat equity. We didn’t get big funding. We just did chart reviews and we learned a lot of stuff.

But to get to the level where you can do major league research, you’re going to accumulate conflicts because you need funds and a lot of those funds come through pharma. Someone who’s squeaky clean with no conflicts and then gets a grant—I don’t see it.

Nowadays, with every paper published, you can see the conflicts. It’s so normal that no one pays any attention to it anymore. If one guy has seven conflicts with different financial entities, it’s just science. That’s just how it is. I think you’re looking for unicorns.

Mr. Jekielek:
You’re telling me a parallel system is the only way to go?

Dr. Kory:
Yes, if those parallel systems can grow, and you can get philanthropy money. There are really good people who have spoken out and could get good objective science done. If we could get more support and more resources, the movement would grow. Many people woke up with Covid and they realized how corrupted science is, and that it’s not working for us. It’s working against us, and we have to turn that around.

Mr. Jekielek:
There is a clinic that Paul Marik will be overseeing that is philanthropy-funded.

Dr. Kory:
Yes, exactly. That’s a start, for sure. They’re going to be treating patients and hopefully doing some research while doing that. They have the resources. There are some bright spots on the horizon, but we have over 300 million people in this country. We would have to get a lot bigger to have a significant populational impact.

Mr. Jekielek:
A final thought as we finish up, Pierre?

Dr. Kory:
I didn’t ask for this spot where I am, but it seems that I fell into a network of people with high integrity and critical thinking. We’ve discovered things that are important for the public to know. Many of us come out of a tradition of being medical educators. I used to teach medical students and fellows a trade and a skillset. Now, I’m an educator for the public. It is just as stimulating and satisfying, and I plan to continue to do that as much as I can.

Mr. Jekielek:
Congratulations on the success of the organization, as evidenced by this conference.

Dr. Kory:
Absolutely.

Mr. Jekielek:
Dr. Pierre Kory, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show.

Dr. Kory:
Always, Jan.

Mr. Jekielek:
Thank you all for joining Dr. Pierre Kory and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.