How many patients has Berenson seen? Zilch, de nada. Lives have been saved with Ivermectin; Berenson doesn’t know what he is talking about. Denigrating vaccine-injured people out of pure ignorance shows the character or lack of by the man. Berenson is practicing medicine without a license.
I am disappointed with some of the attacks against Berenson. Some are acting like he is either Fauci or the devil incarnate himself. I had to look him up and to my surprise he is one of the good guys condemning the vaccines and handling of the “pandemic” from the get go! So, he disagrees on Ivermectin. That’s small potatoes.
This and the attacks against each other over whether or not viruses exist are not helpful. In fact, it makes me think we must be making some headway in exposing the truth. As truth comes to light the devil behind the evil becomes desperate and wants nothing more than to have us arguing and discrediting one another. The dissension within is distracting from the progress being made. Let’s not forget who the real enemy is.
To a degree, I agree. However, I think the two issues are inseparable. The reason why the constant push for these dangerous vaccines is so maddening is exactly because there's a safer treatment alternative.
The vaccine would still be completely unneeded without the existence of Ivermectin. There are lots of treatments and probably the most effective one is to ignore hospital protocol.
Alex has been all over Twitter making jabs (pun intended) about Ivermectin. A shame he cannot find the humility to see his error. Pierre was terrific. Do not stop, do not back down!
Pierre KILLED it!! Steve, can VSRF post an excerpt of this video that is just the debate between Pierre and Alex? This is incredibly powerful and will become a new tool in my ivermectin red-pilling toolkit.
Berenson's low integrity arrogance in the face of Kory's excellently articulated method is a good proxy for how the typical "educated" person "thinks." The level of patience Kory had with his juvenile antics is quite impressive.
I think it is ridiculous that ANY journalist thinks they know more about medical treatments than a highly credentialed medical practitioner- especially one with Kory’s experience. Seems like a waste of time and nothing to see here.
Journalists and elementary school teachers are similarly educated, if a 4 year degree in the last 20 years can be considered education. I need, nor want, either of their opinions, but I respect their right to have them and share them even if they are wrong.
I think Alex is a decent guy trying to do the right thing. However, he is like most people in that he grew up believing all of the institutions that "define" America generally work. He is having a hard time coming to grips with the notion that all of our defining institutions in fact do not work and are inherently corrupt. His comments about the Russian/Ukrainian war earlier this year made this abundantly clear. It is not an easy thing for many people to realize that all that we were brought up to believe in has become corrupted and inept.
I think his John Wells novels, which are quite good, express this ambivalence. These novels depict the spy agencies as being inept and corrupted in the manner we are now seeing with the medical establishment. I think writing these novels was actually quite therapeutic for Alex in that they allowed him to express this corruption and ineptitude in fictional form such that he could believe this was not the case in the real world.
BTW, if you like spy novels, I recommend Alex's "John Wells" series. They are quite good. I see a lot of criticism of Alex in here, some of it justified. I have my differences with him as well. However, at the end of the day Alex is one of the good guys fighting the good fight.
I can complain about Alex with the best of them, but your statement is blatantly false. Alex pulls NYT through the mud on the regular. WTAF have you been?
Alex must be really feeling his oats now that he “won” and is back on his beloved Twitter. Kinda dumb of him to sign up to match wits with the incomparable Dr. Pierre Kory, who not only has enormous experience with IVM, but also actually gives a shit about his fellow human beings.
IMO, everyone is controlled opposition, to some degree. The intel community prob. told AB, 'you can trash the vax, as long as you also trash IVM, and push the establishment version of 9/11.' They REALLY don't want us to see the big picture, their 100 year plan, the 4,000 patents on the SARS coronavirus, all the dead microbiologists....
I noticed that at the end of the discussion you brought up your substack discussion with folks who claim that SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist. I’d be willing to debate a different issue - that there’s no way to show that a positive PCR test for this virus says anything about whether it represents a significant fraction of the total of all respiratory viruses at a given time in a human.
The CT value of the PCR test result might give you a decent idea as to whether you have replicating virus, or almost no virus in your system. When combined with looking at symptoms, it is a useful tool in determining a likely or unlikely source of infection.
No - in the big picture analysis that’s just an illusion. Let me explain:
It’s well known that hundreds of viruses are always in circulation - in constant flux, in various degrees of mutation, and each completely opportunistic in nature. So, I maintain that not only is it possible, but it *rates to be the case* that these many other viruses have a total health impact higher than that of any 1 detected virus, such as SARS-CoV-2.
Let me give you an example to think about. Suppose a carcass is lying on the side of the road. Suppose further, that after extensive testing you could determine that one particular type of ant (with a specific genetic sequence) was consuming the carcass. Would this test say anything about the total consumption by all other (i.e. non this-particular-ant-type) organisms which were consuming this carcass?
I suggest that not only does it not say anything - but that the total consumption by all other organisms (ant-types and non ant-types) rates to be significantly higher than that of any 1 specific detected ant-type.
Ok. Now, the CDC supposedly does “surveillance” to determine the most prevalent sub-types of respiratory viruses in circulation (by genetic sequence). But isn’t this entire concept childish? In what scientific manner have they shown that any 1 detected virus has even close to the impact of the total of all other non-detected viruses?
A simple thought experiment shows how crucial this point is: Suppose virus A is measured in a human to be 10x more prevalent than virus B. Further, assume there are 100 other non-detected viruses present each with similar quantities to virus B. Then these 100 other viruses would have a sum total 10x that of virus A.
In reality, there are hundreds of respiratory viruses - each with a continually shifting rank order significance - in each human body in time. Think of a hypothetical frequency distribution curve which captures the number of each virus at a given time. Let’s say it resembles a type of standard normal distribution (or bell curve). It may not precisely, but that won’t matter for purposes of this exercise. Notice that even if the tested-for and positively determined virus was of maximum frequency under this curve - in the middle - then the total number of all other viruses (as represented by the area under the curve minus the middle strip) would easily dwarf that of the 1 detected virus. We have no reason to believe otherwise.
In fact, this was the operating principle of mainstream science for decades since respiratory viruses in the community were first studied in the 1940s. Only in 2019 did this operating principle change to where public health authorities started to identify *1 particular respiratory virus* for targeting with various interventions. (Prior to 2019, other flu epidemics were noted with particular viral strains - but no public policy targeting actions specifically for those strains were taken at those times. So, the treatment protocols at those times never *depended* on the existence of only the 1 virus identified as the “cause” of the epidemic. Rather, the treatment protocols at those times were only judged on patient outcomes - independent of any single-virus diagnosis.)
You have an interesting hypothesis but it is just that so definitive statements are not appropriate right now. The hypothesis does not account for the fact that this particular virus does cause a subset of very unique symptoms and pathology all of which have been documented. It does not account for the fact that viral load -- as measured by PCR with CT -- is also correlated with higher hospitalizations and deaths in some unique studies.
No George - it’s the other way around: For over 70 years respiratory viruses were monitored in the community with the clear understanding that they acted in aggregate, and that individual viruses were opportunistic and that they all mutated too fast to treat with single-virus targeted treatments - much like the common cold. It was also well understood that they were collectively much more prevalent in winter than in other seasons.
Also note that no western country had more all cause deaths per capita in 2020 than in 2019 *except the US* which had 16% more deaths per capita in 2020 than in 2019.
Also note that the US had been on an incredible lucky streak: every year from 2003 to 2019 the rate of all-cause deaths per capita went down. By contrast, in 2003 and in all years prior going back to the founding of the US in 1776 the all-cause deaths per capita were higher - and usually *much higher* - than in 2020.
Also note the increase in “Covid deaths” identified in all the other (i.e. non-US) western countries in 2020 vs 2019 (where they were zero) were almost exactly offset by fewer deaths caused by heart attacks, lung problems, strokes and other causes.
Also, it’s not true that a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result connotes any unique symptom profile compared to those symptoms which present with influenza like illness (ILI) caused by other respiratory viruses.
Your first paragraph, I don't dispute. Never did. It still doesn't change the fact that you have little evidence to support the hypothesis.
"Also note that no western country had more all cause deaths per capita in 2020"
Patently false. I followed the Swedish all-cause stats for that whole year and they had quite a bit higher all-cause deaths in 2020. Now, some of that was because 2019 was a light year, and the all-cause death count wasn't that much higher than recent times, but it was an outlier across a couple of decades. Now I have to question everything you say because you're making more definitive statements without backup.
Your point about all-cause deaths doesn't matter. As you note, every year, there is an increase in respiratory virus' (Hope-Simpson FTW), but that doesn't mean that each year there isn't one that predominantly does the killing. I think the evidence shows, the real pandemic was over for most countries after the first wave -- which saw excess deaths, particularly in the elderly. Now, we also know the pandemic measures -- poor treatments, isolation of the elderly, lack of care etc -- also contributed to that death rate. But that doesn't mean that COVID-19 had a unique set of properties which made it a particularly nasty respiratory disease. Most of the pathology supports that. So does the study of the spike protein.
"Also, it’s not true that a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result connotes any unique symptom profile"
Please read carefully, I never set it connotes unique symptoms. I said a PCR test with low CT, COMBINED with observed set of unique symptoms provides strong evidence of impactful infection with COVID-19 being the majority contributor to the disease state.
“Patently false. I followed the Swedish all-cause stats for that whole year and they had quite a bit higher all-cause deaths in 2020."
No George - you're clearly wrong on Sweden. Advance the time index of the first video (The Truth About Lockdowns: Part 1) here by Nick Hudson to 16:37 and watch carefully to learn the truth:
(Now you're correct that 2019 was a light year, but 2020 was within Sweden's most recent 10-year average, so it's not an outlier across a couple of decades. Also, my remark of all-cause deaths in 2020 vs 2019 was referring to a difference of statistical significance.)
"Your point about all-cause deaths doesn't matter. As you note, every year, there is an increase in respiratory virus' (Hope-Simpson FTW), but that doesn't mean that each year there isn't one that predominantly does the killing."
It's not for me to prove that there isn't predominantly 1 respiratory virus killing people. Rather, after 70 years of aggregate and clearly non-specific respiratory-virus treatment precedent, it's for public health to positively prove that predominantly 1 respiratory virus is killing people. A PCR test showing the presence of SARS-CoV-2 coincident with symptoms says nothing about the presence of all other respiratory viruses coincident with the same symptoms. In fact, the only way to prove that any proposed treatment works specifically against SARS-CoV-2 is to show that it generally *doesn't work against other respiratory viruses*. If it works against other respiratory viruses just as well, then the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 has no practical significance. However, to date I've seen no random controlled trials which show any proposed treatment works against SARS-CoV-2, but doesn't work against other respiratory viruses.
"I said a PCR test with low CT, COMBINED with observed set of unique symptoms provides strong evidence of impactful infection with COVID-19 being the majority contributor to the disease state."
No George. To prove how silly this whole exercise is, remember what the original definition of COVID-19 was? It was specifically someone who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 *and who was in severe respiratory distress*. Public health has moved the goal posts so far that now everyone who has a cold also has "COVID-19". So the new definition of COVID-19 is synonymous with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. It doesn't make any sense - both terms are unnecessary if they mean the same thing.
Great job moderating this Steve! Your non-verbal comments kept me smiling and laughing. I give Alex credit for showing up, but zero credit for a closed mind to facts and data. I know there are things he doesn't seem to know; I was just surprised at how much! When you said you were a subscriber to his Substack, I said, "Yeah, so was I until he ambushed Malone on live TV. Then I went to "free" and subscribed to Steve's instead!" I'd rather support VSRF and not someone suing the blue bird for what I've perceived to be ego-driven reasons.
You're right - Pierre knocked it out of the park. SO many good comments and good reasoning. I had to leave shortly after Alex did, so will have to catch the rest of the conversation when it goes up.
Berenson's comment that it is the vaccines that constitute the important issue, not Ivermectin is an absurdity and an infuriating obfuscation: the two things are inextricably linked and part of the same issue and he knows that. Alex is an empty suit, an opportunist and a fake. I have bought some of his pamphlets and he certainly did some good at the outset of the COVID crisis, but his moment has passed. He is deeply deceptive.
My observation is that he’s very good on the vaccines. That is, he has applied a very high level of investigative journalism to this topic - particularly considering he’s a non-scientist. However, on other subjects he often just stakes out positions aligning with mainstream headlines. Marijuana use being about the only exception.
I think that's fair, although I must say his attitude is sort of, "look at all these stupid people doing these incompetent and stupid things." And that's the limitation of a strictly medical approach to all this. One has to put the mask/vaccine mania in a global context and see what is happening in every sphere of life.
I'm not quite at your assessment of him, but pretty close. I have the booklets which are great and started Pandemia which I also bought on Kindle and it starts out well, but someone told me it's kind of all about him and his battle with Twitter, so we'll see how far I get into it when I pick it up again. I disagreed completely with many of the things he said tonight and agree there was a lot of obfuscation.
I thought Pierre "hit it out of the park" like Steve said.
For someone who claims to be an independent thinker his disjointed, evasive babbling tonight was laced with received opinion. As for graphene content in the vials he said something like, "that sounds crazy to me." How something sounds to Alex Berenson does not count as a scientific or rational assessment of credible allegations by doctors and scientists shunned by the corporate media. As for 5G, the health effects of EMF's are well known as described by the physicist and former Royal Navy officer, Barrie Trower and many others. As of a few years ago there were over 250 scientists worldwide who were raising the alarm about 5G. The EMF issue is even more taboo than questioning the "vaccination" program. I was ejected from Twitter (despite appeals) because I said I felt unwell since clusters of 5G towers had been mounted near our house.
Alex is pretty far off the mark regarding the body count for shots, let alone hospital fatalities. The Columbia U Study estimated a lower bound of 167k deaths for Feb to Aug of 2021 alone. Steve had a similar estimate. Alex is hasty in calling Steve conspiratorial. This is about data, not conspiracies. It comes down to hiding the bodies. Alex complained “but they’d show up as excess deaths!” Well, yeah, as a matter of fact! As Ed Dowd has shown as well. Because Alex has a voice, his grasp of this topic should be in line with the data. David Martin has a very different posture: Fauci, Pfizer and Moderna are going down! That’s because he has the goods.
If Alex would show a little interest in the subject, he would know that although both drugs work in roughly the same way, one has a long track record of safe useage for multiple purposes with very few side effects. The other one is a black box product. He doesn’t strike me as a very intelligent person, unless he is just compromised in some way.
Yes - I saw that. Alex has been a strong force on the vaccines from the beginning, but his lack of scientific training does show when he’s pressed on scientific details.
if AB is a curious person... truth seeker... he needs to address the cognitive dissonance that he felt at that moment and search it out... Brilliant move by Dr Kory!
Excellent conversation Steve. You interrupted and asked exactly the right questions at exactly the right miment, just as a good facilitator should do. Pierre smoked him but we all knew that was what would happen anyway. Hat tip to Alex for being willing to discuss the subject with someone that disagrees with him. I left that conversation feeling even better about taking IVM.
You are a national treasure. No WAY is it possible to imagine how Dr. Kory keeps his cool around such arrogant ignorance but you both did a great gracious job.
The "vaccines" are still under "emergency use authorization", as in not actually FDA "approved", right?
So, if there were therapeutics readily available, that are "proven" to reduce severe symptoms - would the gov't not be able to mandate the vax under "EAU"??
They don't want you to make ppl better at the risk of losing their emergency authority
Speaking of... I just saw (and about bleW a gasket, as I do eVery time) that infuriating Pfizer commercial about asking your doc for available "early treatments" upon '+' coNvid diagnosis, onset of symptoms, blah blah... oBviously referring to theiR drug, PAX. I just don't get how the EAUs can hold with that!!... the Jab mAker themselves, inferring early treatments DO exist!?! GRRRR.... There's SO much wrong with that, on SO many levels.!. Disgusts me to nO end. Deceptive, corrupt b@$TARDS!! Sighhh......
Pax is still experimental and not fully licensed. But Ivermectin is fully licensed, and has been for ages.
(which is why there is so much FUD and malinformation about IVM - to avoid EUA and liability from going poof - and also the push to get the vaxes on the childrens vax schedule for more immunity from liability )
Sadly, this is not my idea of a worthwhile debate. Berenson is not a doctor or healthcare professional of any kind. In my opinion, and as reflected by the many snarky, "I'm always right, even though I don't know what I'm talking about" comments he's made on Substack about Ivermectin and those who've used it, I don't see how this will be the kind of meaningful, balanced conversation that needs to happen with a real influencer whose opposition is based on carefully researched facts and information. I'll pass.
It’s even worse than that. AB admitted not looking into much on these topics, preferring not to “go there” but still feeling confident to say ivm doesn’t work. He’s just not interesting enough to waste time on. He is motivated to avoid certain controversies. By what, I do not know.
If only "medical professionals" are allowed to have an opinion (assuming you must be, since you have an opinion) then not many are allowed to discuss it and have opinions???
Consider changing your handle to "Only Medical Pro Opinions Count" 😉
Please don't misquote me. And don't go making assumptions -- you are wrong. I did not say only medical professionals are allowed to have an opinion. Berenson is a journalist -- one whom I thought had a robust curiosity, did careful research, and objectively considered a wide range of credible source materials trying to discern the truth. Yet, he often seems bratty, even belligerent in his posts about Ivermectin and replies to readers who have tried to share solid source materials that are counterpoints to the problematic studies he cites. His attacks on Robert Malone were embarrassing and factually wrong. It's his Substack, though, and I'm a long-time subscriber (at least until my next renewal date). He seems incredibly focused on money now, and not the humble pursuit of truth. You're free to be his defender. I'm free to say what I like.
I wonder if it’s because his wife is a doctor and she may not believe in ivermectin. In any case, it’s ridiculous for him to think he knows more than Dr. Kory 🙄
It wouldn't let me hit like but I liked your apology, I can tell it was sincere. I agree with Melissa, and not to open another can of worms but Alex also gives his opinions on other subjects and never counters any pushback. His ambush on Dr. Malone was one of the weirdest things I've seen on cable news. Raymond Arroyo was subbing for Ingraham on her show and he was rattled as well: Alex challenged Malone on Ivermectin w/o any stated backup and accused him of padding his resume with false patent claims. Dr. Malone listed his patents (and seemed unfazed) and Berenson never countered nor apologized.
I expect Berenson to cite the Bill Gates/WHO funded studies "debunking" IVM. Kory is familiar with the studies and their flaws especially after writing a book on it. At best, Berenson will concede he just doesn't know, while hinting he still doesn't believe it works. But when you can't get a single person from within The Science to even touch this subject with someone like Kory, let's take what we can get. Perhaps something good comes of it.
I think the efficacy of IVM has changed with omicron based on my personal experience. First time I got sick and took it, I was better 12 hours later. COVID was not confirmed, just suspected. I just got over confirmed COVID for what I believe to be the second time. I took 48 mg of IVM for two weeks. It still took a month to fully feel like I was 100% again.
That is very interesting. My hubby and I were sick about the same time….I got it from him. Not sure what supplements he took but would not take my ivermectin….I bought a huge stock. I took IVM, fluvoxamine, baby aspirin, vitamin D and C, zinc and Quercetin (took Zstack). I think our courses with the infection were the same! Thought I would recover faster than him but did not.
Yeah I was expecting a quicker recovery myself. I think it's still worth taking though because it has mechanisms of action that aid the body in ridding itself of the spike protein.
I thought of that as well…might be better for the long haul. I was surprised how much my lungs were affected with a milder case. Not issues breathing but I would feel a tickle that made me cough for many days. Oh well it was not horrible and now I have sole good immunity. My sister ended up with an arrhythmia after COVID. No vax for either of us.
yes, totally creepy! One of the characters on the show said that there was lively debate over 6 days, but only the pro-vax agenda was aired (via Twitter).
Yep. Shavers was actually being considered for the role of Apollo Creed, so they decided to spar a little.
Stallone was disappointed that Shavers was holding back so he kept asking for Shavers to hit him with a real punch. Shavers kept politely declining, saying “I can’t do that Mr. Stallone”. Finally, tiring of the nagging, he decided to give him a ‘little’ (but real) shot to the body. Stallone bent over and waved him off. One shot.
then Dr Kory pointed out the evidence for PAX was protease based(?) (sorry, brain fog here) and the same mechanism is in IVM, but STRONGER... [mic drop]
It's a journalist debating a bonafide clinician who's treated patients... It's not even a fair debate. No way AB changes his mind however. His hubris is off the charts. There's already overwhelming evidence out there if you choose to research.
Berenson took the IVM stance he did to say "See how nuanced and well balanced I am? My Ivy League friends, please oh please welcome me back to civil society." Kick his groveling ass today, Dr Kory.
Yes. It is pathetic to watch Alex take these stances - on IVM, Trump, J6 and election fraud on the outside chance the Twitter blue checked “in crowd” is going to take him back. They are never going to take him back. That bridge is burned forever. Alex could be the most important journalist in America right now and possibly one of the most important in American history if he would only approach election fraud with the sameSkepticism and journalistic practices that he uses for the vaccine scam. Instead, he hedges his bets for the chance of being part of the “club” again.
If I had to guess he is doing it because Steve asked him. Steve's been talking about suing Twitter . . . and if you were contemplating that who would you talk to? So my guess is Steve struck up a relationship and Alex agreed to do the debate.
I'm still a subscriber to Unreported Truths, and I sincerely hope Alex doesn't post some half-baked screed about debating Dr. Kory.
I appreciate that Berenson is a vaccine skeptic with a lot of media attention. The fact that he is a former NYT journalist leaves him with residual thickening of the skull that shows up as inconsistencies in his commentary. Since he has a lot of followers and some potential to be influenced by objective evidence and reasoning ... if delivered with a blunt instrument ... he may or may not have anything positive to contribute going forward. He’s on a plateau at this time.
agreed... however engaging with other opinions on "whatever level they are found willing to engage" is a profound skill that few have, which Dr Kory exemplified imho... then Dr Kory said he was tired(?) (sorry, brain fog), when listening, i literally thought he must have gotten rested before this!
What is there to debate? Ivermectin like many drugs and supplements including vitamin C, curcumin and resveratrol, inhibits replication of viral mRNA by boosting heme oxygenase-1, the Universal Stress Enzyme.
HO1 breaks down heme proteins into (antiviral) carbon monoxide, bilirubin and ferritin. This pathway also releases a lot heat that causes fever when HO1 is high, but lower than normal temp when HO1 is chronically low (<97F)
Dr. Kory knows medicine. Alex knows flawed studies. I saw ivermectin transform my husband with just one dose. I know it doesn’t work that way for everyone but I’m a believer. And with all of the patients Dr. Kory has cured, it doesn’t even seem like a fair fight. A lightweight & a heavyweight 😉
my husband was just "delivered!" by IVM and back to work today, too! sounds like Dr Kory has uncovered a lot of interesting biases about RCTs (randomized controlled trials) and "evidence-based medicine" that all medical pros have become obligated to follow... who needs an independent-thinking provider when you have "COOKBOOK MEDICINE?" i submit that pretty soon, we'll all be treated by A.I. [SCAREY] ... being informed and proactive about your health is no longer optional if you want to LIVE...!!!
If you ever can provide a rational explanation for his perspective on ivermectin, then tackle his "takes" on Robert Malone and cannabis, which are at least as puzzling and absurd.
My impression was of an intentionally one-sided prosecutorial case against the "demon weed", laden with cherry-picking and and the like. It vaguely reminds me of the kind of "journalism" I see at the gym when I glance up at the television sets near the ceiling and see the closed captioning for CNN, the station they're perpetually broadcasting in the LA FITNESS in which I train.
he called his wife a "physician," sort of generically... made me think family practice, just randomly... but psychiatrists are TOTALLY going to buy into the sanctioned narrative from my experience... not the "brightest crayons in the box" in my opinion...
How many patients has Berenson seen? Zilch, de nada. Lives have been saved with Ivermectin; Berenson doesn’t know what he is talking about. Denigrating vaccine-injured people out of pure ignorance shows the character or lack of by the man. Berenson is practicing medicine without a license.
I can't find the video on Rumble. Will someone please provide a link? Thank you.
I am disappointed with some of the attacks against Berenson. Some are acting like he is either Fauci or the devil incarnate himself. I had to look him up and to my surprise he is one of the good guys condemning the vaccines and handling of the “pandemic” from the get go! So, he disagrees on Ivermectin. That’s small potatoes.
This and the attacks against each other over whether or not viruses exist are not helpful. In fact, it makes me think we must be making some headway in exposing the truth. As truth comes to light the devil behind the evil becomes desperate and wants nothing more than to have us arguing and discrediting one another. The dissension within is distracting from the progress being made. Let’s not forget who the real enemy is.
To a degree, I agree. However, I think the two issues are inseparable. The reason why the constant push for these dangerous vaccines is so maddening is exactly because there's a safer treatment alternative.
The vaccine would still be completely unneeded without the existence of Ivermectin. There are lots of treatments and probably the most effective one is to ignore hospital protocol.
Alex has been all over Twitter making jabs (pun intended) about Ivermectin. A shame he cannot find the humility to see his error. Pierre was terrific. Do not stop, do not back down!
Why is Pierre Kory so dreamy?! :)
I think the Trump aspect is secondary to the issue of cheap, generic drugs. Pharma is a mafia.
Great show. Ego will not allow Berenson to change his mind.
Pierre KILLED it!! Steve, can VSRF post an excerpt of this video that is just the debate between Pierre and Alex? This is incredibly powerful and will become a new tool in my ivermectin red-pilling toolkit.
Berenson's low integrity arrogance in the face of Kory's excellently articulated method is a good proxy for how the typical "educated" person "thinks." The level of patience Kory had with his juvenile antics is quite impressive.
Steve, can you send a link to the comments that you said you'd send to Pierre & Alex?
Sorry I missed it not receiving email notifications for some of my subscriptions. Can't wait to watch.
https://rumble.com/v1d64vr-full-episode-39-the-most-dangerous-journalist-in-america..html
Same! Where is the upload? 🙏🏽
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/alex-berenson-agreed-to-debate-ivermectin/comments?utm_source=%2Finbox&utm_medium=reader2
I admire both men for being willing to have an honest debate and discussion. Thank you for making this happen. I hope it is respectful and deliberate.
I think it is ridiculous that ANY journalist thinks they know more about medical treatments than a highly credentialed medical practitioner- especially one with Kory’s experience. Seems like a waste of time and nothing to see here.
He is practicing medicine without a license. It’s folly to believe what man says. He is so wrong about Ivermectin, it’s actually auite dangerous.
Journalists and elementary school teachers are similarly educated, if a 4 year degree in the last 20 years can be considered education. I need, nor want, either of their opinions, but I respect their right to have them and share them even if they are wrong.
I think Alex is a decent guy trying to do the right thing. However, he is like most people in that he grew up believing all of the institutions that "define" America generally work. He is having a hard time coming to grips with the notion that all of our defining institutions in fact do not work and are inherently corrupt. His comments about the Russian/Ukrainian war earlier this year made this abundantly clear. It is not an easy thing for many people to realize that all that we were brought up to believe in has become corrupted and inept.
I think his John Wells novels, which are quite good, express this ambivalence. These novels depict the spy agencies as being inept and corrupted in the manner we are now seeing with the medical establishment. I think writing these novels was actually quite therapeutic for Alex in that they allowed him to express this corruption and ineptitude in fictional form such that he could believe this was not the case in the real world.
Give Alex time. He will come around eventually.
BTW, if you like spy novels, I recommend Alex's "John Wells" series. They are quite good. I see a lot of criticism of Alex in here, some of it justified. I have my differences with him as well. However, at the end of the day Alex is one of the good guys fighting the good fight.
I used to follow Alex but he's a leftist. He still believes the new York times wouldn't lie. I rest my case.
I can complain about Alex with the best of them, but your statement is blatantly false. Alex pulls NYT through the mud on the regular. WTAF have you been?
Notice that at one point Alex just gratuitously claimed that blood thinners work? Their benefits vs costs have come under increasing scrutiny.
Alex must be really feeling his oats now that he “won” and is back on his beloved Twitter. Kinda dumb of him to sign up to match wits with the incomparable Dr. Pierre Kory, who not only has enormous experience with IVM, but also actually gives a shit about his fellow human beings.
IMO, everyone is controlled opposition, to some degree. The intel community prob. told AB, 'you can trash the vax, as long as you also trash IVM, and push the establishment version of 9/11.' They REALLY don't want us to see the big picture, their 100 year plan, the 4,000 patents on the SARS coronavirus, all the dead microbiologists....
It’s curious, the things that Alex is incurious about.
That was good but I paused the ending about virus comments and now only preview available…don’t edit that part out please! :)
Unfortunately I couldn't make it either - difficult time zones... can't wait to see it on Rumble!!
Can't wait for the full video to drop for this on Rumble -- wasn't able to tune in live.
As always, endless thanks, Mr. Steve!! I can't waiT to watch!!
Steve,
I noticed that at the end of the discussion you brought up your substack discussion with folks who claim that SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist. I’d be willing to debate a different issue - that there’s no way to show that a positive PCR test for this virus says anything about whether it represents a significant fraction of the total of all respiratory viruses at a given time in a human.
The CT value of the PCR test result might give you a decent idea as to whether you have replicating virus, or almost no virus in your system. When combined with looking at symptoms, it is a useful tool in determining a likely or unlikely source of infection.
No - in the big picture analysis that’s just an illusion. Let me explain:
It’s well known that hundreds of viruses are always in circulation - in constant flux, in various degrees of mutation, and each completely opportunistic in nature. So, I maintain that not only is it possible, but it *rates to be the case* that these many other viruses have a total health impact higher than that of any 1 detected virus, such as SARS-CoV-2.
Let me give you an example to think about. Suppose a carcass is lying on the side of the road. Suppose further, that after extensive testing you could determine that one particular type of ant (with a specific genetic sequence) was consuming the carcass. Would this test say anything about the total consumption by all other (i.e. non this-particular-ant-type) organisms which were consuming this carcass?
I suggest that not only does it not say anything - but that the total consumption by all other organisms (ant-types and non ant-types) rates to be significantly higher than that of any 1 specific detected ant-type.
Ok. Now, the CDC supposedly does “surveillance” to determine the most prevalent sub-types of respiratory viruses in circulation (by genetic sequence). But isn’t this entire concept childish? In what scientific manner have they shown that any 1 detected virus has even close to the impact of the total of all other non-detected viruses?
A simple thought experiment shows how crucial this point is: Suppose virus A is measured in a human to be 10x more prevalent than virus B. Further, assume there are 100 other non-detected viruses present each with similar quantities to virus B. Then these 100 other viruses would have a sum total 10x that of virus A.
In reality, there are hundreds of respiratory viruses - each with a continually shifting rank order significance - in each human body in time. Think of a hypothetical frequency distribution curve which captures the number of each virus at a given time. Let’s say it resembles a type of standard normal distribution (or bell curve). It may not precisely, but that won’t matter for purposes of this exercise. Notice that even if the tested-for and positively determined virus was of maximum frequency under this curve - in the middle - then the total number of all other viruses (as represented by the area under the curve minus the middle strip) would easily dwarf that of the 1 detected virus. We have no reason to believe otherwise.
In fact, this was the operating principle of mainstream science for decades since respiratory viruses in the community were first studied in the 1940s. Only in 2019 did this operating principle change to where public health authorities started to identify *1 particular respiratory virus* for targeting with various interventions. (Prior to 2019, other flu epidemics were noted with particular viral strains - but no public policy targeting actions specifically for those strains were taken at those times. So, the treatment protocols at those times never *depended* on the existence of only the 1 virus identified as the “cause” of the epidemic. Rather, the treatment protocols at those times were only judged on patient outcomes - independent of any single-virus diagnosis.)
You have an interesting hypothesis but it is just that so definitive statements are not appropriate right now. The hypothesis does not account for the fact that this particular virus does cause a subset of very unique symptoms and pathology all of which have been documented. It does not account for the fact that viral load -- as measured by PCR with CT -- is also correlated with higher hospitalizations and deaths in some unique studies.
No George - it’s the other way around: For over 70 years respiratory viruses were monitored in the community with the clear understanding that they acted in aggregate, and that individual viruses were opportunistic and that they all mutated too fast to treat with single-virus targeted treatments - much like the common cold. It was also well understood that they were collectively much more prevalent in winter than in other seasons.
Also note that no western country had more all cause deaths per capita in 2020 than in 2019 *except the US* which had 16% more deaths per capita in 2020 than in 2019.
Also note that the US had been on an incredible lucky streak: every year from 2003 to 2019 the rate of all-cause deaths per capita went down. By contrast, in 2003 and in all years prior going back to the founding of the US in 1776 the all-cause deaths per capita were higher - and usually *much higher* - than in 2020.
Also note the increase in “Covid deaths” identified in all the other (i.e. non-US) western countries in 2020 vs 2019 (where they were zero) were almost exactly offset by fewer deaths caused by heart attacks, lung problems, strokes and other causes.
Also, it’s not true that a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result connotes any unique symptom profile compared to those symptoms which present with influenza like illness (ILI) caused by other respiratory viruses.
Your first paragraph, I don't dispute. Never did. It still doesn't change the fact that you have little evidence to support the hypothesis.
"Also note that no western country had more all cause deaths per capita in 2020"
Patently false. I followed the Swedish all-cause stats for that whole year and they had quite a bit higher all-cause deaths in 2020. Now, some of that was because 2019 was a light year, and the all-cause death count wasn't that much higher than recent times, but it was an outlier across a couple of decades. Now I have to question everything you say because you're making more definitive statements without backup.
Your point about all-cause deaths doesn't matter. As you note, every year, there is an increase in respiratory virus' (Hope-Simpson FTW), but that doesn't mean that each year there isn't one that predominantly does the killing. I think the evidence shows, the real pandemic was over for most countries after the first wave -- which saw excess deaths, particularly in the elderly. Now, we also know the pandemic measures -- poor treatments, isolation of the elderly, lack of care etc -- also contributed to that death rate. But that doesn't mean that COVID-19 had a unique set of properties which made it a particularly nasty respiratory disease. Most of the pathology supports that. So does the study of the spike protein.
"Also, it’s not true that a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result connotes any unique symptom profile"
Please read carefully, I never set it connotes unique symptoms. I said a PCR test with low CT, COMBINED with observed set of unique symptoms provides strong evidence of impactful infection with COVID-19 being the majority contributor to the disease state.
“Patently false. I followed the Swedish all-cause stats for that whole year and they had quite a bit higher all-cause deaths in 2020."
No George - you're clearly wrong on Sweden. Advance the time index of the first video (The Truth About Lockdowns: Part 1) here by Nick Hudson to 16:37 and watch carefully to learn the truth:
https://www.pandata.org/the-ugly-truth-about-the-covid-19-lockdowns/
(Now you're correct that 2019 was a light year, but 2020 was within Sweden's most recent 10-year average, so it's not an outlier across a couple of decades. Also, my remark of all-cause deaths in 2020 vs 2019 was referring to a difference of statistical significance.)
"Your point about all-cause deaths doesn't matter. As you note, every year, there is an increase in respiratory virus' (Hope-Simpson FTW), but that doesn't mean that each year there isn't one that predominantly does the killing."
It's not for me to prove that there isn't predominantly 1 respiratory virus killing people. Rather, after 70 years of aggregate and clearly non-specific respiratory-virus treatment precedent, it's for public health to positively prove that predominantly 1 respiratory virus is killing people. A PCR test showing the presence of SARS-CoV-2 coincident with symptoms says nothing about the presence of all other respiratory viruses coincident with the same symptoms. In fact, the only way to prove that any proposed treatment works specifically against SARS-CoV-2 is to show that it generally *doesn't work against other respiratory viruses*. If it works against other respiratory viruses just as well, then the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 has no practical significance. However, to date I've seen no random controlled trials which show any proposed treatment works against SARS-CoV-2, but doesn't work against other respiratory viruses.
"I said a PCR test with low CT, COMBINED with observed set of unique symptoms provides strong evidence of impactful infection with COVID-19 being the majority contributor to the disease state."
No George. To prove how silly this whole exercise is, remember what the original definition of COVID-19 was? It was specifically someone who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 *and who was in severe respiratory distress*. Public health has moved the goal posts so far that now everyone who has a cold also has "COVID-19". So the new definition of COVID-19 is synonymous with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. It doesn't make any sense - both terms are unnecessary if they mean the same thing.
Great discussion Steve.
Great job moderating this Steve! Your non-verbal comments kept me smiling and laughing. I give Alex credit for showing up, but zero credit for a closed mind to facts and data. I know there are things he doesn't seem to know; I was just surprised at how much! When you said you were a subscriber to his Substack, I said, "Yeah, so was I until he ambushed Malone on live TV. Then I went to "free" and subscribed to Steve's instead!" I'd rather support VSRF and not someone suing the blue bird for what I've perceived to be ego-driven reasons.
You're right - Pierre knocked it out of the park. SO many good comments and good reasoning. I had to leave shortly after Alex did, so will have to catch the rest of the conversation when it goes up.
Berenson's comment that it is the vaccines that constitute the important issue, not Ivermectin is an absurdity and an infuriating obfuscation: the two things are inextricably linked and part of the same issue and he knows that. Alex is an empty suit, an opportunist and a fake. I have bought some of his pamphlets and he certainly did some good at the outset of the COVID crisis, but his moment has passed. He is deeply deceptive.
My observation is that he’s very good on the vaccines. That is, he has applied a very high level of investigative journalism to this topic - particularly considering he’s a non-scientist. However, on other subjects he often just stakes out positions aligning with mainstream headlines. Marijuana use being about the only exception.
I think that's fair, although I must say his attitude is sort of, "look at all these stupid people doing these incompetent and stupid things." And that's the limitation of a strictly medical approach to all this. One has to put the mask/vaccine mania in a global context and see what is happening in every sphere of life.
I'm not quite at your assessment of him, but pretty close. I have the booklets which are great and started Pandemia which I also bought on Kindle and it starts out well, but someone told me it's kind of all about him and his battle with Twitter, so we'll see how far I get into it when I pick it up again. I disagreed completely with many of the things he said tonight and agree there was a lot of obfuscation.
I thought Pierre "hit it out of the park" like Steve said.
For someone who claims to be an independent thinker his disjointed, evasive babbling tonight was laced with received opinion. As for graphene content in the vials he said something like, "that sounds crazy to me." How something sounds to Alex Berenson does not count as a scientific or rational assessment of credible allegations by doctors and scientists shunned by the corporate media. As for 5G, the health effects of EMF's are well known as described by the physicist and former Royal Navy officer, Barrie Trower and many others. As of a few years ago there were over 250 scientists worldwide who were raising the alarm about 5G. The EMF issue is even more taboo than questioning the "vaccination" program. I was ejected from Twitter (despite appeals) because I said I felt unwell since clusters of 5G towers had been mounted near our house.
Alex is pretty far off the mark regarding the body count for shots, let alone hospital fatalities. The Columbia U Study estimated a lower bound of 167k deaths for Feb to Aug of 2021 alone. Steve had a similar estimate. Alex is hasty in calling Steve conspiratorial. This is about data, not conspiracies. It comes down to hiding the bodies. Alex complained “but they’d show up as excess deaths!” Well, yeah, as a matter of fact! As Ed Dowd has shown as well. Because Alex has a voice, his grasp of this topic should be in line with the data. David Martin has a very different posture: Fauci, Pfizer and Moderna are going down! That’s because he has the goods.
How can we watch this if we missed it live?!
i follow Steve's VacSafety channel on rumble... the full interview shows up within a day or 2... this link is to the preview...
https://rumble.com/v1cq4dj-preview-ep39-the-most-dangerous-journalist-in-america..html
Dr Berenson has treated over 5,000 patients wirh coivd as a jounralist.
LOL
Alex: “Paxlovid works, but Ivermectin doesn’t.”
Kory: “But both are Ace2 Inhibitors, so if one works, so will the other.”
Alex: “😳” 🦗 🦗 🦗
Paxlovid works…. at bringing the symptoms back!
If Alex would show a little interest in the subject, he would know that although both drugs work in roughly the same way, one has a long track record of safe useage for multiple purposes with very few side effects. The other one is a black box product. He doesn’t strike me as a very intelligent person, unless he is just compromised in some way.
Long term safety data, anyone ?
Yes - I saw that. Alex has been a strong force on the vaccines from the beginning, but his lack of scientific training does show when he’s pressed on scientific details.
I believe lack of honesty and humility--not lack of training--is the problem.
Bingo! Arrogance and ignorance are not good character traits
No. It is clearly both.
When Alex wants to he seems quite capable of sound logical analyses.
When he wants to.
Yes, that was the moment Kory had him. Kory said IVM does that function better than the Pax, made by the vax company.
I do think that struck a cord with Alex.
if AB is a curious person... truth seeker... he needs to address the cognitive dissonance that he felt at that moment and search it out... Brilliant move by Dr Kory!
Excellent conversation Steve. You interrupted and asked exactly the right questions at exactly the right miment, just as a good facilitator should do. Pierre smoked him but we all knew that was what would happen anyway. Hat tip to Alex for being willing to discuss the subject with someone that disagrees with him. I left that conversation feeling even better about taking IVM.
thank you Steve,
You are a national treasure. No WAY is it possible to imagine how Dr. Kory keeps his cool around such arrogant ignorance but you both did a great gracious job.
This was a good discussion. They didn't get down and dirty but talked about more important high level concepts.
The "vaccines" are still under "emergency use authorization", as in not actually FDA "approved", right?
So, if there were therapeutics readily available, that are "proven" to reduce severe symptoms - would the gov't not be able to mandate the vax under "EAU"??
They don't want you to make ppl better at the risk of losing their emergency authority
The EUAs would disappear - legally no basis for it
My dear knight, i believe you've got YATZEE!
Now, let us present this to court.
Speaking of... I just saw (and about bleW a gasket, as I do eVery time) that infuriating Pfizer commercial about asking your doc for available "early treatments" upon '+' coNvid diagnosis, onset of symptoms, blah blah... oBviously referring to theiR drug, PAX. I just don't get how the EAUs can hold with that!!... the Jab mAker themselves, inferring early treatments DO exist!?! GRRRR.... There's SO much wrong with that, on SO many levels.!. Disgusts me to nO end. Deceptive, corrupt b@$TARDS!! Sighhh......
Pax is still experimental and not fully licensed. But Ivermectin is fully licensed, and has been for ages.
(which is why there is so much FUD and malinformation about IVM - to avoid EUA and liability from going poof - and also the push to get the vaxes on the childrens vax schedule for more immunity from liability )
I won't be able to watch. But seems like a one-sided debate. Dr. Kory will chew-up AB.
He did, but in a very nice way lol, much nicer than I’d have done.
Sadly, this is not my idea of a worthwhile debate. Berenson is not a doctor or healthcare professional of any kind. In my opinion, and as reflected by the many snarky, "I'm always right, even though I don't know what I'm talking about" comments he's made on Substack about Ivermectin and those who've used it, I don't see how this will be the kind of meaningful, balanced conversation that needs to happen with a real influencer whose opposition is based on carefully researched facts and information. I'll pass.
It’s even worse than that. AB admitted not looking into much on these topics, preferring not to “go there” but still feeling confident to say ivm doesn’t work. He’s just not interesting enough to waste time on. He is motivated to avoid certain controversies. By what, I do not know.
Berenson gave his reasoning for his opinions.
If only "medical professionals" are allowed to have an opinion (assuming you must be, since you have an opinion) then not many are allowed to discuss it and have opinions???
Consider changing your handle to "Only Medical Pro Opinions Count" 😉
Please don't misquote me. And don't go making assumptions -- you are wrong. I did not say only medical professionals are allowed to have an opinion. Berenson is a journalist -- one whom I thought had a robust curiosity, did careful research, and objectively considered a wide range of credible source materials trying to discern the truth. Yet, he often seems bratty, even belligerent in his posts about Ivermectin and replies to readers who have tried to share solid source materials that are counterpoints to the problematic studies he cites. His attacks on Robert Malone were embarrassing and factually wrong. It's his Substack, though, and I'm a long-time subscriber (at least until my next renewal date). He seems incredibly focused on money now, and not the humble pursuit of truth. You're free to be his defender. I'm free to say what I like.
I wonder if it’s because his wife is a doctor and she may not believe in ivermectin. In any case, it’s ridiculous for him to think he knows more than Dr. Kory 🙄
I apologize for misquoting and misunderstanding.
It wouldn't let me hit like but I liked your apology, I can tell it was sincere. I agree with Melissa, and not to open another can of worms but Alex also gives his opinions on other subjects and never counters any pushback. His ambush on Dr. Malone was one of the weirdest things I've seen on cable news. Raymond Arroyo was subbing for Ingraham on her show and he was rattled as well: Alex challenged Malone on Ivermectin w/o any stated backup and accused him of padding his resume with false patent claims. Dr. Malone listed his patents (and seemed unfazed) and Berenson never countered nor apologized.
That exchange was truly bizarre. He also disrespected his own subscribers on multiple occasions, even before that happened.
I expect Berenson to cite the Bill Gates/WHO funded studies "debunking" IVM. Kory is familiar with the studies and their flaws especially after writing a book on it. At best, Berenson will concede he just doesn't know, while hinting he still doesn't believe it works. But when you can't get a single person from within The Science to even touch this subject with someone like Kory, let's take what we can get. Perhaps something good comes of it.
I used to subscribe to Berenson’s substack but he lost me when he went after Malone - on live television, no less!
Solipsism run wild.
You, me and a bunch of other people! He didn't look exceptionally great tonight up against Pierre Kory either.
Yup. It was an ambush by Berenson.
I think the efficacy of IVM has changed with omicron based on my personal experience. First time I got sick and took it, I was better 12 hours later. COVID was not confirmed, just suspected. I just got over confirmed COVID for what I believe to be the second time. I took 48 mg of IVM for two weeks. It still took a month to fully feel like I was 100% again.
That is very interesting. My hubby and I were sick about the same time….I got it from him. Not sure what supplements he took but would not take my ivermectin….I bought a huge stock. I took IVM, fluvoxamine, baby aspirin, vitamin D and C, zinc and Quercetin (took Zstack). I think our courses with the infection were the same! Thought I would recover faster than him but did not.
Yeah I was expecting a quicker recovery myself. I think it's still worth taking though because it has mechanisms of action that aid the body in ridding itself of the spike protein.
I thought of that as well…might be better for the long haul. I was surprised how much my lungs were affected with a milder case. Not issues breathing but I would feel a tickle that made me cough for many days. Oh well it was not horrible and now I have sole good immunity. My sister ended up with an arrhythmia after COVID. No vax for either of us.
Has anyone heard about the BBC's new show Unvaccinated about a mathematician who tries to convince seven people to get vaccinated? I think it's funny that even though it sounds like classic brainwashing, they were unsuccessful! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11020717/Did-BBC-team-convince-seven-anti-vaxxers-Covid-jab.html
That mathematician (Hannah Fry) is "in the club". See how she was involved in an earlier psyop (similar to Event 201) --
"Hannah Fry and the Peacock Feather"
https://www.cryptogon.com/?p=64345
yes, totally creepy! One of the characters on the show said that there was lively debate over 6 days, but only the pro-vax agenda was aired (via Twitter).
When do we get the Zoom link? I'm looking forward to this.
it was a VERY informative interview... unexpectedly so imho!
Sly Stallone acted like a boxer so much that he thought he was a boxer. He asked heavyweight Ernie Shavers to open up on him with body shots.
He crawled to the corner and vomited.
Kory TKO
Edit: it was a great conversation and segment of Steve’s. Alex was very good until he spoke about IVM - when he argued like a Karen.
Yep. Shavers was actually being considered for the role of Apollo Creed, so they decided to spar a little.
Stallone was disappointed that Shavers was holding back so he kept asking for Shavers to hit him with a real punch. Shavers kept politely declining, saying “I can’t do that Mr. Stallone”. Finally, tiring of the nagging, he decided to give him a ‘little’ (but real) shot to the body. Stallone bent over and waved him off. One shot.
He didn’t get the part.
Thanks!
Berenson: “I’ve never really looked into IVM because I don’t want to “go there”, I just know it’s bad. But I love Paxlovid.”
The man is ridiculous.
"The man is ridiculous."
The man is obviously bought and paid for.
then Dr Kory pointed out the evidence for PAX was protease based(?) (sorry, brain fog here) and the same mechanism is in IVM, but STRONGER... [mic drop]
That made me laugh out loud 😂 AB needs to do his homework.
Seriously?!? WT*??
It's a journalist debating a bonafide clinician who's treated patients... It's not even a fair debate. No way AB changes his mind however. His hubris is off the charts. There's already overwhelming evidence out there if you choose to research.
A bona fide clinician that just wrote a book on the subject being debated.
He's kind of an ass
Kind of? 😂
Yes, agree
Berenson took the IVM stance he did to say "See how nuanced and well balanced I am? My Ivy League friends, please oh please welcome me back to civil society." Kick his groveling ass today, Dr Kory.
Yes. It is pathetic to watch Alex take these stances - on IVM, Trump, J6 and election fraud on the outside chance the Twitter blue checked “in crowd” is going to take him back. They are never going to take him back. That bridge is burned forever. Alex could be the most important journalist in America right now and possibly one of the most important in American history if he would only approach election fraud with the sameSkepticism and journalistic practices that he uses for the vaccine scam. Instead, he hedges his bets for the chance of being part of the “club” again.
interesting... seems that those (like AB) who may be willing to sacrifice integrity/ character for popularly/ esteem likely deserve neither...
Is Berenson getting paid to be part of the discussion?
If I had to guess he is doing it because Steve asked him. Steve's been talking about suing Twitter . . . and if you were contemplating that who would you talk to? So my guess is Steve struck up a relationship and Alex agreed to do the debate.
I'm still a subscriber to Unreported Truths, and I sincerely hope Alex doesn't post some half-baked screed about debating Dr. Kory.
Who cares? I'm not into what Berenson thinks about too many things at all.
I appreciate that Berenson is a vaccine skeptic with a lot of media attention. The fact that he is a former NYT journalist leaves him with residual thickening of the skull that shows up as inconsistencies in his commentary. Since he has a lot of followers and some potential to be influenced by objective evidence and reasoning ... if delivered with a blunt instrument ... he may or may not have anything positive to contribute going forward. He’s on a plateau at this time.
agreed... however engaging with other opinions on "whatever level they are found willing to engage" is a profound skill that few have, which Dr Kory exemplified imho... then Dr Kory said he was tired(?) (sorry, brain fog), when listening, i literally thought he must have gotten rested before this!
What is there to debate? Ivermectin like many drugs and supplements including vitamin C, curcumin and resveratrol, inhibits replication of viral mRNA by boosting heme oxygenase-1, the Universal Stress Enzyme.
HO1 breaks down heme proteins into (antiviral) carbon monoxide, bilirubin and ferritin. This pathway also releases a lot heat that causes fever when HO1 is high, but lower than normal temp when HO1 is chronically low (<97F)
Tell Dr. Kory to eat popcorn so he can practice chewing it up & spitting it out at Alex. 😊
Dr. Kory knows medicine. Alex knows flawed studies. I saw ivermectin transform my husband with just one dose. I know it doesn’t work that way for everyone but I’m a believer. And with all of the patients Dr. Kory has cured, it doesn’t even seem like a fair fight. A lightweight & a heavyweight 😉
my husband was just "delivered!" by IVM and back to work today, too! sounds like Dr Kory has uncovered a lot of interesting biases about RCTs (randomized controlled trials) and "evidence-based medicine" that all medical pros have become obligated to follow... who needs an independent-thinking provider when you have "COOKBOOK MEDICINE?" i submit that pretty soon, we'll all be treated by A.I. [SCAREY] ... being informed and proactive about your health is no longer optional if you want to LIVE...!!!
Alex is the pandemic’s wrongest man when it comes to ivermectin.
And he is very devoted to his wrongness!
I’ve never understood Alex Berenson’s stance on ivermectin. I’ll have to tune in..
If you ever can provide a rational explanation for his perspective on ivermectin, then tackle his "takes" on Robert Malone and cannabis, which are at least as puzzling and absurd.
Good point
I found his take on cannabis well researched and thought provoking.
My impression was of an intentionally one-sided prosecutorial case against the "demon weed", laden with cherry-picking and and the like. It vaguely reminds me of the kind of "journalism" I see at the gym when I glance up at the television sets near the ceiling and see the closed captioning for CNN, the station they're perpetually broadcasting in the LA FITNESS in which I train.
That's not at all the impression I got. What, exactly, have you read from Alex on this?
REEFER MADNESS...er, TELL YOUR CHILDREN rather, is the name of his book, IIRC.
Yeah, if you're equating "Teach your children" with "Refer Madness", I really have no use for you.
His wife is a shrink Doctor in NYC! He won’t promote alternative therapeutics. He’s clearly a beta boy!
he called his wife a "physician," sort of generically... made me think family practice, just randomly... but psychiatrists are TOTALLY going to buy into the sanctioned narrative from my experience... not the "brightest crayons in the box" in my opinion...
You might enjoy Dr. Mark McDonald's SubStack: https://markmcdonaldmd.substack.com
He is a sane psychiatrist who practices in the vaxed and masked post-apocalyptic woke cesspool that is Los Angeles, which makes him extremely unusual.
Awesome 😎