Clinical psychologist Cindy Eaton say censorship is bad, but then it is good

This video is just 3 minutes long and it’s really amazing. In the video, clinical psychologist Cindy Eaton says doctors shouldn’t be restricted following the medical consensus when talking to patients.

A mere 15 minutes after the interview, Cindy comes back and DEMANDS that I IMMEDIATELY delete the interview because the NY Times article referred to the bill as censoring medical misinformation. She’s in favor of such censorship!

The problem of course is that the bill defines medical misinformation as disagreeing with the medical consensus.

What this shows is that when the bill is described using only the bill’s DEFINITION of the term “misinformation,” she’s strongly opposed. When it is described by the term “misinformation,” she’s strongly in favor of the bill.

She stood around me for more than 30 minutes telling everyone not to talk to me. She said she’d leave when I deleted the video. When that didn’t work, she called the cops on me to try to intimidate me to delete the video. That failed too.

Here’s the video that Cindy doesn’t want anyone to see.

On October 8, 2022, I interviewed Cindy Eaton who is a clinical psychologist. The interview was in downtown Los Altos at 6:39pm.

I asked her what she thought of AB2098. She had not heard of the bill, so I described that it prohibited doctors from talking to their patients only for COVID freely; they had to restrict their speech to the “medical consensus.” She thought this was a bad idea.

About 15 minutes after the interview ended, she came back and DEMANDED I delete her interview IMMEDIATELY and to show her I deleted it.

I asked her why.

She said after the interview that she read the NY Times article on AB2098 which said it regulated COVID-19 MISINFORMATION.

She said I totally misled her!

She’s said that now she understands what the bill is for, she is STRONGLY in FAVOR of censoring COVID misinformation so she wanted to take back what she said.

But as you can see from the video, her claims of misrepresentation are clearly false. I described exactly what the bill prohibited while avoiding the use of the pejorative term “misinformation.”

She then said if I didn’t delete the video, she would stand there and tell everyone not to talk to me. After all, that’s what all respectable medical professionals do when they change their minds about a topic, right?

I said I described the bill accurately; she should read the text of the bill.

She refused to read the bill.

Instead, she then stood around telling everyone not to talk to me because I was misrepresenting the bill (you know, the bill that she herself refused to read).

When that wasn’t enough to get me to delete the video, she called the Los Altos Police Department.

Two officers arrived and agreed she had no standing. First of all, there was no criminal activity for the cops to be called.

Secondly, there is no civil action for her either since she consented to be filmed.

Here’s a simple example. Suppose I ask you for a dollar and you give me the dollar. Then you change your mind and want it back. You don’t have a legal right to get it back. So if you want it back, you should always ask nicely.

In the case of an interview, can you imagine if Gavin Newsom said something that he later regretted at a press conference. Do you think he has a legal right to demand that everyone who was at the press conference to delete their footage while he stands over each one of them and verifies they deleted their footage? Of course not. That’s ridiculous.

If Cindy had been nice about it and made a polite request and agreed to re-do her video with her new updated views, I would have not used the original video. I would have preferred that actually.

But by standing around shooing people away telling people I misrepresented the bill (which you can see that I did not) and then calling the cops, she went over the line.

Isn’t it amazing how reading a NY Times article which refers to disagreement with the mainstream consensus as “misinformation” can instantly shift someone’s opinion?

To me, what was fascinating about this incident is how the description of the bill makes a huge difference:

  1. When the bill is described as prohibiting speech between a doctor and a patient which doesn’t agree with the mainstream medical consensus, that is BAD.

  2. But when the NY Times characterizes the bill as punishing “medical misinformation,” that same bill is now GOOD.

The bill itself says:

“Misinformation” means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.”

So nothing changed other than using the term misinformation. Once it is misinformation, then censoring doctors goes from being bad to good. Cindy was adamant about that.

I asked Cindy about the war on fat where all the doctors thought fat was bad. If a doctor told a diabetic patient to reduce carbs and increase fats, she would have her license to practice medicine taken away (if the bill was extended to cover non-COVID-19 information). Cindy had no comment.

I’d have loved to have asked Cindy, why the limitation for COVID-19?? What if a doctor disagreed with the medical consensus on your cancer treatment protocol? Should that doctor have their medical license revoked?

But she didn’t want to talk about that either.

Also, one doctor from Stanford Hospital walked by but he refused to comment on the bill. I got the sense he liked working at Stanford and wanted to keep his job.

So doctors don’t feel safe talking about a bill that censors them.

We live in interesting times.

Next step for California: Extend AB 2098 to all fields of medicine so anyone who doesn’t comply with the consensus loses their license. After all, why stop with COVID-19?

Using the word “misinformation” is a brilliant strategy to ensure that doctors will never tell patients the truth about how dangerous the vaccines are.

I expect some other states will follow California’s lead on this bill.

Fortunately, there are efforts in California to overturn this bill since it is a violation of the first amendment for the government to regulate such speech. I suspect this will go all the way to the US Supreme Court so it could take a while to resolve.

Let’s hope that the judge grants the motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Lives depend on it and those lives cannot be recovered.

The War on Ivermectin

the war on ivermectin

Download Interview Transcript | Download my FREE Podcast

  • In his book, “The War on Ivermectin: The Medicine That Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the COVID Pandemic,” Dr. Pierre Kory details the history of ivermectin and the how and why behind Big Pharma’s suppression of this drug when it was found to work against COVID-19

  • After spending his career as an internist and critical care physician, Kory has now turned his attention to long-haul COVID and post-jab injury syndromes

  • Daily ivermectin use is a mainstay of the treatment plans for long-haulers and those with COVID jab injuries, as the drug very effectively binds to the toxic spike protein that is causing most of the damage in both of these conditions

  • Methylene blue can be helpful for those struggling with crippling fatigue, as it boosts mitochondrial respiration and improves energy metabolism. It’s actually the parent molecule for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, off-patent drugs used to treat COVID-19 along with zinc

  • “The War on Ivermectin” reveals the disinformation playbook used by Big Pharma and its many allies to suppress highly useful and inexpensive medicines in order to protect and increase corporate profits

Visit Mercola Market


In this interview, return guest Dr. Pierre Kory discusses his new book, “The War on Ivermectin: The Medicine That Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the COVID Pandemic.” In it, he details the history of ivermectin and the how and why behind Big Pharma’s suppression of this drug when it was found to work against COVID-19.

Like Dr. Paul Marik and Dr. Peter McCullough, Kory has been threatened by the American Board of Internal Medicine, which is seeking to yank his medical license. While a family doctor in private practice can operate without board certification, most medical centers will not hire a doctor who isn’t board certified in his specialty, and insurance companies won’t put you on their panel.

Kory, however, is not overly concerned about this threat — which is really little more than an intimidation tactic to shut him up — as he has no intention of ever going back to a hospital setting.

“I’m done,” he says. “There’s no way I could walk into a hospital. I’ve just learned too much. I’ve learned too much about pharmaceutical control of almost all of the medical evidence. There’s no way I can fit. Now I’m a square peg in a round hole.

So, to be honest, I don’t think [losing my board certification] would have an impact. I am now in private practice. I have a bustling telehealth practice and I’m very happy. I’m outside the system, I can do and say and care for the patients in a manner that I best see fit.

Anyway, our reply [to the American Board of Internal Medicine] was different than Peter’s. He presented all the evidence to support all the statements they accused him of as being misinformation; very data driven, evidence-based.

What we did is, our lawyer looked at their policy on misinformation and the process of ‘convicting’ someone of misinformation, and it required that they provide us the evidence showing that we are wrong and misinformed.

But the letter to us was bizarre. It was this hodgepodge of statements that I’d made or written on my Substack, and it was just implied that that’s misinformation …

So, we wrote back very simply, ‘Excuse us, but your letter does not follow your own misinformation policy. We ask that you kindly reissue the letter with the evidence showing that we’re wrong.’ And we’ve gotten radio silence ever since.”

After spending his career as an internist and critical care physician, Kory has now turned his attention to long-haul COVID and post-jab injury syndromes — complex chronic illnesses. To that end, he’s collaborating with doctors who’ve spent decades treating other tricky conditions, such as chronic Lyme disease, fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome.

“So, not only do I have a new career and practice, but also a new intellectual focus and it’s much more satisfying. I’m literally returning people to levels of function that they weren’t at before.

These were oftentimes healthy people with full careers, children, they exercised, ate right and now they’re fully disabled with numerous organ system complaints.

And I’ll tell you, getting them from 20% [function] to 40% [function] is a big deal, when they can actually do just a little bit more than they were doing before, and when you get them to 80%, it’s transformative.

But it’s way more challenging. And I tell my patients, ‘Listen, I have to be humble here. I’m trying to figure this out. I’m collaborating, I’m reading, I’m learning from you.’ I’m learning from each patient, because we’re doing a lot of empiric therapies.

We’re trying things, and so I learn. Each patient serves as their own control and I’m finding different things work on different patients. But the real challenge that I’m finding is that I don’t have any biomarkers or tests that I find helpful to direct therapies.

A lot of the tests are normal, even inflammatory markers. Clotting markers are normal, and yet I know that they have inflammatory processes and they’re thrombogenic. So, I wish there was more research and guidance.”

One of the primary complaints of those struggling with what we’re now calling “long-haul COVID” is fatigue, a lack of energy to do even the most basic things. Since mitochondria are responsible for 90% of the energy production in your body, it stands to reason that impaired energy production in the mitochondria, or more simply, mitochondrial dysfunction, is at play.

The challenge is how to recover that function. One fascinating drug that can help in this regard is methylene blue, which helps mitochondrial respiration and improves brain energy metabolism. Methylene blue is actually the parent molecule for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, off-patent drugs commonly used to treat not only malaria but also COVID-19.

Best known as a fish tank antiseptic and textile dye for blue jeans, it was actually the first synthetic drug in modern history, developed in 1876. Since then, we’ve discovered it has many really important medicinal benefits. Importantly, it’s the only known antidote for metabolic poisons, i.e., any poison that interferes with oxygen transport or displaces oxygen, either from the blood or from the mitochondria.

Basically, as an electron cycler, methylene blue acts like a battery, but unlike other compounds that do the same thing, it doesn’t cause damaging oxidation in the process. You can review my interview with Dr. Francisco Gonzalez Lima here for more information.

If anything interferes with oxygenation or cellular respiration, such as cyanide, methylene blue is able to bypass that point of interference through electron cycling, thus allowing mitochondrial respiration, oxygen consumption and energy production to function as it normally would. And, the effect is typically felt within hours, as it increases, by about 30%, the ability of the mitochondria to produce ATP in the electron transport chain. Kory has also found it useful.

“My really sick patients use methylene blue,” he says. “Some of the really sick ones that aren’t responding to medicine, I send to a clinic where they do apheresis, ozone, methylene blue, infrared. One of them actually was discharged on oral methylene blue. And so, I want to figure out how to implement oral methylene blue.”

Methylene blue is far from a cure-all, however. Any number of processes could be impacting your mitochondria, and they all need to be addressed. Adding to the complexity is that remedies that work really well in one long-hauler or COVID jab-injured patient often will not work for another, even though they present with very similar symptoms.

“We’ve [found] about six or seven different pathophysiologic mechanisms, and one of them is mitochondrial dysfunction, but I don’t know which is the predominant one in each patient,” Kory says. “I have no way of figuring that out. The only way I figure it out is by responses to therapy.

For instance, I had one young woman recently. I tried a number of therapies and what resurrected her, finally, was when I started to treat mast cell activation. I put her on antihistamine, famotidine [a heartburn medication], ketotifen [an asthma medication], and Boom.”

Daily sun exposure for about an hour around solar noon can also be important, as the near-infrared wavelengths will trigger melatonin production in your mitochondria, where you need it the most.

Melatonin is a potent antioxidant, so getting plenty of sunshine on bare skin is a simple way to reduce reactive oxygen species (ROS) that cause damage, and secondarily increase the efficiency of ATP production. Kory has been recommending this as well.

During our conversation, the issue of medical journals came up, and their role in the corruption of science. Kory notes:

“That’s the other transformation that Paul [Marik] and I have undergone. We really looked to those journals thinking they were the most sophisticated and that was the top levels of science. But seeing what was published in those journals throughout COVID uncovered the absolute control by the pharmaceutical industry.

I mean, what appears in those journals is what they allow to appear in those journals. Period. I know of many positive studies of repurposed drugs rejected. We’ve seen them pull the following — JAMA and The New England Journal both — where instead of rejecting [the paper] they hold onto it as if they’re considering it, and then the rejection comes months later.

I’ve never heard of that in my career. Usually, when I’ve tried to submit manuscripts, they either say, ‘This is interesting. We’re sending it out for peer review,’ or they say, ‘This is not of sufficient interest to our readership at this time.’

They rejected positive trials of ivermectin. And then, probably the greatest and most saddening corruption that they pulled, is that they published the Together trial on ivermectin, which is so brazenly fraudulent and corrupt.

There are so many documented actions those investigators took in order to ensure they did not have a statistically significant benefit for ivermectin. Yet the New England Journal of Medicine published it. When you look at the design and the conduct of the trial, it should never be published. It was brazenly corrupt.

The investigators were all working for either their own companies or other companies whose sole job was to do research contracts for pharmaceutical companies. I mean, what would happen in their careers had they published a positive trial on ivermectin? That’s it. Bye. No more contracts.”

According to Kory, the idea for “The War on Ivermectin” was birthed after reading an article titled “The Disinformation Playbook,”1 published by the Union for Concerned Scientists. He explains:

“What happened is that after my ivermectin testimony2 [December 8, 2020, before Sen. Ron Johnson], which went viral and brought a lot of attention to the FLCCC … our protocols were looked in to. Doctors started prescribing ivermectin.

And I thought — this is how naive I was — I literally thought that we were providing a major intervention that would alter the trajectory of the pandemic, without question. It would reduce cases, hospitalizations and deaths, and now you have an effective early outpatient treatment. And I thought that news would be welcomed.

I thought the FLCCC would come out as heroes. It was really Paul who identified the data signal first. He said, ‘Wow. You got to see what these studies are starting to show.’ I jumped in right behind him. I was the first author of that comprehensive review paper.

I worked a lot and I got deeply expert on ivermectin. But what happened in the next few months is that everything started going sideways, and I could not figure it out. I saw hit pieces. To you, this is not news. You’re probably like, ‘Yep. I’ve seen that before.’

The thing is, I didn’t know. I didn’t know that what I was really doing — bringing forth data supporting the efficacy of a generic drug — that is poking the bear. And when I say poking the bear, what is anathema to the pharmaceutical industry and their whole business model is they cannot have generic off-patent drugs become standard of care. It obliterates the market for their pricing new pills.

I didn’t know I was stepping into a war. In the history of pharma, I don’t think any single medicine threatened as many [drug] markets and campaigns. The only other medicine that did that was hydroxychloroquine, but they already killed hydroxychloroquine in 2020.

I was coming out now with ivermectin, and it threatened hundreds of billions of dollars in perpetuity for these insanely lethal vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir, paxlovid, molnupiravir — all of the markets for their novel new pills to enter. I mean, I don’t think any medicine has ever threatened that much of a market.

So, we were getting attacked. I did an interview with the Associated Press and the article that came out, I mean, I almost had a heart attack [reading it]. I saw unending attacks on ivermectin and it was coming in different directions. I saw academia getting all hot and bothered.

‘It’s a fringe medicine. It’s unproven. The trials are small.’ I saw all these narratives and I didn’t know they were narratives at the time. I thought people were being stupid … Now, I see everything. I see everything they do now, even before they do it, because they’re really predictable.”

The turning point came when Kory received a two-line email from Dr. William B. Grant (who also co-wrote my review paper3 on vitamin D for COVID prevention). The email said, “Dr. Kory, what they’re doing to ivermectin is what they’ve done to vitamin D for decades.” Attached was a link to The Disinformation Playbook article.4

“It’s a short article. It’s very well-designed. They have little diagrams and then they have examples of disinformation campaigns. They describe the five plays, which they name after American football plays. And these are the tactics that pharma used. I read the article and I was like, ‘Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.’

Suddenly, the world made sense — and not in a good way. It was very ugly, because I was like, ‘That’s what’s going on. There’s a massive disinformation campaign directed at ivermectin.’ From that moment on, everything that happened, every day, it was almost like I got tied to a front row seat for a horror movie. I’ve had to watch a horror movie unfold ever since.

Millions dying, hospitals overflowing. And there’s a drug that could prevent that. It could avert catastrophe. It would’ve definitely either put the brakes on or stopped the vaccine campaign obsession, which is in my mind, is one of history’s greatest humanitarian catastrophes.

It’s a holocaust out there with these vaccines. That’s easily proven from immense sources of data now, from life insurance data, disability data, excess mortality data. Now we’re even seeing birth rates dropping.

So, the theme of the book is centered around that. It’s my experiences and knowledge of what they do … It’s almost like a teacher’s manual, because I saw everything they pulled, how they did it and how successful they were — the fire plays, the blitz, harass the scientists that come out with inconvenient science, the diversion, inject doubt where there is none.”

Indeed, these disinformation tactics have a long history. They’re not new. It’s just that people in general have not been aware of these tactics, so they worked like a charm and could be used over and over again.

In the 1950s, the tobacco industry hired a PR agency called Hills and Knowlton, which established all the strategies Kory just listed and discuss at depth in his book. The tobacco industry used it so effectively, they were able to quash cancer concerns for another 50 years.

Their disinformation campaign didn’t end until attorneys general across the country finally decided to collaborate and bring massive lawsuits against the tobacco industry, winning not only settlements but also — and more importantly — limiting their ability to practice disinformation through media and advertising.

The telecommunications industry has used the same tactics since the ’90s. They actually hired the same PR firm to protect their business and hoodwink customers, and they’re still going strong. Unlike tobacco, which was finally understood to cause cancer, electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure from cell phones and Wi-Fi is still not recognized as a biological danger, despite massive amounts of evidence.

The drug industry, though, has perhaps used the disinformation playbook the longest, and it’s high time to break their magic spell. The way we do that is by educating ourselves and others about how they use disinformation to manipulate you. Once you know their playbook, it’s like being equipped with X-ray vision.

“I think ‘The War on Ivermectin’ is almost as important as Bobby Kennedy’s book, ‘The Real Anthony Fauci,’ where he, in a highly-referenced fashion, documents the control of medicine and the medical sciences and how it’s literally controlled by pharma and how depraved that control is,” Kory says.

“They do not care. The pharmaceutical industry is a documented criminal industry. They’ve released many, many products that have caused untold deaths and what do they do? They try to suppress that evidence for as long as possible. They get caught. They pay a fine. They do it again.”

Kory also became wise to the fact that these kinds of medical disinformation campaigns have been routine for decades. Ivermectin was just the last in a long line of repurposed drugs that were being suppressed, lest it threaten Big Pharma profits. Cancer drugs, heart medications and psychiatric remedies have all been buried in the same way. He continues:

“So, I started to learn about how pharma practices disinformation, and I think the most terrible disinformation campaigns, which caused more deaths than any other, were the ones on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin …

So, the book is about all of the tactics that I witnessed. It’s also about my personal journey. I’ve been through a lot. I’ve lost three jobs. One I left voluntarily. One was mutual. The third was a firing. Also, my proudest contribution to COVID [was writing what] I thought was the best paper of my life. It was a paper that argued that the pulmonary phase of COVID is actually an organizing pneumonia, or what they used to call BOOP.

I wrote a paper with one of the top chest radiologists in the world. I consulted pathologists. I looked at autopsy data, even just the CAT scans were in a pattern of organized pneumonia, which is a terrible descriptor for the disease, because it suggests that it’s an infection and it’s not.

Organizing pneumonia is an inflammatory response to a lung injury. The gold standard of care is corticosteroids. That’s the only thing that’s been shown to really reverse organized pneumonia.

I gave testimony in the Senate in May 2020, telling the world that it was critical to use corticosteroids in the hospital phase of disease. I got attacked by the University of Wisconsin. By the way, you know another thing that I learned? Academic freedom isn’t real. As soon as you’re a professor with an opinion that goes against orthodoxy or the system, oh, you’re going to feel the pressure …

I was vindicated on corticosteroids. It’s now the standard of care around the world. However, the standard of care dose is 6 milligrams of dexamethasone, which is too low, [and] methylprednisone is far superior in its effects on the lung.

It’s well-known that in fulminant cases, like whited out lungs on a ventilator, you need … 1,000 milligrams of methylprednisone for three days in a row. Six milligrams of Dex is equivalent to about 32 milligrams of methylprednisone.”

While there are many individual success stories out there, one that Kory believes best illustrates the power of ivermectin against COVID is that of Itajai, Brazil, a city of 220,000 people. In June 2020, they implemented a prophylaxis program using ivermectin. The program was advertised throughout local media, and people were encouraged to participate and take ivermectin four times a month, on days 1, 2, 15 and 16.

On the appropriate days, they set up tents and centers where people could get the drug, and the entire program was carefully logged in an electronic database. In all, 159,000 Brazilians participated, of those 113,000 elected to take the ivermectin. Kory and eight coauthors published a paper5 on the results in March 2022. 

“The 113,000 [who took the ivermectin] were older, sicker, fatter. Way more cardiovascular disease and diabetes. And, obviously, they were probably more worried about the impacts on their health.

So, when you look at that comparison, I mean, there are massive negative confounders. But despite those confounders, even when you didn’t propensity match, there were insanely positive benefits in the ivermectin group.

They died much less, I think it was 70% lower risk of dying, 68% lower risk of hospitalization and 50% lower risk of getting COVID. And that was in the sickest of the sick in that city. Then, when we did propensity matching, matching them for age and other things, it was even greater.

There’s a follow up study which is astounding, where … they were able through pharmacy records to split the ivermectin group into two. Regular ivermectin users, those who took all their pills, and irregular, those who missed doses.

And when you look at the regular users, the ones who were most adherent to the protocol, no one went to the hospital. There was a 100% reduction in hospitalization and a 90% lower risk of dying. It’s astounding … I’ve never seen a more proven therapy in any disease model, which they successfully got everyone to believe is a horse dewormer used by unvaccinated conspiracy theorists.”

Ivermectin recommendations have changed over time, as newer variants have acted differently, requiring updated approaches. At present, Kory still recommends ivermectin for prevention, if you really feel you need it. Current COVID variants are very mild, however, and rarely cause severe problems (unless you got the COVID jab).

For those struggling with long-haul COVID, ivermectin is a mainstay. “It’s the most frequently effective therapy,” Kory says. “I do have in my practice a minority who are ivermectin non-responders, but the majority respond in either small or large ways.” Importantly, ivermectin is the most effective drug available for binding to the spike protein.

So, if there’s circulating spike protein in your body, be it from natural infection or the jab, ivermectin will help bind to it, thereby preventing much of the spike’s negative impacts.

Ivermectin also repolarizes macrophages from the M1 to the M2 subtype. M1 is hyperinflammatory and M2 is hypo-inflammatory. So, it reduces inflammation. In addition to that, ivermectin has at least 18 other mechanisms of action and downstream effects that can be helpful.

For long-haulers and the COVID jab injured, Kory typically starts patients out at 0.3 mg per kilo of bodyweight once a day. For most, that dose works well. It’s still unclear how long people need to stay on this daily dose. Oftentimes, when they try to cut back, symptoms return, which suggests they still have spike protein in their bodies. Fortunately, the safety profile of ivermectin, even for long-term use, is very good.

Hopefully, more doctors will get involved in the treatment of spike protein injuries. October 15 and 16, 2022, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) will be holding a medical conference in Orlando, Florida, titled “Understanding and Treating Spike Protein Induced Diseases.” You can register for the conference on the FLCCC’s website.

“We have a lineup of speakers, deeply studied in treatment of complex chronic illnesses from different specialties. There are a lot of ways to approach this disease, so it’s really important. It really is directed at the treating providers. Because one of the many abject failures is they literally don’t recognize vaccine injury.

There’s no clinic for the vaccine injured. They’re abandoned, and I’m just going to be crude here — they’re pissing off the doctors because all of these patients are showing up that doctors have no idea what’s wrong with.

They have no knowledge of the mechanisms. They have no knowledge of what some effective therapies can be. So, they’re not treating these patients. They’re abandoned and gaslit.

Some doctors actually get angry when the patients relate their symptoms to the vaccine. They don’t want to hear it. They don’t want a vaccine injured in their practice. I have numbers of patients where the physician literally told them, ‘You don’t need to schedule a follow up.’

So, for those [doctors] who still have a shred of humanity, empathy and understanding that the spike protein is a toxin that causes immense amounts of disease, I hope they attend and/or watch the lectures that we’ll stream afterwards.

We’re coming at this very humble. I mean, there are very few trials on therapies in these two syndromes. So, it’s really about clinical knowledge, expertise and experiences from this disease and other diseases.

I am looking forward to it because I want to learn. I want to listen to those other speakers and hear about what they think and how they approach this. And I think it’s going to be a really tremendous conference. I think a lot of laypeople will show up too …

Laypeople who are much more deeply studied and knowledgeable on what’s really going on. They didn’t go to medical school, but they’re deeply studied and they read papers. They watch, read a lot of data sources.

So, I think it would be of interest to laypeople who want to learn how to either help themselves, or help their friends and colleagues, just like they did with COVID. You know how many laypeople passed around our protocols and tried to get their friends and relatives access to the medicines on our protocol? They saved lives. They saved lives by doing that.”

In the interview, Kory also reviews the clear and present danger the COVID jab poses to women, especially if they’re pregnant or want to get pregnant in the future. We also review the blatant fraud perpetrated by Pfizer to hide the massive number of miscarriages that occurred in its human trial.

In summary, the miscarriage rate is 87.5%, which is just astounding. No woman in her right mind would pull that trigger if she had that information. We also discuss the worldwide drops in birth rates (which began after the rollout of these experimental jabs), the complete absence of any supporting data for the authorization of COVID shots for children (which is yet another medical fraud perpetrated on the American people), and the lie that COVID is a pandemic of the unvaccinated (it’s actually the complete opposite).

So, for more on those topics, please listen to the full interview, or read through the transcript. You can also find more of Kory’s work on Last but not least, be sure to pick up a copy of “The War on Ivermectin: The Medicine That Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the COVID Pandemic” to learn all about how the biggest, most lethal medical disinformation play was perpetrated, right before your eyes.

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

PayPal Pulls Back Threat of Fining Users For Spreading “Misinformation”


Take a breath. Release the tension in your body. Place attention on your physical heart. Breathe slowly into the area for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

A new policy update from PayPal stated that the company will punish users who spread “misinformation.” They were threatening users with fines that could see them charged $2,500 per offence.

The company has already repeatedly deplatformed individuals and organizations for their political views, and said it will expand its “existing list of prohibited activities” on November 3rd. Changes included prohibitions on “the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials” that “promote misinformation.”

After the announcement, a number of users took to Twitter and other social media platforms expressing their dissent. Former PayPal president David Marcus even blasted the company over the implication that it could seize customers’ money for finding their views objectionable. Now, PayPal has backtracked their statement, claiming that the update went out “in error.”

Love reading The Pulse? If you’re a regular reader of our work and love what we do, consider becoming a paid subscribing member and help us expand our work. You can support for as little as $5 a month and enjoy multiple member benefits. Click Here to Learn More.

A statement from the company reads as follows, as stated by a company spokesperson in a written statement to the National Review,

“An AUP notice recently went out in error that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy. Our teams are working to correct our policy pages. We’re sorry for the confusion this has caused.”

Although punishing independent media outlets and individuals for sharing certain “misinformation” started long ago, we’ve experienced here at the The Pulse for several years, the COVID-19 pandemic saw even more measures put in place to silence free speech. This week alone, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2098 into law, which allows the state’s medical board to punish doctors for disseminating “misinformation” or “disinformation” regarding covid-19.

The new law states that doctors should not contradict “scientific consensus” on covid-19, or they could be charged with “unprofessional conduct,” and possibly have their medical license suspended or revoked.

Facebook LinkedIn, and various other big tech platforms have also ramped up censorship, and it has strong connections and ties to various federal agencies who seem to be spearheading the operation.

The war on information that threatens the “official” narrative which is put out by government and government affiliated institutions is stronger than it’s ever been. This push to stifle free speech has caused a ripple effect within the fabric of society. More people have been triggered to ask what’s really going on here?

A great example is Julian Assange. He is facing extradition for simply publishing truth. He made public previously classified documents exposing various war crimes and other immoral and unethical actions carried out by the US and other governments.

The next question is, why? Why is so much information, opinion, evidence and free speech being censored? Why does such a powerful entity get to decide what constitutes “misinformation?” What does it say about our world when governments and so many big corporations put so much effort into silencing perspectives? Why is there never a fair, open and transparent discussion?

People are hungry for information that is deeper than what they are getting through the mainstream media. It feels as though people are beginning to recognize that there is a degree of corruption involved in our world and that politicians and traditional media outlets have been compromised in the process.

It’s good to see so many people stand up for free speech and transparency. It may be a good idea to delete your PayPal account and/or not agree to their user conditions/terms.

How we win this

Virginian's Set To Abide By New Laws In 2022 - 96.9 WXBQ

Playing defense in the court system is a never-ending uphill battle.

I think the right way to fix the problem is to fix the policy by adopting new laws and regulations. This can be done via federal law, statewide ballot initiatives, and county ordinances, among other ways. Some of these can only be done at the federal level (like removing the liability protection).

These are just rough concepts at the current time. Here are a few things that come to my mind:

  1. Eliminate the liability protection for vaccine manufacturers as well as medical device manufacturers.

  2. Make it illegal for anyone to coerce you to take a medical intervention to keep your job.

  3. All vaccine mandates to attend school should be dropped.

  4. It should be illegal to discriminate against people based on their vaccination status.

  5. All existing vaccines should be tested against unvaccinated peers (true placebo) and look at all cause mortality and morbidity. Any vaccine that cannot demonstrate a clear benefit should have its FDA authorization dropped.

  6. The safety signal monitoring system for all drugs needs a serious upgrade, e.g., ESP:VAERS program or the longitudinal monitoring done by the Israeli Ministry of Health (the results of which were hidden from public view).

  7. Public health officials, local, statewide, and federal, need to be held accountable for answering questions in live forums from a panel of experts who disagree with them.

  8. Social media companies with over 1M users shall be considered to be public squares where speech shall not be censored.

  9. Truth shall be considered protected speech. Censoring truth shall subject the platform to a fine of $1000 per day per post.

  10. Let doctors be doctors. The state shall not regulate speech between doctors and patients.

  11. Pharmacists who refuse to fill a doctor’s prescription shall be held personally liable for compensating the patient for any injuries (including death) sustained from the refusal.

  12. Patients in a hospital shall always be permitted to take drugs prescribed by their physician, even if that physician doesn’t have hospital privileges. No longer shall they be held hostage by hospitals.

  13. If a doctor has their medical license taken away by the state medical board, they shall be entitled to appeal that decision in a regular court of law. If the appeal is overturned, the jury may award the doctor up to triple damages plus attorney fees.

  14. Even in an emergency, the county, state, and federal health authorities cannot force you to comply with any intervention that may have a net negative health consequence or for which there is no scientific justification.

  15. A state of emergency shall be lifted if there are fewer than x people per month who are seriously injured from the infection.

  16. Once the state of emergency is lifted, any EUA issued under that condition shall be revoked.

  17. It shall be illegal to mandate health interventions where the science doesn’t support it.

  18. Scientists who disagree with the mainstream consensus should be heard, not silenced. Open debate should be encouraged, not discouraged. Censorship, demonetization, and intimidation tactics leveled against those with different views shall not be permitted. Those who are harmed by such tactics shall be able to bring an action in a court of law to recover damages.

  19. People inside the CDC and FDA who deliberately looked the other way when legitimate and significant safety signals were brought to their attention shall be personally subject to criminal prosecution. People who did not bring these safety signals to the public’s attention shall likewise be subject to criminal prosecution. For example, how can Maddie de Garay’s serious injuries during the Pfizer 12-15 clinical trial, which was brought to the FDA’s attention because Pfizer ignored it, not be investigated? Someone needs to go to jail for that. Former FDA Janet Woodcock was in on it.

  20. Take a hard look at the laws passed since 2000 that centralizes power into the hands of the HHS Secretary in light of the huge mistake created by the COVID vaccines.

  21. Next time there is a pandemic, instead of allocating near zero dollars for research on using repurposed drugs on an out-patient basis, there should be $1B made available to fund such trials. Physicians should be free to use their judgement on treatment options and there should be a central repository for reporting results. Fareed and Tyson had a fabulous protocol for treating patients that was ignored. That should NEVER be allowed to happen again.

These are less likely to pass the voters, but maybe I’m wrong?

  1. New drugs should first be tested on those members of Congress who told us the COVID vaccines were safe and effective before they are allowed to be tested in animals.

  2. Vaccines should be tested on at least 10 mice before they are rolled out to the general public. 8 mice is simply not enough.

  1. It should be illegal to add fluoride to the drinking water in the US.

  2. Foods containing GMOs should be labeled as such.

Those are my thoughts. What did I miss?


How David Gorski defends the narrative and why he refuses to be challenged live

David Gorski, professor of surgery at Wayne State University School of Medicine, positions himself as sort of science vigilante who goes after “misinformation spreaders” to expose them as spreading fake information.

He is the attack dog for the false narrative promoters. Most all of us “misinformation spreaders” know who he is. He’s been doing this for a very long time.

Unlike most of his peers, Gorski actually has real scientific credentials. His h-index is 29.

Also, unlike his peers like Dorit Reiss who blocked me on Twitter and LinkedIn, Gorski actually answers the emails I send him.

However, in my opinion, he’s a miserable excuse for a human being.

Anyone who can read the reports in VAERS about people being killed and disabled after getting the COVID vaccine and refer to these very troubling stories as “dumpster diving” has zero compassion for patients.

Where’s the actual study to support such an irresponsible statement? Did he take 100 VAERS reports chosen at random and prove that they were all fictitious? If VAERS is complete garbage, why does the CDC rely on it it and cite it as proof of safety? Why in 30 years haven’t they upgraded it from “garbage” status?

Not only does Gorski lack any compassion, he violated federal law by submitting a fictitious VAERS report. He should be tried and convicted of a felony. At a minimum, he should have been admonished by his peers for breaking the law. But hey, he’s pro narrative so they look they other way. The law doesn’t apply to him.

And if he were the champion of science he claims to be, he’d be the first one condemning the outrageous data coverup at Israeli Ministry of Health. But he’s silent on that because any data that doesn’t support his beliefs is simply bad data in his mind, so there nothing to be upset about.

Where was Gorski when VAERS triggered the “death” safety signal and the CDC missed it? He was AWOL. He didn’t even cover it.

When the v-safe data was finally released where it was revealed for the first time that there was a unprecedented 7.7% hospitalization rate for people who got the vax he said this is just the normal background reporting rate.

The fact that the CDC stonewalled for 463 days attempts to get data doesn’t bother him at all. I guess the CDC is justified in not following the law there because why give the data voluntarily in accordance with the law when you can put up a fight.

How was the American population safer because the CDC withheld the data? He’s silent on that point.

He sent me two articles:

  1. Antivax weaponization of v-safe: Like VAERS on steroids (Gorski)

  2. ICAN misuses v-safe data to mislead about COVID-19 vaccines (by law professor Dorit Reiss)

In the first one he claims basal rate fallacy, i.e., nothing to see here folks, it’s normal.

In the Dorit Reiss article, she claims the v-safe data is already summarized. Really Dorit? Where was that 7.7% number?? Didn’t see that one anywhere.

I asked if we could discuss these article “on camera” but he replied “Hard pass” and referred me to:

  1. “Debate me” bros in the age of COVID-19 disinformation (Gorski)

Which just says that “real scientists don’t debate live; they debate through published papers.” This is complete bullshit. I talked to Paul Marik who is a real scientist with an h-index that makes Gorski look like a moron. Marik said the best part of academic conferences are the sessions where they do open debates in front of the entire conference.

Even Gorski doesn’t believe this himself. When he wrote a piece about me and Andrew Wakefield, he said Wakefield backed down from a debate challenge as a proof point that Wakefield couldn’t defend his arguments.

So when it suits his purposes, debates are proof of who is right! When he’s personally on the wrong side of an issue, debates are bad because the other side could be a better debater so thing should be decided based on published papers.

David Gorski and Dorit Reiss claim they are giving people the correct interpretation of the facts and refuse debates with anyone.

That is not what real scientists do.

The data is conflicting. Real scientists meet and try to come to agreement on how we can resolve the ambiguities.

It would be fun to discuss issues like the following list with these people on camera, but there is absolutely no chance they will ever do that:

  1. Was the CDC justified in withholding the v-safe data for 463 days (and two lawsuits leading to a court order to turn over the documents) that could have been turned over in a day? How was the public best served by keeping the v-safe data a secret?

  2. How is a 7.7% rate of seeking medical care normal after a vaccine? Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya says this is around two orders of magnitude higher than flu

  3. The Lancet paper wrote that there were “More reports of being unable to work, do normal activities, or of seeking medical care occurred after dose two (1 821 421 [32·1%]) than after dose one (808 963 [11·9%])”. Why is the rate of injury almost 3X higher after the second dose? That’s dose dependency which is causality. And for a vaccine, the number of reports after the second dose is supposed to be lower than for the first dose (e.g., for Shingrix, the second dose has half the side effects of the first dose)?

  4. In the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, there were 5X as many exclusions in the treatment group as in the placebo group. How is that possible if it’s really randomized?

  5. There were 4X as many cardiac deaths in the vaccine group as in the placebo group in the trial. How can we be certain those people didn’t die from the vaccine?

  6. Isn’t it a sign of systemic failure that the CDC didn’t recognize the “death safety signal” in VAERS. This is the database that they were monitoring. Why did they ignore the safety signal?

  7. My neurologist has to make 1,000 VAERS reports this year. In previous years, she’s never needed to make a VAERS report. If the vaccine is so safe and effective, how can you explain this anecdote.

  8. The CDC pregnancy study published in NEJM never published the final data. Why aren’t they calling for this data to be published? The NEJM study said it was incomplete at the time (see this article).

  9. Do you agree or disagree with UCSF Professor Vinay Prasad’s op-ed?

  10. Kaiser admitted 3 doses of the vaccine has negative vaccine efficacy. Is there an error?

  11. Florida is now recommending males 18-39 not get vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines. Do you disagree? Was there an error?

  12. Why are so many people, all at the same time, saying these vaccines are unsafe? What is their motivation? Isn’t it odd that their stories are so similar? They trusted the experts, then they were all appalled when they looked at the data themselves. Dr. Aseem Malhotra made the most stunning about face from promoting the vaccines on TV to now lecturing people on how they’ve been fooled.

  13. In the book, “Turtles All the Way Down,” did you find any errors? Let’s discuss these.

Dr. Peter McCullough’s last tweet

Dr. Peter McCullough, the most esteemed cardiologist in America, is permanently banned from Twitter. I wrote about this Thursday night on Substack.  

Here are Dr. McCullough’s last words before his untimely demise:  

This is the video, created by VSRF, that Twitter does not want you to watch:

“Are the kids OK?”

The video includes a TV ad for kids who get myocarditis. This is an industry first and it is a tacit admissions that the condition is not rare or mild:

In the video, top cardiologist, Peter McCullough, MD, testifies before the Pennsylvania state senate on the sudden death of children shortly after getting their Covid shots. The video also features another teen, 16-year-old Ernesto Ramirez, Jr., who died of cardiac arrest five days after taking the shot.

The video incorporates Pfizer’s television ad strategy in late 2021 to recruit children for its clinical trials. In the ad, the company’s message is that any child who volunteers for the trial for Pfizer’s novel vaccine will become a hero. “Bravery,” “helping others,” and “courage” are the qualities describing kids who sign up for Pfizer’s clinical trial.

The video juxtaposes Pfizer’s hero ad with an ad released by a New York City hospital recruiting children to its ICU ward who may have myocarditis. Myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart, is a proven side-effect from Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine.

Marty Makary, MD, of Johns Hopkins, dispels the claim that Covid-19 infection poses a higher risk for myocarditis than the Covid vaccines, and a large study of 790,000 patients published in April 2022 is singled out among several studies that validate this conclusion.

All instances of child death and permanent disability reported to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following a Covid-19 vaccine through September 23, 2022, are disclosed in the video.

Finally, citing a peer-reviewed and published study, the case is made that a large majority of vaccine side effects and deaths are never reported to VAERS, estimating them to be under-reported by a factor of 31 times. The FDA is normally protective of children, removing dangerous products off the market after very few kids are harmed. Addressing the clearly devastating impact of Covid-19 vaccines on children, the video closes asking a final question.

Read the data behind the “Are the kids OK?” PSA 

Peter discusses his ban, the obituaries he’s received, etc.

Here is where you can find him:

  1. Website:

  2. Rumble:

  3. Gab:

  4. Telegram:

  5. Truth Social:

  6. GETTR:

  7. Facebook:

  8. Substack:

JD Rucker interviewed me a week ago. From the comments, “A powerful interview, to be widely shared.”

RFK Jr. interviews Dr. Aseem Malhotra, another cardiologist, who, like Dr. McCullough has seen through the smoke and mirrors to uncover the truth about the jabs.

You will never believe this but RFK Jr. has not (yet) been permanently banned from Twitter.

Here’s his most recent tweet (which I fully agree with):

Please share this article on social media and with your friends.