- I mean, just it doesn't match up. The evidence is pointing
against what she's saying. I've gotten requests from my friends, family members, patients,
and everyone in between to discuss this plandemic. I usually try and make my
videos on the shorter side, but I want to take this one point by point to give you the clearest picture of what my thoughts are
on this, as a doctor. - Dr. Judy Mikovits has been called one of the most accomplished
scientist of our generation. So you made a discovery that conflicted with the agreed upon narrative. - Correct. - [Host] Quick note, before we start, the focus of my review here will be based on science and facts. For the sake of education,
there's very little value in speculating on stories and claims that cannot be verified. I am a doctor and not a detective, and I don't want to turn this into a character assassination. - If we don't stop this now, we can not only forget our
republic and our freedom, but we can forget humanity
because we'll be killed by this agenda. - The man who is heading
the Pandemic Task Force was involved in a cover up. - He directed the cover up. And in fact, everybody else was paid off. - I just want to look at the facts. And so far very few facts
have been presented. When you repeat this
phrase, I feel like a lot, extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence. - What he's saying is absolute propaganda, and the same kind of propaganda
that he's perpetrated to kill millions since 1984. That virus was spread through because of the arrogance
of a group of people and includes Robert Redfield,
who's now the head of the CDC. They were working together to take credit and make money and they
had the patents on it, and tailored them to IL-2 therapy, which was absolutely the wrong therapy. And had that not happened, millions wouldn't have died from HIV. - When I first saw that, I was moved. I was like, wait, can it be
possible that these doctors, these researchers for major
government organizations are making millions of dollars at the expense of
millions of people dying? So I looked into it, and
I stumbled upon an article in the British Medical Journal, which is a highly, highly
respected medical journal. "The press agency reported
the two leading researchers "Anthony Fauci head of the NIAID, "and his deputy Clifford
Lane received payments "relating to their development of IL-2 "as a treatment for HIV/AIDS. "Dr. Lane told the BMJ that the payment "was part of his federal compensation. "He explained that the government "patented the development
and share the payments "it received with the inventors. "Since 1997 he has
received about $45,000." She's saying that Clifford
Lane, the deputy of the NIAID and Dr. Fauci did this for $45,000? To forego your creed to protect people and instead to watch millions die? "Dr. Anthony Fauci told the BMJ "that as a government employee, "he was required by law to
put his name on the patent "for the development of IL-2
and was also required by law "to receive a part of the payment "the government received
for use of the patent. "He said that he felt it was inappropriate "to receive payment and donated "the entire amount to charity." If she wants me to believe
the claim she's making here, she needs to disprove this. - This is one of the things
that I've been saying and would like to say to President Trump, repeal the Bayh-Dole Act. That Act gave government workers the right to patent their discoveries, so to claim intellectual
property for discoveries that the taxpayer paid for. Ever since that happened
in the early '80s, it destroyed science. - The Bayh-Dole Act, was
an Act that was passed with bipartisan support both Democrats and Republican support it
because they saw the value in it. Initially, the way scientific research was funded by the federal government, would be they would give money
to a research institution, and whatever that research
institution found, the government would own the patent to it. Now, in theory, this is great, because the government
would own that patent, and then if they wanted
to use it or sell it, all the money would come
back to the taxpayers. But in practice, it's not what happened. What actually happened was,
the government collected all these patents, and then 95%
of them sat collecting dust, making no money for the taxpayers, and no scientific
revolution was happening. So now after Bayh-Dole,
what's happening is, Harvard gets a small
grant for the government, less than $3 million usually. They find some kind of interesting piece of preliminary research, they patent it, and then they license it
out to private companies who invest heavily in the promise of getting one of these drugs and making money in the future. And from that, scientific
innovation flourishes. And as a side benefit, the
taxpayers make more money. Because of this Bayh-Dole Act, we've brought a trillion
dollars into our economy, which is then taxed and brought
back to us, as taxpayers. It's also created something
like four million jobs and over 11,000 startups. And it also has a march-in
clause, that let's say, the government gave a two
million dollar grant to Harvard. They then patent whatever
research they found, they license it to a
pharmaceutical company. Now the pharmaceutical company
creates a drug or vaccine and starts charging obscene
amounts of money for it, or fails to actually put it out 'cause the company goes out of business. Well, guess what? There's a clause in this Act that allows the federal
government to step in and take over that patent. All in all, this public-private
sector collaboration is what makes innovation thrive. And if you take one part
of that equation out, the whole system crumbles. If you let the government
run the system completely, there's not enough innovation. If you let the private
sector run it completely, too much price gouging,
not enough competition. You need to have that healthy balance. Now, this doesn't mean that
pharmaceutical companies are all good and we should not police them or there's not shady things that happen. Oh my god, do shady things happen. But this Bayh-Dole Act is not the problem. - And this is the crime behind letting somebody like Bill
Gates with billions of dollars, nobody elected him, he
has no medical background, he has no expertise but
we let people like that have a voice in this country
while we destroy the lives of millions of people. - Bill Gates is one of the
greatest philanthropic figures of our time, if not the biggest donor. Should we let Bill Gates
guide our medical decisions? No, you're right he has
no medical expertise. It's not for him to guide
our medical decisions. But if scientists come to
Bill Gates asking for money, he's able to choose who
he wants to donate to. He does not make money from this. In fact, last I heard the Gates Foundation was running 70 clinical trials to create a coronavirus
vaccine that they said that they would not make money on, they would not patent any of
it so that the general public can have access to it at low cost. This is amazing, actually
the USA Today even came out and debunked the theory that
one of the Gates Foundation subsidiaries could have had a patent on something related to
coronavirus, it just wasn't true. Unless you show me evidence
of the Gates Foundation profiting from this,
everything you're saying is just your thoughts. And while your thoughts are great, they mean nothing without facts. - If we activate mandatory
vaccines globally, I imagine these people stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars. - I'm not sure who he
means, "these people" that are going to stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars. First of all, if the Bill Gates Foundation actually finds the coronavirus vaccine, and it's the one that's used, they already said they're
not going to patent it, they're going to make it free. So that's already untrue there. It's also important at
home for you to know that anytime the federal government puts out a recommendation for a vaccine, it's automatically by law
covered by your insurance company to the point that you have
zero out-of-pocket expenses. - Are you anti-vaccine? - Oh, absolutely not. In fact, vaccine is immune therapy. Just like interferon
alpha is immune therapy. So I'm not anti vaccine. - It's interesting, she
says she's not anti vaccine, her book has a foreword in
it by Robert F. Kennedy, who's one of the leading
anti-vax movement individuals. And from what I read about the background of this documentary, it was
funded by a lot of folks who are part of what's known
as the anti-vaccine community. Why would you want to be involved with this documentary if you know that? That's like being horribly against the pharmaceutical
industry, and then taking money for pharma to be in a commercial? - Do you believe that this virus was created in the laboratory? - I wouldn't use the word created. But you can't say naturally occurring if it was by way of the laboratory. - Again, this is her
giving her expert opinion that she believes that
it was done in the lab. I've seen other experts say that they believe that it could
totally have come from nature and jumped from animal
species to human species. I also don't think that
point is really important, 'cause there's never been any evidence to say that this was deliberate. In fact, if it was deliberate, this would be the worst ploy of all time. It's the show in the world
economy affecting everyone. - And do you have any ideas
of where this occurred? - Oh, yeah, I'm sure it occurred between the North Carolina laboratories, Fort Dietrich, US Army Research Institute of Infectious Disease,
and the Wuhan laboratory. - How can you be sure? There's so many virologists who have the same specialty as you that say that it could have easily come from a specific animal species
and the jump to humans. And then you're sure that it happened between these laboratories. I think even scientists
should be comfortable with the unknown or the
fact that they may be wrong. - [Reporter] $3.7 million flowed from the National Institutes of Health here in the US to the Wuhan lab in China, the same lab where many people have said that this coronavirus
infection first originated. - The United States gives
grants all the time. In fact, when you're talking
about research on viruses, it takes an international
collaboration for that to work. Because we know very well that anytime you have a virus outbreak that
can spread in one country, it's gonna end up in another country if the virus has any kind
of infectivity at all. That's why it becomes a pandemic. So we have to be collaborative
and give research grants and study each other's research. That's part of it, that doesn't show any kind of maliciousness
or negative intent. - If my husband were to die, who has COPD, his lungs have fibrosis,
his lungs would look exactly like somebody with
COVID-19 theoretically, but he has no evidence of infection. So if you're not testing and you don't have evidence of infection, and if you walked in
there today, you know, they'd call it COVID-19. - If you're coming in for a broken leg, and your leg gets infected, and you end up dying from that infection, we won't just put COVID-19
on your death certificate. If you had COVID-19, you were
screened and tested for it and you came positive, we would. That would be counted in the death toll. And you may think that's
unfair, that's inaccurate, it may increase the numbers. All we have to do is
look at overall mortality for the last few years in
a place like New York City, and you'll see that every
wintertime mortality spikes, but if you look at the spike for 2020, it's outrageous how many
more people have died. You may be upset about the
way we're categorizing them, COVID related, not COVID
related, COVID presumed, but more people are dying, and the only thing that
changed is COVID-19. In fact, more people are staying home now because of social distancing,
meaning that less trauma, less car accidents, but
the deaths skyrocketed. - When I'm writing up my death report, I'm being pressured to
add COVID, why is that? Why are we being pressured to add COVID to maybe increase the numbers and make it look a little
bit worse than it is? - No one's being pressured, the
CDC puts out recommendations of how you decide what
someone has passed from. And you're free to follow
those recommendations or not. As a practicing physician, I've filled out death certificates. When I was a resident, I
would do death pronouncements all the time and there
are things that you write that contributed to a person's demise. For example, if someone had kidney cancer, and it was an end-stage kidney cancer, and while they were
dying from kidney cancer, they got a pneumonia on top of that, I would put both on the death certificate. I can't say exactly which
one is the reason they died, 'cause you can't just say one thing. So yes, if someone has a heart attack, but they're also having a COVID infection, it's very reasonable to put
both on the death certificate and count it towards the COVID death toll. Now, whether or not you think this would create misinformation,
that's your choice. But again, look at the amount
of people that have died in comparison to the last 10 years. The numbers have skyrocketed, and it's simply because
of this COVID outbreak. - I've talked with
doctors who have admitted that they are being
incentivized to list patients that are sick or have died with COVID-19. - Yeah, $13,000 from Medicare,
if you call it COVID-19. - [Reporter] Right now,
Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19
admission to the hospital, you'll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient
goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000, three times as much. - The $13,000 and the
$39,000 figure are accurate. This is how hospitals are
reimbursed for COVID-19 patients. Now, while it sounds like
they're getting paid more to diagnose more, the reality of the fact is these types of bundled
payments actually save us money. Let me explain, before these
types of bundled payments, the way hospitals would
bill insurance companies for treatment would be to say, we did this, we gave these medications, the patient stayed this long, these are the doctors they saw, these are the skilled technicians
that took care of them and they would bill
for all these services. And what we found was, they
were just wasting a lot of money and not delivering great care. So what CMS did was they said, "Let's take an average in an area, "of how much hospitals are spending "on a typical pneumonia
case, on a heart attack case, "and make it a standardized payment "that then the hospital
has to make do with "in treating the patient." And what came out of that? Well, the hospitals became more effective. They said, we need to
be more cost effective, and we need to deliver better quality care to get patients better
sooner, so they can leave and we can save some of that extra money for ourselves as a profit. The reason why we're paid $13,000 is 'cause we're spending time, resources, medications, on that patient. And on average, it costs
$13,000 to deliver that care. In some areas, maybe it
will cost less than that, and therefore you're
left with more profit. In other cases, it gets really complicated and it costs a lot more than
that and you lose money. But on average, it should
cost around $13,000, that's the fair rate set by CMS. Again, this is very
effective both in terms of cost-saving measures and patient outcomes. Now the $39,000 figure for ventilators. It's not like hospitals are
getting a three times bonus by putting someone on a ventilator. Ventilators cost money,
respiratory therapists need to get billed for their time. If a patient is put on a ventilator, they need to be sedated
with expensive medications. They need to be put into the ICU. The reason hospitals
are being paid $39,000 is because it costs more to
deliver that level of care. It's not 'cause now the
hospitals getting rich by putting someone on a ventilator. The hospital's actually incentivized to deliver just enough care in order to get the most money out of it but at the same time,
get the patient better as soon as possible. - The patients I'm seeing in front of me, the lungs I'm trying to improve, have led me to believe
that we are operating under a medical paradigm that is untrue. And I fear that this misguided treatment will lead to a tremendous amount of harm to a great number of people
in a very short time. - When used improperly,
ventilators can cause lung injury. This is a well known phenomenon. However, when you have a
new condition like COVID-19, which we've never seen before, we try and do our best
and adapt to the situation as quickly as possible. Does that mean we're going to be perfect and we're not going to make mistakes and patients aren't going to suffer? Absolutely not. Whether you're an ICU doctor
or a family medicine doctor, nephrologist, you have protocols
that you're used to seeing, patient comes in with condition X, you know treatment for that is Y, you need to order blood tests A, B and C to monitor their progress and
you follow these protocols that you've learned over your lifetime. And you know how to adapt. But with COVID-19, we're
seeing really unique cases that we've just never seen described in medical literature before. So we're trying to learn very quickly, but in this process, unfortunately, patients have lost their lives. This is not because we're
actively trying to harm patients. This is simply because we're facing an unprecedented pandemic
with a viral condition that is new to us. - I wanna know why Italy was hit so hard. - Italy has a very old population. - True. - They're very sick with
inflammatory disorders. They got it the beginning
of 2019, an untested, new form of influenza vaccine that had four different
strains of influenza, including the highly pathogenic H1N1. - Flu shots carry multiple
strains of the influenza virus. We do that to increase the probability of the vaccine being successful, because we have to actually
predict the strains that are going to be
circulating that season. It's very difficult and
that's why the flu shot is almost never 100% effective. It usually carries an
effectiveness rate of 40% to 60% depending on which viruses are out and how well we predicted them. - That vaccine was grown in a cell line, a dog cell line, dogs
have lots of coronaviruses and that's why they're not testing there. - She said that because this
flu virus came from cells of dogs and dogs have coronaviruses, therefore, these people have coronaviruses therefore they're not being tested. Honestly just it's a
purely illogical statement, like there's no other way to put that. Humans have coronaviruses. In fact, if you ever had the common cold, the odds are once in your life, it was caused by coronavirus. The two most common viruses
causing the common cold are the rhinovirus followed
by the coronavirus. She's taking things that
are happening simultaneously and connecting them
without any kind of proof of this causation. Experts are allowed to have theories and a lot of these theories
will be proven to be incorrect. That's part of the scientific process. But you have to approach
this with a level of humility by knowing that anytime
you're putting out a theory it could be wrong. And I don't feel like
she's doing that here by acting as if what she's
saying is 100% accurate, with no evidence to back it up. - [Reporter] One question remains, what happened to all
but hydroxychloroquine? - We know that hydrochloroquine and zinc. - This gentleman here is a chiropractor, not a medical doctor, not
osteopathic physician. - Are working great for patients. And then Fauci comes out says, "Well, there's no double blind
controlled placebo study," which, by the way, Dr.
Fauci is there going to be a double blind controlled
placebo study of your vaccine? - I've actually watched that entire clip of him giving advice to patients. And as part of that advice, he recommended that if anyone has symptoms
related to COVID-19, they should go out and get tonic water. He knows that there is
quinine in tonic water, which is also an anti-malaria drug, similar but not exactly the
same as hydroxychloroquine. And he believes that it would
help you if you have COVID-19. However, what are chiropractor friend here fails to understand is that the FDA limits the amount of
quinine in tonic water to about 83 milligrams, which means you're gonna need to be drinking
12 liters of tonic water every eight hours. This is what happens
when someone doesn't have a total grasp of scientific research, starts making recommendations. The fact that they used
him in this documentary shows, to me at least,
that they don't care who their sources are, they
don't even check for accuracy. - [Reporter] In a survey
polling nearly 2300 doctors in some 30 countries
hydroxychloroquine was ranked as the most effective
medication to treat the virus. - That was a really weird survey. It literally asked
doctors, "What do you think "is the front runner
for treating COVID-19?" And doctors voted because, you know, they estimated which medicine they thought was gonna be best. And they said hydroxychloroquine
and it doesn't mean that that means it works. You need randomized controlled
studies to make that happen. However, let me not get
ahead of myself here. We are using hydroxychloroquine
in our hospitals. We are giving it to patients,
those who are admitted, those who are not doing
well with COVID-19, who are on ventilators, life support, cannot wait for randomized
controlled studies. The FDA said in this
situation, we can use an EUA, which is an Emergency Use Authorization to prescribe hydroxychloroquine
for our patients. And honestly, our results
thus far don't look great, 'cause patients are still dying,
taking hydroxychloroquine. And the reason why the
AMA stepped in and said, "Hey, doctors stop prescribing this," was because the day after
President Trump announced that he thought this could be
a potential game changer, again, someone that's not a medical expert giving their opinion. The doses prescribed if it skyrocketed, and then there became not
enough of the medication for people who needed
it for its legitimate FDA approved uses like
malaria, rheumatoid arthritis, other autoimmune conditions. - The AMA was saying, doctors
will lose their license if they use hydroxychloroquine, the anti-malarial drug
that's been on the list of essential medicine
worldwide for 70 years. Dr. Fauci calls that-- - Anecdotal data. - Dr. Fauci does not
call hydroxychloroquine a medication that's
based on anecdotal data. Hydroxychloroquine is absolutely
an FDA approved medication for several conditions, malaria, rheumatoid arthritis,
autoimmune conditions. And the AMA has never
said that if you use it for these approved uses,
you will lose your license. That is utter nonsense. What they said was, if you start using it for unapproved reasons,
like for the potential that it may help with COVID-19 in patients who don't yet need
this medication desperately, you are committing malpractice. And that's a very reasonable
approach to take, why? Because the only people
who should be taking hydroxychloroquine before we have randomized controlled studies to prove its effectiveness and safety are the people who can't
wait for those studies, and who are ill now. Otherwise, you're just putting
the general public at risk and depleting our stockpiles
of this medication for patients who need it
for their conditions now. - It's not storytelling if
we have thousands of pages of data saying it's effective against these families of viruses. - These thousands of
pages she's talking about happen in animal models in
lab models, not in humans. We've never compared it to
a control group properly. So because of that, we cannot state that it's approved for use. We cannot state that it's
safe to use in this condition. - There was an old antiviral
drug, 100-year-old drug called Suramin on the WHO
list of essential medicine. It literally gave kids with
autism a voice, a life. What did Bayer and Monsanto do? They took it away from everybody, you couldn't get it to save
your life right now, we try. - If a company, a pharmaceutical company, had a medicine that worked for autism, why in the world would
they give up those profits and shelf that medicine? It's not like they're doing it
in lieu of another treatment that's going to make them more money. We don't have a medication for autism. Like it just doesn't make
sense to me, what she's saying. - Is it safe to say that
anything that cannot be patented, has been shut down intentionally because there's no way to profit from it all these natural remedies
that we've had for ever? - Absolutely, that's fair to say. - If we had all of these
natural remedies forever, why was there disease before
the pharmaceutical industry if we had all these natural remedies? Short answer is we didn't. Before antibiotics we suffered,
before vaccines we suffered. With the invention of
antibiotics, vaccines, we've drastically increased
length of life in the world. To say that natural remedies
could have done all that is purely inaccurate, it
just it's very inaccurate. I will say though, that there
is a financial component involved in medical research, unless pharmaceutical companies stand to make money from a product, they will not research
it, generally speaking. So you have to find ways
to incentivize them. So I do think that in the world, there exists certain products, that because there's not a lot of money to be made from them,
they've been largely ignored. That's not the same as saying
what this gentleman just said that they've been intentionally shut down. I don't think that's happening and I haven't seen evidence for it, especially in this documentary. - The game is to prevent the therapies till everyone is infected,
and push the vaccines knowing that the flu
vaccines increase the odds by 36% of getting COVID-19. - She said the idea is to
push all the therapies aside so that everyone can get infected
and then we get a vaccine. Dr. Fauci came on my YouTube channel and said very clearly
that it it is his belief and the general consensus of experts that if you get sick with COVID-19, you are most likely going to be immune from getting it again? - I would be willing to
bet on my experience, and I'll bet your experience
that any virus that you have, if you do well recover
and clear the virus, if it acts like any other virus, you're gonna have lasting immunity. - So if everyone is infected with it, why would we need a vaccine? It doesn't make sense, we don't want people infected with it. Here, the government is
saying please stay home so this virus doesn't spread. And she says no, no, the government wants everyone to get sick
that's why they're not letting hydroxychloroquine be used. You can't have it both ways. - And push the vaccines
knowing that the flu vaccines increase the odds by
36% of getting COVID-19. - Where does that data come from? - A publication last
year where the military who had been vaccinated with influenza were more susceptible to coronaviruses. - The authors of this study
actually would disagree with Dr. Judy here because
what they found was by getting influenza vaccine, participants were less
likely to get influenza. They were also less likely to
get other types of viruses, in general, when you look at all the viruses that they could get. What they did see was
some natural variation. Most of the viruses went
down, some went slightly up, one of the viruses that
went up were coronaviruses. This is a type of natural variation. You can't say that the influenza vaccine caused those coronaviruses to occur. And on top of it, the simplest
thing here that was missed is that those coronaviruses are not the coronavirus of
today, they're not SARS-Cov-2, they're not the coronaviruses
that cause COVID-19. Just because they're from the same family doesn't mean they'll
behave in the same way. There's just a lot of fundamental errors in the way that she explains this. - Coronaviruses are in every animal. So if you've ever had a flu vaccine, you were injected with coronaviruses. - The fact that she said
if you had a flu vaccine, you were injected with coronavirus
is horribly inaccurate. - Our immune system is used to touching. We share bacteria staphylococcus, streptococcal bacteria, viruses. We develop an immune
response daily to this stuff. When you take that away from
me, my immune system drops. As I shelter-in-place,
my immune system drops. - What this doctor is talking about is something called the hygienic theory. And this hygienic theory is
actually the exact opposite of what this doctor saying. When you overly protect yourself, you boil your children's water, you don't allow them to play in the dirt, you're constantly disinfecting everything and anything that you touch, you're not exposed enough
to viruses and bacterias, so your immune system actually goes up, not drops, and it actually goes up to the point where it starts
overreacting to non threats. And as a result, we've seen increases in autoimmune conditions, in allergies because we don't have
those bacterias and viruses that we need to be exposed to. So he's right but he there's
a misunderstanding there. It actually increases your immune system or over boosts your immune system. There's a similar theory in
allergenic foods for children. Before we used to not
give children peanuts. And as a result, so many of
them developed peanut allergies. But what we saw through medical research, we gave children peanuts early
on, they were exposed to it, therefore, they didn't
develop the allergies, which is an overreaction
of the immune system. So yes, you need to be exposed to viruses, bacteria in order to be healthy and for your immune system
to function optimally. Completely agree with that. But now, during a pandemic, when you need to shelter-in-place for a period of six to eight weeks, that is not gonna harm your immune system, either up or down to the point where it's gonna destroy your flora and now you can protect
yourself from illness. If that was the case, we would
just not survive as humans as long as we have. We can easily adapt to
these circumstances, especially because even
if we don't go outside, we're covered in bacteria. Millions and trillions of
bacteria are on an inside of us. It is part of our natural flora. And just because we may
not be going outside a lot, we still go to the grocery
store, we walk our dogs, we spend a little time in the park, that is more than enough of
exposure to bacteria and viruses that your body needs in
order to function optimally. - And then as we all come
out of shelter-in-place with a lower immune
system and start trading viruses and bacteria, what
do you think is gonna happen? Disease is gonna spike. - What will happen and
I'm very confident of this about disease going up once
this pandemic comes to an end, those who were having
symptoms of some kind of medical condition and didn't go get care 'cause they were worried about
getting sick with COVID-19 are then going to present to the hospital with much more advanced cases. Which is why on my YouTube
channel, on television, I've been telling patients, if there's something you're
concerned about your body, do not hesitate to call
your family medicine doctor, to visit a hospital, why? Because there's other options available. You can do a virtual visit, you can come in through an isolation exit where you're not gonna
get exposed to COVID-19. And the reason why we
ask patients to stay away initially during this pandemic, was so we can make the hospital
safe place for everyone. - Wearing the mask literally
activates your own virus. - "Wearing the mask actually
activates your own virus." I can't even begin to
process what that means. Wearing the mask does not protect you, wearing the mask protects
your respiratory droplets from entering the environment
getting other sick. And you may say yourself,
"Well, I'm not sick, "I don't look sick." Well, yeah, we've seen a lot of people who don't show symptoms actually
be spreading this virus. That's why it's been so tricky, that's why it's so different from the flu. - They've done such a great
job at manipulating the masses, that it's other people
shutting down other citizens and the big tech platforms follow suit and they shut everything down. There is no dissenting
voices allowed anymore in this free country. - They're dissenting voices,
and I'm hearing them right now and no one's arresting
them for saying this. That is the definition of free speech. Whether or not a company wants
to put you on their server is not free speech, it's
about public free speech. You're allowed to go say
and hold any belief you want as long as it's not putting
the public in danger. I think we face a really
difficult situation in talking about
takedowns on social media. For example, the two urgent-care doctors that were shown earlier in this clip, their video was taken down from YouTube. It's really, it's a fine line. Because I'm a firm believer of putting out accurate information to
combat misinformation. And I'm a firm believer
that we need to listen to dissenting opinions,
until they get to the point where they become dangerous and or absurd. I guess when I say absurd,
I think about Alex Jones. - I'll admit it, I will eat my neighbors. - I think YouTube or any
other social media platform should feel very free to
take that content down. Now, whether or not we
should take content down of doctors we disagree with,
I think it's difficult. I think in a situation like this where we're in a pandemic,
there's evolving medical info, doctors are allowed to
have different opinions. I think that unless someone is
directly advocating for harm, like eating Tide Pods or something, I think only then should
you be taking down content. - And I'm blown away why
they're not more doctors like me talking about this all over the place. We should be banding together right now. You need to wake up because your liberties are getting taken away from you all because of fake news. - I don't know what freedoms
are being taken away from him. We're recommending people to
socially distance themselves and enforcing that to
protect the general public and doctors are coming together. In fact, I did a video
interviewing 100 doctors sharing their journeys, and
how different we all are. But at the same time, we're
so unified in our message about getting people to stay home, about why it's going to
break our hospital system. In fact, I would love to
invite this chiropractor to come into a hospital setting and see where patients are
being treated for COVID-19 so he understands why the
social distancing is a must, at least for the short
term, until we figure out what's what and then we could
start reopening America, strategically, smartly, and safely. - It's not the scientists
who are in any way dishonest. They're listening to people
who for more than 40 years have controlled, who gets
funded, what gets published. And I'm sorry to say many, many people will simply take the money
and the fame and that support, things that absolutely aren't true. - Are people betraying their ethics and going for the money at times? Absolutely, absolutely. I'm not one of those people that believes everyone just wants to do
things for the greater good. No, no, people need to be incentivized. And sometimes they make the wrong choices and let money guide them instead of what their initial goals were, or at least maybe their initial
goals were always money. That's not a formula for success, A. And B, I don't think it's representative of the medical community as a whole. The huge majority of medical
professionals, nurses, doctors, paramedics,
pharmacists, they went into this to help people, they did not go into this to make a killing financially. There's other ways to make
money where you don't have to go through horrendous
hours of education and training for over
a decade of your life in order to make a decent living, after getting hundreds of
thousands of dollars in loans. - You don't get funded, if you
don't speak the party line, you don't get published, that
was probably the hardest thing for me to take, is understanding that scientific journals would
would twist the discovery that should have healed all. - Do I think that if
you have a radical idea in the medical community,
initially, you'll be ostracized? Yes, I think that's part of the process. If you look at any of the people that have made revolutionary
discoveries in science, we're always looked at with a
lot of skepticism, initially. But you have to approach new ideas with a level of healthy skepticism. Otherwise, you'll just believe a lot of inaccurate information. And it's a very difficult job of agencies like the NIH, CDC, WHO, to decide which theories they should test. - So what we did pretty much
ever since I got out of jail, we started an education company. We wake up doctors, and
it's very difficult. But every doctor who realized they may have been part of the problem has now turned that around to march toward a better society and restore faith in the promise of medicine. - I can sit all day and
talk about the things that are wrong with medicine. But as a whole, we're helping people, we're eradicating
diseases, we're decreasing the strain on our healthcare
system of COVID-19 by treating patients, by finding vaccines. To say that the entire system is a fraud, because she believes it to be
without any kind of research to say that it is, I think it's a failure on her
part more than it is ours. I want to leave off with a
message to my fellow doctors and medical professionals out there. I think we need to do a better job with our scientific communication, of how we talk to people,
we should not resort to heavy data, sarcasm,
or even take downs, in order to silence this
type of information. Allow dissenting opinions to be heard, confront them, correct them and put the accurate
medical info out there so people can make the
decisions for themselves. Also know that I'm not the only
doctor sharing this message. Here's actually a video of 100
doctors that I've interviewed talking about their battle with COVID-19. (soft music)
Once again, the anti-science morons and conspiracy nuts doing some extreme cherry picking. They won't believe the scientific and medical community as a whole but latch onto a handful of doctors and scientists because they're saying what the nutjobs want to hear all without any evidence whatsoever. Fuck these people, they're not just harmless idiots, they're actively doing harm.
I read an NPR article about this woman, she was fired from a university I briefly attended (University of Nevada, Reno) for stealing lab supplies.
Jake Gyllenhaal doing some good work here.
The covidiots are brigading his channel. Look at the comments claiming he lost credibility for not debating her.
Watch out. Last time this was taken down by mods for "being political" even though Dr. Mike says several times in the video that politics has fuck all to do with his commentary on this issue (there's science - that's it).
I'll tell you the conspiracy I believe in. They either pulled the video repeatedly off of youtube on their own, or gamed the algorithm to be sure it would likely be pulled. I had a group text from work that gnashed teeth for hours about the video and not being able to see it due to censorship. I searched youtube for her name, found the correct video as my top result and noticed it had been posted for 16 hours (presumably a repost they hadn't caught)
I can't even watch it or I get angry. It's no surprise that these conspiracies are always made by failed scientists or doctors.
Regardless of whether you think this is a nut job making a bogus conspiracy, you’ve got to appreciate the genius of creating buzz by feeding into the desire to see what’s behind the door you’re not allowed to open.
Deleting the video and marketing it as being taken down by “the man” is a great strategy for clicks.
Surprised we believed it considering how anything and everything is online and gets copied and re-hosted thousands of times without issue
I use to hate Dr Mike when he started off. He was using his good looks as a resident to promote what I like to call "Buzzfeed Medicine" aka bullshit pop culture. He also ripped off other Medical Youtubers ideas and when they asked to collaborate with him, his response was "Who the fuck are you". But after he became popular rather than continue that trend he has used that platform to stand up against misinformation.