Today, we decided to put together this little panel where we're going to be talking about
what's happening in science, what are interesting things.
The first person that's going to talk to us about science today is Jack.
Jack, you're going to tell us about something that I specifically ask you to look into.
And please remember, you know, part of what we want is we want to continue
to be transparent in medicine.
We want people to know what the real science is all about.
And you need to understand what science is.
Science is a systematic way to understand the natural world
through observation, experimentation, and reasoning.
How do we get science?
Well, trial and error, simple as that.
We try to answer specific questions.
But once you answer that question, you need to put it out there.
And I'm not talking about substance, I know many of you guys
like the substance world, I'm talking about scientific findings
that are published in peer-reviewed journals.
We try to make that a natural and progressive way.
We use a systematic approach to do that.
And, you know, in the past, many of us would try to publish
into Nature, Lancet, New England.
Now we have changed our mind about those journals.
And that's why we have our own journals.
I already spoke about the journal earlier, so I'm not going
to go too much into it.
But I wanted you to know that as part of the science
that this organization is having,
the journal is probably our most important tool to show
to the world what's out there.
Our goal is simple, but it's actually quite profound.
You know, we want to restore trust in medical research,
something that it's lacking in this day and age.
I mean, I can tell you, every paper that I read,
I start having questions.
It's like yesterday there was a paper, I don't know if you guys saw it,
that said that those people that are vaccinated against Zoster,
they have a 20% chance of having less dementia in the long run.
At least that's what the media is saying.
I have not looked at the paper, but trust me, I'm going to look
at that paper and cut it in tiny little pieces until I figure
out what the hell is going on.
Because I don't want to have any corporate or political influence.
That's our many things.
These are just some examples of the journal.
You guys can find the journal online.
So let's look at what we can do.
Now, is this, are these your slides?
Those are your mats?
Oh, well, I guess Matt is going to go first.
Matt, let me give you this clicker.
And like I said, you know,
Matt is our Director of Clinical Research.
He's been working with us extensively.
And we have a lot of really cool things on the pipeline.
Okay.
Thank you, Dr. Verl.
And yeah, I'm excited to share the research
that we've been doing at the IMA.
I'm Matthew Holmer.
I did a PhD in biophysics at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
And yeah, this is how we draw down
the chronic disease burden.
So the top sources of disease burden
in the U.S. are listed here.
I'm not gonna go through them one by one.
This is 2022, so COVID-19 is there.
And as you can see, drug use disorders,
these are actually projected to rise.
We are in the midst of an opioid epidemic,
which is either staying the same or getting worse.
Heart disease, that's always been near the top.
Pain, chronic pain, and that is a big driver
of the opioid epidemic.
You know, other sources of disease burden are listed there,
but you get the drift.
So our approach, part of it is identifying the natural products,
the decentralized approach to fighting chronic disease,
which can be applied at scale and, you know, quite cheaply
because lowering cost also means increasing availability.
So we are looking for the alternative treatments
for the major chronic diseases
with the highest evidentiary basis.
And from there, we can validate and iterate
and connect basic science with clinical application.
So at the IMA, one of our, well,
our fundamental resource is our network.
And that includes people like Dr. Tudzinski,
as well as the clinicians, not just across the USA,
but across the world.
And we wish to leverage this network
to produce high quality research.
If we have an objective,
we can utilize our network
who has expertise in a wide variety of specialties
and they can help to draw down the chronic disease epidemic.
So we have our targets listed here.
These are just a few,
but we include vaccine injury spike protein related diseases
diseases, as well as, you know, some of the more conventional conditions.
So why are we taking this approach?
There's a picture here of a ship going towards an iceberg.
The parable to draw from this is that if you take a change in trajectory early on, you
can have a big effect on the eventual outcome,
whereas a larger change when you're closer to the iceberg
is less likely to result in you averting that.
So as you may know, we are an aging society
and that means increased levels of chronic diseases
that are projected.
And so it is important to intervene early and often.
And natural products can be a way to address that while obviating some of the issues of drug shortages,
which came up quite saliently during the blockage in the Suez, which drops shift traffic by 50%.
So these are some of the initiatives that we are currently working on.
As you can see, we, the IMA, our network has published on several
of these already and several of them are in progress.
And so I end here with some of the research outputs
that we have been able to get published
in peer-reviewed journals the last couple of years.
And with that, I thank you for your attention
and I'm very grateful for this opportunity.
So I will hand it off to Joseph.
Awesome, Matt.
And one thing to just emphasize, we need to understand that some
of the output that we have, some of these research things,
I mean published not in our journal,
but they're publishing other journals.
So don't you think that, you know, we created a journal
so that we can just publish our own stuff.
Now, we're actually publishing in peer-reviewed journals and,
I mean, I'm very proud of some of the work
that Matt has been doing with us.
Okay, so next one.
I mean, you changed my order.
Okay, well, it's good.
So, Paul really wants to come up with new things all the time.
And you guys have no idea how many phone calls I get on day-to-day basis
of new ideas that he gets.
And he really is, he has taught me so much.
I've refocused my mind over 30 years.
So, Paul, talk to us.
Thank you, Joseph.
So, obviously we know that things are changing.
And traditionally, the agencies have been responsible to big pharma
and have pursued really expensive therapies
that impact a really small minority of people.
So I think we need to now have a global focus with a global emphasis.
So we need to refocus the NIH, and I think the NIH is going to refocus.
So if Jay is here, I've got a few ideas for him,
and you can,
David can pass them on.
So I'm just gonna ask you three questions.
And you should recognize some of the questions.
Does vitamin D prevent and improve outcome from cancer?
And you'll see why that's important
because 50% of people in this room
If 50% of people in this room are going to get cancer, that's what the current data shows.
And so that's a really important question.
And it seems like the federal government is doing zero.
It's a preventable disease.
It's preventable.
And there's simple things you can do, not you can do.
There's things, simple things you must do to reduce your risk of cancer unless you want
that I have cancer. Then obviously, you know, it's really strange how this journey has taken us,
you know, Pierre and I by accident came across ivermectin and we popularized it and it,
you know, it was a, it was a horse dewormer. And then we actually discovered it's good for COVID.
We've subsequently discovered it's really good for cancer, and as I'll show you later,
it's probably medical malpractice for a patient with cancer not to be on ivermectin.
They can be on all the other stuff.
And our most recent discovery, just by complete accident, so I mean, ivermectin was a gift
from nature found on a golf course?
Does albumectin treat diabetes?
Isn't that such an interesting idea?
So I'm going to just touch on these just simple ideas.
So this is vitamin D for the prevention of disease
and endocrine society clinical practice guideline
from publishing the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology.
So this is from the Endocrine Society of America.
What did they have to say?
Don't measure vitamin D. Vitamin D has no role
in the prevention or treatment of any disease.
This is the Endocrine Society of America.
It's only, according to them,
the only role is in skeletal disease.
So this basically tells you how captured,
how captured the entire medical system is.
It's not just the agencies.
It's everything.
Every single professional body in this country
is completely and utterly captured.
And so as a simple example,
this shows you that your risk of getting cancer
is related to your latitude and vitamin D levels.
So as you go further from the equator,
you may not know this,
your vitamin D levels go down
and your risk of cancer goes up.
And almost every single patient with cancer
has a vitamin D level less than 20.
And so it's quite a simple answer.
What you need to do is give people vitamin D.
So this is the kind of research we should be doing.
Nobody's interested because nobody's
going to make any money.
You can buy a year's supply of 10,000 units of vitamin D
for like 12 bucks.
That's what it's going to cost you.
No one's going to make money.
But if you think of the health benefits
of reducing the risk of cancer.
So actually at the moment I'm working with Justice Hope.
You know, it's his pen name.
We're working on a protocol for cancer prevention.
Okay, really important, a protocol for cancer prevention
which we will be posting on the website
maybe in the next two weeks.
We've done some really interesting work
and you can decide what you want to reduce your risk to.
you want to reduce your risk of breast cancer
to 50 or 60 or 70 or 80% reduction,
you can choose different protocols.
And these are based on cheap, repurposed drugs.
This is where we should be doing research.
So as you said, the American society believes
there's no role for vitamin D.
So read this article.
The effect of vitamin D supplementation on survival
in patients with colorectal cancer,
systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
So firstly, this is what the Ivory Tower wants.
The Ivory Tower, they want meta-analysis
of randomized controlled trials.
It is what they think is the gold standard,
the highest level of scientific evidence,
which is very difficult to do with what we do.
But here one is, what's the conclusion?
Meta-analysis demonstrates a significantly meaningful
benefit of vitamin D sublimation on colorectal cancer survival outcomes.
Their data, British Journal of Cancer, there you go.
Vitamin D reduces your risk of metastatic disease.
How can you say vitamin D has no clinical role?
So as we'll talk about later, when we talk about cancer, if you have cancer, you must
be on vitamin D, and this is where the research should be on.
Global impact, global interventions that are cheap and simple.
So we're also going to talk about cancer.
As I said, half the people in this room will get cancer.
So we use AI, which is truly astonishing, because it works much better than my brain
will ever work.
So we asked AI combining anti-cancer ranking, combining stem cell pathway, which we'll talk
about because unless you hit the stem cells, you're not hitting the cancer and safety.
And so this is AI.
And this comes up over and over again.
The most effective drug is the horse dewormer.
So we need to study the horse de Worma, okay?
There's no reason we can't study the horse de Worma because of its impact in cancer.
As you'll see, this should probably be done in parallel with the toxic chemotherapy that's
given.
There's no reason the NIH can't support these studies.
And so one of the more interesting phenomenon is, it doesn't seem to end, is the anti-parasitic
drug Avamictin is a novel FXR ligand that regulates metabolism.
So it actually regulates intermediary metabolism, interferes with glucose control and insulin
and resistance, it redistributes abdominal fat,
and it treats hypoglycemia.
So this is the new Ozempic.
Ivermectin is the new Ozempic, and if you're in Tennessee,
you can get it over the counter.
Thank you, Denise, for getting us over the counter.
And so as you'll see, unlike ozimpic, which costs $1,200, this is two cents.
So this is the, it's probably more effective because you're going to get rid of your worms
at the same time.
So this is a patient that has prosthetic cancer that was given ivermectin, and you can see
what happened to the hemoglobin A1C, which is a marker of glucose control.
The patient's glucose was controlled.
He then went on to ivermectin.
His hemoglobin A1C went down to 4.6, 4.6 just on ivermectin.
The PSA went down and the testosterone went up as a marker of improved metabolic health
and the effect of redistributing abdominal fat on aromatase level because testosterone
is converted from estrogen by aromatase.
So it has a marked effect on intermediary metabolism.
So this is the new ozempic.
The only difference is it costs two cents a tablet.
This is the WHO pricing.
So why aren't we doing research into cheap repurposed drugs that have a global impact?
So that's my spiel.
Thank you.
Thank you, Paul.
Thank you, Paul, and so as you guys know, Dr. Marek and our team are actively working.
We actually have developed a protocol for ivermectin for diabetes, for tattoo diabetics.
We are in the process of getting it approved through an IRB, and soon we'll be enrolling
patients to see if indeed, you know, that's the whole science that we were talking about.
Great idea.
I mean, sometimes we just stumble on these things.
Now we just have to prove it.
And then, of course, we're going to be,
you know, we'll have all sorts of hit pieces
by the Osempic manufacturers.
And they say, hey, we don't want you to notice it.
Okay, now let's see which one is next
because, you know, these slides have been all over the place.
Oh, this is actually great stuff.
So Jack is going to talk to us about heart rate variability,
but I must tell you that I've been playing
with heart rate variability through my Garmin watch.
And about three weeks ago or so,
I started seeing that my heart rate variability was changing.
I didn't have any symptoms, I had nothing.
About three days later,
I had a nasty foot infection due to a surgery that I had.
I said, wow, I mean, is this heart rate variability
predicting what's gonna happen?
So Jack is gonna talk to us about heart rate variability,
which was once one of the multiple areas
that he's been looking into.
Thank you, Joseph.
Thank you for inviting me here.
I'd like to say, first of all, I'm a biophysicist and I spent
about 20 years of my life trying
to design drugs using computational methods
and with some success, but it was a long journey
and I got disappointed because it took so much time
and so much money.
In the end, there's a lot of roadblocks to these achievements,
but then I decided that as a physicist,
I should also look at how physics can improve health
and give us some advice.
So we'll talk about heart rate variability for several reasons,
one of which is that it's actually a very powerful biomarker
as you introduced.
And secondly, it's also an electrical design device, heart.
And you can see here the typical heartbeat.
And you can describe it in terms of the different frequencies
that contributed to the signal, to the heart pulse.
It's actually driven by sodium and calcium ion exchange,
and it's a potential difference that you can see on electrocardiograms.
But the history is very long.
actually goes back more than 2,000 years.
The Greeks first understood the importance of pulse
and described it in 300 BC.
And then 500 years later, Galen used pulse and diagnosis
and prognosis for patients.
But it took another 1,500 years roughly to actually understand
that there is something called heart rate variability.
So this is not entirely cyclical, it is quasi-periodic.
Most of the processes of the human body are cyclical,
but quasi-cyclical, and starting actually
with the energy production, ATP and mitochondria,
and that's the fuel, for example,
for the functioning of the heart, of course.
And now, in terms of heart rate variability itself,
the analysis of this took another 250 years.
So we're talking about 1960s now.
And only in the 1990s have we understood the importance of it
in terms of sort of mathematical underpinnings.
And interestingly, in 1926, there was a scientist at Philips
in the Netherlands, van der Poel, who for the first time simulated
mathematically using electrical circuits the heart rate of the human.
So now, from the 1990s, we can use a very precise modeling
of heart rate variability
to understand the various underlying conditions
because the heart is not beating in isolation.
it's connected to the rest of the body,
and the changes in the heart rate variability
reflect the different underlying diseases.
And this is a slide showing you, interestingly,
how heart rate variability is a prognostic factor
in cancer survival.
In the top panels, you can see so-called Kaplan-Meier
Kaplan diagrams, where the blue curves
are for those patients with high heart rate variability
and the red ones with low heart rate variability
and you can see how they diverge.
So heart rate variability is a prognostic factor in survival
even for cancer patients.
But obviously you can use them for also heart health
and cardiovascular system health.
This is a different way of, you know,
When you look at these very irregular, complicated pulses,
it's hard to see that.
But if you replot it using something called the Poincare plot,
which is in the lower left-hand side panel,
you'll see kind of what happens much more clearly.
And that's plotting actually the pulse as a function
of the derivative of the pulse, mathematically speaking,
for those of you who are interested to know how it's done.
And here you can see the different pathological situations,
atrial fibrillation, ventricular flutter, ventricular fibrillation,
all of which you can see very clearly
on these diagrams, plancha, red plots, how they differ
and how you can diagnose them without doing some, you know,
without having the experience of a cardiologist.
Now, I want to switch gears a bit and I'll come back again
to heart rate variability.
I want to propose an analysis because heart rate variability is one
of the biomarkers, but there are many, you know, and we talked
about insulin levels, glucose levels,
all kinds of blood work gives you markers for potential diseases
and doctors, which I'm not a doctor, but I actually spent 15 years
in medical school, teaching students, dangerous.
And so I understand a little bit.
So you look at the biomarker values and you look at the chart and say, okay,
this is out of the normal range, this is within the range.
But I think there's something else.
And I propose something called the GPS for health, which is basically to look
at the trajectory of development of biomarker changes
and heart rate variability could be one of them.
And this is inspired by physics
where you have something called the equilibrium of stability.
Within this potential, so to speak,
you can see how periodic or quasi-periodic motion occurs.
And this, again, here you see the underlying potential
which we call fitness function of, yep,
physiological fitness function
or metabolic fitness function on the left.
so you have the stable equilibrium,
then you go to the edge of instability below
and then unstable equilibrium.
And, correspondingly, you see these trajectories,
which, you know, periodic motions
or quasi-periodic motions execute.
And I propose that something similar can be implemented
in understanding the biomarker data for all of us,
including your heart rate variability from FitBit
and the blood pressure and things of this nature.
And in terms of physiology, this is called homeostasis,
is the sort of regular, healthy behavior.
Then you have allostasis, under stress,
you're about to respond to it,
and shifts a little bit the trajectory.
And that's okay, when the stress is removed,
you return to homeostatic conditions.
But if stress is toxic or excessive,
Then it's called allostatic overload.
And sometimes your body may cross over to an unhealthy state
which becomes a new equilibrium, a new fixed point or yeah,
a disease state in other words.
So I'll just finish with the example
of using heart rate variability and heart rate in general
in the emerging novel therapies.
And they are electromagnetic therapies.
I've been involved in some of them.
And one of which is to treat liver cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma,
using radio frequency amplitude modulated fields as shown here.
And this is how the patient is being treated.
The first phase is the discovery phase to find
which frequencies actually the body responds to.
And then the second phase is the treatment phase
where this particular frequency or set of frequencies are used
for the treatment over about two hours every week
with some very impressive outcomes.
So if anybody is interested, I can say more,
but now my time is up.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Jack.
It's amazing, you know.
anybody that has ever been to a traditional Chinese medicine
practitioner realizes that the first thing that they do is you know they
check on your pulse and indeed one of the classic textbooks of traditional
Chinese medicine was 17 volumes of just heart rate variability you know we're
talking about that's a 5,000 year old textbook it's it's amazing and now
finally we're coming back for those of you who do not believe that they that
that believe that the IMA is just ivermectin.
Clearly we're not just ivermectin.
Even though our haters, they keep on saying
that we are the ivermectin group.
Well, you know, yes, ivermectin is a wonderful drug.
Don't misunderstand me, Paul.
But we do more than just ivermectin.
Let's just be clear on that.
Last but not least, Lynn Finn is going to talk to us about,
she's probably going to give us some hypotheticals as to,
you know, what's out there in science and in the research world.
I mean, you've been doing research for the last several days, just full-time.
That's what you do.
Yeah, I don't have any fancy slides.
Mine is more of a stream of consciousness on what keeps me up at night.
First, I have to dot an I and cross a T. If you're going to take vitamin D supplementation,
I highly recommend that you take the appropriate amount of K2 with it so you don't rob calcium
from your bones.
So if you're taking 5,000 units of vitamin D, you want to take at least 125 micrograms
of K2 with it, and don't forget magnesium.
So please make sure you do this so you don't end up osteoporotic, among other things.
But getting back to what keeps me up at night, I've noticed kind of a wave of coordinated
groups lately that tend to focus on certain papers and certain publications and as a coordinated
team have a campaign against the paper or what it says and works very hard to have it
removed or retracted from journals.
I bring this up because the same thing happened to Dr. Merrick in one of his vitamin C papers
for sepsis, it was a well-designed observational study.
It didn't make any outrageous claims other than vitamin C can be very instrumental in
treating sepsis in the ICU.
But all of a sudden, out of nowhere, years later, a group band together that was funded
by some governmental entities to have it retracted
from the journal where it was published.
I took that personally, I don't know why, but I took it personally
and I took it on and fought pretty rigorously
to have it not retracted.
And after doing digging and digging and figuring
out who was behind it, at first I thought,
Could this just be stock manipulation?
Could it be people who want to bolster stocks
that would be in a competitive position
to what is being stated so it's not used for an argument?
Could it be that?
Sure, why not?
Pharma does it all the time.
Big Pharma is a lot like the mob.
They have ungodly amounts of money
and there might be death and dismemberment
as a side effect.
But that said, it dawned on me that it wasn't an isolated case, because another colleague
of mine, Dr. Sabine Hazen, also had several papers retracted, and hers were observational
studies.
Understand, with an observational study, you're bringing forth data and ideas and saying,
this lends itself to look further into this.
It's not making claims.
It's not saying this is the end all be all.
It's a study of observation.
That's what science is about.
We should never be retracting observational studies.
It states an observation, and that's that.
But I saw coordinated attacks on these papers, and I thought, again, with stock manipulation,
I don't know.
One in my typical all-nighter where I don't sleep because things keep me up at night,
it dawned on me that the future of medicine is AI.
And we all know that.
We can't stop it.
We could either embrace it and make it robust and use it as a tool, or we can do nothing
and be replaced.
Now AI draws upon data sets of published literature of what's out there.
And if you take inconvenient truths out of the literature, they're not drawn upon as
fact.
So you have these groups who call you or you or you misinformation, but who made them the
arbiters of scientific fact.
It's all about scientific discourse, and we've learned in the last five years that this discourse
has been shut down.
It's clear the peer review process is broken.
It is broken because what used to be peer review would be all of your methodology, your
data, and your hypothesis presented, and then anyone in the country on the bench can reproduce
what is there and get the same answer, reproducible science.
That's what peer review is for.
But then they realized, you know what, this is inefficient, so let's make it pal review.
He's my buddy.
He does good work.
Yeah, I pass.
He passes.
And then groups get together and say, we can't have this come out, so we have to gang up
on it.
And then it gets pulled.
It doesn't pass peer review.
And it's become kind of a mob thing.
Think of AI drawing upon fact.
If we have those facts of ivermectin being more than a horse dewormer, that can be problematic.
So it has to be removed from the literature.
This is why our journal is so important.
We know peer review is broken.
We're doing anonymous but very well thought out analysis without pharma or any other intervention
calling the shots, the conflicts are so, so egregious
in these medical journals now.
We've learned that the Lancet had to retract a major paper
because they took data that was literally made up from a company
that was incorporated by an adult film star and a photographer.
That's Surgesphere, right?
And then the New England Journal of Medicine had to retract papers.
Then you start seeing, now this is unheard of,
but then you start seeing a pattern of behavior.
Well, now with these groups that are going after good papers
and putting in false data, which I found another one recently,
they are seeding AI.
they are ceding the information that they're going to draw upon
to give you the answer going forward.
That is why we have to step in, we have to produce honest medicine,
we have to lay the groundwork from what AI draws
from in order to have the truth.
So scientific discourse should never be shut down
and that's my takeaway and that's what keeps me up at night.
Thank you so much, Aline.
That's great.
Do we have any questions?
Let's see if we have questions.
If not, I'm going to ask questions to you guys
because I'm pretty interested.
But what you just said now, Aline, it's amazing.
So we do have a few questions.
So I will start with you, Jack.
What about emphasizing circadian rhythm
and getting the right sunlight rather than supplementing?
So let's start with the circadian rhythm.
That's one of your areas of expertise as well.
I, you know, I didn't have the time to talk about this,
but anything cyclical, as I said, all of the,
most of the processes in the human body are cyclical.
And the main driver of these cycles is the sun.
The diurnal cycles are the key.
Then you have smaller and smaller cycles, shorter and shorter.
Short, the shortest being the ATP production cycle.
one millisecond, and then you have about 700 milliseconds
for the heart rate and so on,
and everything is connected to it.
So respecting the natural cycles, including sleep, wake,
the dining and eating cycles and sleeping cycles is part
of general health, but I think that I would say the main danger
that we need to deal with is stress.
Excellent.
Paul, this one's for you.
As prophylactic to both cancer and type 2 diabetes,
can you recommend the duration and dosage
of taking ivermectin, actually?
So that you guys know, one of the parts of the study
that we're doing is on dosage of ivermectin for diabetes.
But Paul, what doses are you recommending and why?
So this is a process in evolution,
so we don't know exactly.
That's why you do research
and we're gonna get more information.
Currently, we start off on a dose of 0.3 milligrams
per kilogram for both cancer and diabetes.
That turns out at about 30 milligrams.
For cancer, it's probably forever,
and you can take it forever.
It's safer than Tylenol.
It's a very safe drug.
In terms of diabetes, we don't know, probably until you've cured your diabetes and then
you can go on to some kind of lifestyle change that controls your blood glucose, which goes
on to the next question, which is clearly if you have diabetes, if you have any chronic
disease. If you have cancer, you want to be on a sound nutritional lifestyle program. So obviously
our food is super processed and actually is not food. So if it comes out of a box and has a big
package insert, it's labeling, it's probably not food. You want to eat real
food and you want to eat it intermittently. There are lots of ways of doing it. So
nutrition really is the cornerstone of health, of achieving health and
dealing with chronic disease and obviously sleep and exercise come into
that as well.
Awesome.
Questions for you, Lynn, and this is a personal question.
I mean, you're saying that AI usually draws
upon whatever is physically there.
Well, when you do an AI search on the use of ivermectin
for COVID, it immediately says, don't use it, you know,
it's whatever, all that good stuff, despite of all the work
that we all have seen and all the thousands, if not millions
of patients that we have, say,
What AI engine do you think is more or less bias, perplexity?
I mean, you're playing ultra GPT.
I mean, what are you using for your stuff?
I mean, I, Jeff Hanson laughs at me all the time
because I literally argue with Grok.
And I think that the more you argue with it,
the more you can teach it.
And I think probably perplexity is probably one
of the less bias, but they're all going to draw on it.
And what you mentioned about, you know, Ivermectin for COVID,
you know, when you have studies like Bullware study
where they use, I don't know,
10 times the proper dose late stage, and they set them
up for failure, they're going to draw on that data,
and that's a problem.
That's why when you look at funding, somebody had mentioned,
are you worried about funding for these studies?
Yes, absolutely, because when pharma funds these studies,
they're looking for a conclusion
and to work backwards for plausibility.
They're looking for the answer they need,
and that's what they're going to fund.
And unfortunately, honest medicine doesn't work that way.
We're looking for the proper answer.
So something like that overblown ivermectin study
will get funded, but something that looks at true data
at a human dose will not,
because it's literally not giving them the answer they need
to push the patented drug that they wish to push
regardless of safety or efficacy.
Good, one more question for you, Jack,
and that's, can you please comment on the usefulness
of apps or devices such as the auto drink
that measures the fat rate variability?
Absolutely, I think this is a great idea.
However, I would propose to augment them with something
which maybe I didn't have the time to explain
is to create this fitness landscape for yourself,
personalized fitness landscape,
which allows you to see how you're evolving over time,
you're improving your health
or actually the opposite happening.
and then you can do it, monitor in real times.
And for this, we have a secret sauce.
And I'd like to develop this app,
which will be better than just giving a number,
giving you a trajectory.
That's what I call GPS for health.
Yeah, so we call it Jack's secret sauce,
like into circuits, that's actually kind of good.
Anything that you want to ask Matt,
as far as what can we do in the context of chronic illnesses,
especially tried to get some funding
for some of these studies?
Yeah, I think it's very possible
for us to do clinical trials.
We are putting together one on vaccine injury
and there's a lot of motivation to solve this course.
It's a significant source of disease burden.
I think possibly with the new heads of the NIH,
we can present to them we are doing science
in a very lean fashion, much lower budget than anything
at universities or research institutions.
And we're, yeah, we have outputs.
We're getting published.
We're going out there.
And yeah, so for chronic diseases,
there's a lot of them, but you know,
we wanna build this infrastructure
where we have the basic science,
this is the bench to bedside that David talked about earlier
and utilize our clinical,
you know, the clinical expertise of our network
to implement, you know, what we see as the best protocols
and to ultimately test and iterate this.
And this is a very, you know, ideally keep it
as lean as possible.
And.
And you touched on a great point, lean.
People want to know what does lean mean.
So if you guys get an idea, the average drug study
in the U.S. cost about $10,000 per patient enrolled, $10,000.
So, I mean, that's the average.
So, just think about it.
I'm talking about a million dollars.
Just to have, and most big studies you need to have, you know.
So, that's why these people, well, they say,
when we spend a million dollars on this,
we need to make 300 million out of, as a result.
And that's why you have those Olympics costing you $1,700 a month
Instead of your two cents of Ivermectin, if it works, okay?
Again, in all fairness, we have to do a good study.
Yes?
I'd like to add to it an important factor,
namely medical education, medical schools.
I think this is where it begins.
And I would like to quote Einstein who was asked,
how do you make progress in science?
And he said, one funeral at a time.
We really need to educate young people to have open minds
and search for the truth.
Excellent.
And with that quote of Einstein, I'm going to close the panel.
Thank you for all of your interesting inputs.
Thank you.
Thank you.
