Transcript Part 4:
Ms. Hazan:
That trial finished, and we’re going to be publishing. I’m not going to give out the data. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t know something. I wouldn’t be contradicting the whole Together trial on ivermectin and being so forceful if I hadn’t seen it myself and had seen the data. Make your own judgment. In fact, when the Together trial came out, the first trial was the hydroxychloroquine trial.
That showed that hydroxychloroquine didn’t work, but again, it was a single drug. Why would it work? How did they do the trial? There’s so many things wrong with that clinical trial and it was paid for by Bill Gates. Then, the second trial on ivermectin was paid for by Bill Gates. It didn’t work again and I said to myself, “Wow, two trials paid by Bill Gates who is launching the vaccine, and neither one of them work.”
When you look at the Together trial, first of all, you see ivermectin on its own. Yes, in some people it’s going to work, but in some people it’s not. And then, there was also the delivery. Was the ivermectin shipped at a perfect time? Was it at perfect temperature when they gave it? Was it put in a humid environment before they shipped?
There’s so many questions that I had about that trial. Also, it should have been a combination trial with that method of giving it. We discovered that the best way to give ivermectin was with a fatty meal. In fact, even in the syllabus of Merck, you could see that it says ingestion of ivermectin should be with a fatty meal.
The fact that they gave it on an empty stomach was very questionable. Why would it work? Also, did they look at all the contraindications with that drug? I published a lot of questions on why that trial didn’t work. it. I tried to publish it as a rebuttal to the New England Journal of Medicine.
They basically said, “I’m sorry, we don’t have room in the journal to put your rebuttal.” That was the first thing that made me aware there’s something going on, like with the attacks and the politics and the celebrities getting involved with ivermectin and the press and the PR and all that. There was something bigger even at a journal level.
Mr. Jekielek:
Just to be clear, you were going to publish your results as a rebuttal?
Ms. Hazan:
No, I wasn’t going to publish my results as the rebuttal. I was going to publish my criticism of the study as the rebuttal.
Mr. Jekielek:
I see.
Ms. Hazan:
Now, we’re going to be publishing the results, of course.
Mr. Jekielek:
How many patients have you treated since the beginning?
Ms. Hazan:
We did those studies, which were the clinical trials with the FDA watching, and the two hydroxychloroquine were just like standstill protocols, and the ivermectin was done. While we were finishing these protocols, I was also treating off-label, and I actually started a protocol with the IRB called “retrospective study.”
In other words, let me give a consent to every patient after I’ve treated them to go back and say, “What did I give you? What worked?” I can then categorize my patients. The young, I gave them vitamins and they were fine. The old with no comorbidities it was ivermectin, doxycycline, zinc, and they were fine. With the severe, the hypoxic, I gave them Z-Pak, vitamin C, D, zinc, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, and they were fine, because I lost no one. No one died.
We are talking about thousands of patients. On top of that, I gave my protocol to a lot of doctors. All my friends that were calling me, “How did you treat this? What did you do?” We had formed an alliance, the C-19 group. We were in constant emails, we were helping each other, and we learned from each other. At some point, there were some patients that were so sick that hydroxy, Z-Pak, vitamin C, D, and zinc, and ivermectin didn’t work. You had to go fenofibrate. You had to add [inaudible] Pepcid. Or you had to put steroids in the mix.
It became almost a stratification of, “Okay, this patient is this way.” You try this. That’s not working. You add more things. You keep throwing into the fire to keep saving this patient. I just feel so good about it because there were some people… Look, on Twitter, I tweeted about an 84-year-old, who just celebrated her birthday. She’s got some comorbidity, she’s overweight, and she survived.
Her oxygen was 76 percent at home, 84 years old, and she survived. That was in 2021. She was at the peak of the worst of the virus. It was really on the front line. What I couldn’t understand is, here I am reaching all these successes. Here I published this combination treatment with ivermectin/doxycycline in hypoxic patients. Here’s the paper, and here’s the data.
Instead of saying, “What is Dr. Hazan doing? Why don’t we mimic what she’s doing because she’s successful.” Instead, that paper got attacked. Instead, there was this whole trashing of early treatment for one agenda. While they were trashing my treatment, I said, “Since the agenda is the vaccine, let’s look at what the vaccine’s doing in the microbiome.” At the same time they started rolling out these vaccines, I started enrolling doctors that were getting vaccinated.
I said, “Can I get your stools before and after you get vaccinated?” Sure enough, people would come to me and say, “I heard you’re testing the microbiome. I want to have my baseline because just in case I change, I want to know what microbes I had before.” I said, “Yes, happy to do it.”
Again, this was something I undertook myself and paid for myself. By the way, we applied for grants and all of that was a waste of time and a waste of money. I basically just dumped my money into this trial. I kept telling everyone, because people were calling me, “What do you think of the vaccine? What do you think of the vaccine?” I replied, “I’ve not finished my research yet. Let me finish my research.”
With the first four patients, I started noticing a month later, the bifidobacteria, this important microbe, is dropping in patients pre and post vaccination. I started asking myself, “Wait a minute. What’s going on here? Is it creating a bifidophage?” This is precision medicine and this is forensics of the gut. You’ve got your microbiome this way before, and you’ve got it this way after. It’s the same patient and only a certain group of microbes are getting killed. You have to pay attention.
Then 10, 20, 30, patients later, we’re seeing this killing of the bifidobacteria. First of all, there’s no way I was going to publish this, because nobody would have accepted that, so I decided to submit it to the American College of Gastro as a presentation, as a poster. It got accepted at the American College of Gastro as a poster, and then it won the best research award as a poster.
All my colleagues called me and said, “I saw your data. That’s incredible. How do you think this is happening? The vaccine is supposed to be improving your immunity. We all know bifidobacteria is a huge part of immunity. How do you think it’s happening?”
Then I said, “I think it’s creating a bacteriophage or bifidophage.” What we noticed in the four patients that we followed, who were in amazing shape, we followed them for 90 days and then next thing you know, their bifidobacteria dropped to like zero—from a million to zero. It kept persisting.
There was a persistence in the damage, and not only at 90 days, but six months, nine months later. That was the thing that started making me panic. Then, as we were looking at the microbiome of newborns to mothers who were breastfeeding, we started noticing that there was no bifidobacteria in those newborns.
We asked ourselves why, because newborns are supposed to have a ton of bifidobacteria. Ninety percent of the microbiome of babies is bifidobacteria. We said, “How come these babies born to moms that are breastfeeding, and that were vaccinated have zero bifidobacteria? Is the spike protein going to the breast milk into the baby’s gut and killing whatever the baby’s trying to build?”
Because I was doing work on autism, I noticed one of the commonalities with autistic children is that loss of bifidobacteria. I said to myself, “Maybe that’s how it happens. Maybe you’re killing off your bifidobacteria and then two years down the road, your kid stops talking.”
It was serendipitous, really, this whole discovery, because understanding what the microbiome looks like in Alzheimer’s in old people, in overweight patients, in Parkinson’s and in healthy kids brought it all together for me.
I had a different vision than everybody else. I was looking at how to treat the virus knowing something nobody knew. It was kind of epic, but at the same time I knew, “They can’t prove me wrong. If they are going to try to prove me wrong, let’s see why.” But this definitely needs to be looked at, because the microbiome has such an importance in neurological problems, in cancer, in Crohn’s, and in Lyme’s disease.
We just published two posters that were presented at the same college where loss of bifidobacteria was noted in Crohn’s patients and in Lyme patients. Bifidobacteria has a big role in disease, in my opinion, and we have to pay attention to what’s killing it.
Mr. Jekielek:
Your hypothesis right now is that it’s the spike, whether the spike is coming from the virus or whether it’s coming from the vaccine, that this is actually causing this. It’s killing the bifidobacteria, which is creating a problem.
Ms. Hazan:
Correct.
Mr. Jekielek:
Is this where you’re hoping some serious research will be done?
Ms. Hazan:
Yes, and we are doing something to try to prove that. It’s coming along. Obviously, this is research and it’s slow developing. Research is now fast. It’s one thing proves another, proves another, and opens the door to another. I’ll give you an example of research during this pandemic.
One of the things that I did myself was kill my bifidobacteria because I wanted to see what increases the bifidobacteria. I was the guinea pig. I was the guinea pig for the whole pandemic, first to see if I’m exposed to it.
Basically, I realized that I was drinking a ton of kefir, and my bifido was not increasing. I’m not really good at taking my vitamins because I’m stressed and I’m busy, and I’m not a pill taker. Essentially, I let it die, and I started testing my kefir and I looked, because we passed it through the machine, and we noticed that the kefir didn’t have bifidobacteria in there. Even though it says bifidobacteria.
I went to Whole Foods and Ralph’s. This is research, because here I am. I’ve just killed my bifido, and I’m trying to boost it. Why isn’t it increasing? Of course, it opens new research. I went to Ralph’s and Whole Foods, picked up all the products that said bifidobacteria in the back.
We bought 23 products. One of them was a $27 tonic water that had bifidobacteria in there. I said, “This has got to have bifido because it costs $27. I mean, come on. Anyway, we shook them up and took samples. Only three of them had bifido.
Mr. Jekielek:
Actually had bifidobacteria.
Ms. Hazan:
Had bifidobacteria.
Mr. Jekielek:
Unbelievable.
Ms. Hazan:
You become an aware customer. This is what research is all about. Research is about, “Why isn’t this happening? Let me figure out why this is not happening.” And, of course, it was because my kefir didn’t have bifidobacteria. How am I going to increase my bifido, if it doesn’t even have bifido?
I started doing my own stuff, like the fermented foods and all the stuff that I know how to do. Basically, I’m happy to say I’m back to my normal bifidobacteria. This is what research is about. It’s finding one thing and then opening up a new science, a new research to discover. That was fascinating.
Mr. Jekielek:
You hinted at blowback because you were doing research using some of these products, which were really greatly maligned, let’s say.
Ms. Hazan:
Yes.
Mr. Jekielek:
What happened? What was the impact on you, on your practice, on your work?
Transcript Part 4: Ms. Hazan: That trial finished, and we’re going to be publishing. I’m not going to give out the data. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t know something. I wouldn’t be contradicting the whole Together trial on ivermectin and being so forceful if I hadn’t seen it myself and had seen the data. Make your own judgment. In fact, when the Together trial came out, the first trial was the hydroxychloroquine trial.
That showed that hydroxychloroquine didn’t work, but again, it was a single drug. Why would it work? How did they do the trial? There’s so many things wrong with that clinical trial and it was paid for by Bill Gates. Then, the second trial on ivermectin was paid for by Bill Gates. It didn’t work again and I said to myself, “Wow, two trials paid by Bill Gates who is launching the vaccine, and neither one of them work.”
When you look at the Together trial, first of all, you see ivermectin on its own. Yes, in some people it’s going to work, but in some people it’s not. And then, there was also the delivery. Was the ivermectin shipped at a perfect time? Was it at perfect temperature when they gave it? Was it put in a humid environment before they shipped?
There’s so many questions that I had about that trial. Also, it should have been a combination trial with that method of giving it. We discovered that the best way to give ivermectin was with a fatty meal. In fact, even in the syllabus of Merck, you could see that it says ingestion of ivermectin should be with a fatty meal.
The fact that they gave it on an empty stomach was very questionable. Why would it work? Also, did they look at all the contraindications with that drug? I published a lot of questions on why that trial didn’t work. it. I tried to publish it as a rebuttal to the New England Journal of Medicine.
They basically said, “I’m sorry, we don’t have room in the journal to put your rebuttal.” That was the first thing that made me aware there’s something going on, like with the attacks and the politics and the celebrities getting involved with ivermectin and the press and the PR and all that. There was something bigger even at a journal level.
Mr. Jekielek: Just to be clear, you were going to publish your results as a rebuttal?
Ms. Hazan: No, I wasn’t going to publish my results as the rebuttal. I was going to publish my criticism of the study as the rebuttal.
Mr. Jekielek: I see.
Ms. Hazan: Now, we’re going to be publishing the results, of course.
Mr. Jekielek: How many patients have you treated since the beginning?
Ms. Hazan: We did those studies, which were the clinical trials with the FDA watching, and the two hydroxychloroquine were just like standstill protocols, and the ivermectin was done. While we were finishing these protocols, I was also treating off-label, and I actually started a protocol with the IRB called “retrospective study.”
In other words, let me give a consent to every patient after I’ve treated them to go back and say, “What did I give you? What worked?” I can then categorize my patients. The young, I gave them vitamins and they were fine. The old with no comorbidities it was ivermectin, doxycycline, zinc, and they were fine. With the severe, the hypoxic, I gave them Z-Pak, vitamin C, D, zinc, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, and they were fine, because I lost no one. No one died.
We are talking about thousands of patients. On top of that, I gave my protocol to a lot of doctors. All my friends that were calling me, “How did you treat this? What did you do?” We had formed an alliance, the C-19 group. We were in constant emails, we were helping each other, and we learned from each other. At some point, there were some patients that were so sick that hydroxy, Z-Pak, vitamin C, D, and zinc, and ivermectin didn’t work. You had to go fenofibrate. You had to add [inaudible] Pepcid. Or you had to put steroids in the mix.
It became almost a stratification of, “Okay, this patient is this way.” You try this. That’s not working. You add more things. You keep throwing into the fire to keep saving this patient. I just feel so good about it because there were some people… Look, on Twitter, I tweeted about an 84-year-old, who just celebrated her birthday. She’s got some comorbidity, she’s overweight, and she survived.
Her oxygen was 76 percent at home, 84 years old, and she survived. That was in 2021. She was at the peak of the worst of the virus. It was really on the front line. What I couldn’t understand is, here I am reaching all these successes. Here I published this combination treatment with ivermectin/doxycycline in hypoxic patients. Here’s the paper, and here’s the data.
Instead of saying, “What is Dr. Hazan doing? Why don’t we mimic what she’s doing because she’s successful.” Instead, that paper got attacked. Instead, there was this whole trashing of early treatment for one agenda. While they were trashing my treatment, I said, “Since the agenda is the vaccine, let’s look at what the vaccine’s doing in the microbiome.” At the same time they started rolling out these vaccines, I started enrolling doctors that were getting vaccinated.
I said, “Can I get your stools before and after you get vaccinated?” Sure enough, people would come to me and say, “I heard you’re testing the microbiome. I want to have my baseline because just in case I change, I want to know what microbes I had before.” I said, “Yes, happy to do it.”
Again, this was something I undertook myself and paid for myself. By the way, we applied for grants and all of that was a waste of time and a waste of money. I basically just dumped my money into this trial. I kept telling everyone, because people were calling me, “What do you think of the vaccine? What do you think of the vaccine?” I replied, “I’ve not finished my research yet. Let me finish my research.”
With the first four patients, I started noticing a month later, the bifidobacteria, this important microbe, is dropping in patients pre and post vaccination. I started asking myself, “Wait a minute. What’s going on here? Is it creating a bifidophage?” This is precision medicine and this is forensics of the gut. You’ve got your microbiome this way before, and you’ve got it this way after. It’s the same patient and only a certain group of microbes are getting killed. You have to pay attention.
Then 10, 20, 30, patients later, we’re seeing this killing of the bifidobacteria. First of all, there’s no way I was going to publish this, because nobody would have accepted that, so I decided to submit it to the American College of Gastro as a presentation, as a poster. It got accepted at the American College of Gastro as a poster, and then it won the best research award as a poster.
All my colleagues called me and said, “I saw your data. That’s incredible. How do you think this is happening? The vaccine is supposed to be improving your immunity. We all know bifidobacteria is a huge part of immunity. How do you think it’s happening?”
Then I said, “I think it’s creating a bacteriophage or bifidophage.” What we noticed in the four patients that we followed, who were in amazing shape, we followed them for 90 days and then next thing you know, their bifidobacteria dropped to like zero—from a million to zero. It kept persisting.
There was a persistence in the damage, and not only at 90 days, but six months, nine months later. That was the thing that started making me panic. Then, as we were looking at the microbiome of newborns to mothers who were breastfeeding, we started noticing that there was no bifidobacteria in those newborns.
We asked ourselves why, because newborns are supposed to have a ton of bifidobacteria. Ninety percent of the microbiome of babies is bifidobacteria. We said, “How come these babies born to moms that are breastfeeding, and that were vaccinated have zero bifidobacteria? Is the spike protein going to the breast milk into the baby’s gut and killing whatever the baby’s trying to build?”
Because I was doing work on autism, I noticed one of the commonalities with autistic children is that loss of bifidobacteria. I said to myself, “Maybe that’s how it happens. Maybe you’re killing off your bifidobacteria and then two years down the road, your kid stops talking.”
It was serendipitous, really, this whole discovery, because understanding what the microbiome looks like in Alzheimer’s in old people, in overweight patients, in Parkinson’s and in healthy kids brought it all together for me.
I had a different vision than everybody else. I was looking at how to treat the virus knowing something nobody knew. It was kind of epic, but at the same time I knew, “They can’t prove me wrong. If they are going to try to prove me wrong, let’s see why.” But this definitely needs to be looked at, because the microbiome has such an importance in neurological problems, in cancer, in Crohn’s, and in Lyme’s disease.
We just published two posters that were presented at the same college where loss of bifidobacteria was noted in Crohn’s patients and in Lyme patients. Bifidobacteria has a big role in disease, in my opinion, and we have to pay attention to what’s killing it.
Mr. Jekielek: Your hypothesis right now is that it’s the spike, whether the spike is coming from the virus or whether it’s coming from the vaccine, that this is actually causing this. It’s killing the bifidobacteria, which is creating a problem.
Ms. Hazan: Correct.
Mr. Jekielek: Is this where you’re hoping some serious research will be done?
Ms. Hazan: Yes, and we are doing something to try to prove that. It’s coming along. Obviously, this is research and it’s slow developing. Research is now fast. It’s one thing proves another, proves another, and opens the door to another. I’ll give you an example of research during this pandemic.
One of the things that I did myself was kill my bifidobacteria because I wanted to see what increases the bifidobacteria. I was the guinea pig. I was the guinea pig for the whole pandemic, first to see if I’m exposed to it.
Basically, I realized that I was drinking a ton of kefir, and my bifido was not increasing. I’m not really good at taking my vitamins because I’m stressed and I’m busy, and I’m not a pill taker. Essentially, I let it die, and I started testing my kefir and I looked, because we passed it through the machine, and we noticed that the kefir didn’t have bifidobacteria in there. Even though it says bifidobacteria.
I went to Whole Foods and Ralph’s. This is research, because here I am. I’ve just killed my bifido, and I’m trying to boost it. Why isn’t it increasing? Of course, it opens new research. I went to Ralph’s and Whole Foods, picked up all the products that said bifidobacteria in the back.
We bought 23 products. One of them was a $27 tonic water that had bifidobacteria in there. I said, “This has got to have bifido because it costs $27. I mean, come on. Anyway, we shook them up and took samples. Only three of them had bifido.
Mr. Jekielek: Actually had bifidobacteria.
Ms. Hazan: Had bifidobacteria.
Mr. Jekielek: Unbelievable.
Ms. Hazan: You become an aware customer. This is what research is all about. Research is about, “Why isn’t this happening? Let me figure out why this is not happening.” And, of course, it was because my kefir didn’t have bifidobacteria. How am I going to increase my bifido, if it doesn’t even have bifido?
I started doing my own stuff, like the fermented foods and all the stuff that I know how to do. Basically, I’m happy to say I’m back to my normal bifidobacteria. This is what research is about. It’s finding one thing and then opening up a new science, a new research to discover. That was fascinating.
Mr. Jekielek: You hinted at blowback because you were doing research using some of these products, which were really greatly maligned, let’s say.
Ms. Hazan: Yes.
Mr. Jekielek: What happened? What was the impact on you, on your practice, on your work?
Ms. Hazan: Doing these products you mean?