Shawn Buckley
So Dr. Hazan, welcome to the National Citizens Inquiry. We begin by swearing our witnesses, so I’ll ask if you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Dr. Sabine Hazan
I promise.

Shawn Buckley
So also if you would please state your full name for the record, spelling your first and last name.

Sabine Hazan
Dr. Sabine Hazan, S-A-B-I-N-E, Hazan, H-A-Z-A-N.

Shawn Buckley
Now, Dr. Hazan, I’m going to just briefly introduce your qualifications so that the commissioners have some idea of your training. In 1992, you obtained a medical degree from Dalhousie University. In 1992 to 1995, you then did internal medicine residency at the University of Miami. In 1995 to 1996, you did a clinical motility research fellowship at the University of Florida, 1996 to 1998, clinical gastroenterology fellowship. You are the founder and CEO of ProgenaBiome which is a genetic sequencing lab which analyzes the microbiome. You are the CEO and principal investigator at Ventura Clinical Trials. You have conducted over 200 clinical trials.

Now I have a short-form CV, but you’re going to be providing us with an electronic version of your long one. And you indicated to me, I think it was at the Senate you testified, and you just wanted to make a point of how many clinical trials and how much research you had done. So you basically taped your CV together, and it just goes on and on and on. So you’re going to be speaking to us about some research matters. You’re going to be speaking to us about some of your treatments for COVID-19. And when we were discussing having you come, you agreed to prepare a presentation for us. So I’m going to ask you to launch into that presentation now, Dr. Hazan.

Sabine Hazan
Perfect. And thank you for showing that. Every trial is a two-liner. So I’ve done a lot of clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies, including cholesterol drugs, reflux medications, Alzheimer medications, postpartum depression studies. I mean, you name it, we’ve done it. And I’m in a family of nine doctors. My sister is actually who brought ivermectin to the market when she did the study on lice and scabies. And she brought HARVONI to the market for hepatitis C. My husband’s a cardiologist. My other sister is a dermatologist. So we’re in a family of physicians that have been doing a lot of clinical trials.

So when I stepped into COVID, my interest was really to save my family and to save myself, because I realized that I’ve been doing clinical trials for a number of years since the beginning at University of Florida. And what I realized doing clinical trials is I couldn’t always trust pharmaceutical companies. And I’m the type of person that’s not really a trusting soul to begin with. And when people are coming at me with a new medication that has been tested on animals for one week, I kind of start freaking out, because you’re not going to put it in my kids when you’ve only tested it in animals studies for one week.

So a couple of disclaimers, as you mentioned, and I’m going to just say it. I have done clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies for almost three decades. I opened ProgenaBiome which is a genetic sequencing lab, but I have to emphasize it’s a research genetic sequencing lab.

We are at the beginning of the microbiome. The microbiome is your stools in your bowels. It is the bacteria, the viruses, the multitude of microbes that surround us, that are on our skin, that are in our nose, in our eyes, in our guts, in our lungs. So the microbiome is not a simple thing to just say, “Oh, well, take this pill and then you’re going to be fixed.” The microbiome is a multitude of microbes. Some of them we have no idea what they even do. So it is very much research. And everything I’m going to present here today is my research that I did for me, for my family, for my patients, to really see the truth.

And I embarked on ProgenaBiome because I saw that in the clinical trial business, we were heading into the fecal material in capsules. And I couldn’t understand how we were giving fecal material, even though we were seeing as gastroenterologists amazing work with Clostridium difficile, which is a bacteria that we get from taking antibiotics and people have diarrhea and die from it. So we were doing a procedure called fecal transplant, where we were taking stools from a healthy donor and putting it in a non-healthy. And we were seeing a lot of stuff in the clinical trial, I mean, in the clinical world as GI doctors.

But when the product became a pharmaceutical drug without really understanding: What does the microbiome do—? I had achieved improvement in Alzheimer’s by fecal transplant. And I wanted to understand: What am I seeing when I improve a patient and he can remember his daughter’s date of birth. And this was just one patient, N of 1. So ProgenaBiome was really started to understand what I was seeing on the front line as a gastroenterologist doing these procedures.

From there, it was very difficult to— It’s very expensive to start a genetic sequencing lab, a research genetic sequencing lab. So we started a foundation basically to raise money, and everything that I do and did, I put into my research. I’ve not made a cent. When I stepped into COVID with my protocols, I’ve not made a penny in salary. I’ve just put everything into my research, and this was expensive research. But this was a research that was needed and you’re going to see this research.

It was also a research—and you’re going to see through my testimony—that was very much interfered with. My voice was censored. I could not recruit for clinical trials that I had submitted to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration]. And remember, I was a clinical trial doctor for pharmaceutical companies, so I had a portal with the FDA to submit clinical trials. So the foundation was really created for that. Also from there, I joined doctors that were like-minded. And so we joined together.

One of the first papers that kind of got us noticed during the pandemic was the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 in the stools, whole genome sequencing. So because I was doing a procedure called fecal transplant where I was using stools from a healthy donor to a non-healthy, one of my focus was: What if I’m putting stools that has COVID in my patient, am I going to kill my patient? So is there even COVID in the stool? So the first thing I set myself to do on March 2020, when the first patient came in with COVID in California and around America, was really to basically get stool samples from patients.

So I started collecting a lot of stool samples from day one. I was on the front line. I didn’t even have a mask because there were no masks. And frankly, a mask was $20 at the time, and I didn’t want to spend $20 on a mask. So I said, “Well, you know what? I’m in this, let me just go in.” And we started testing. And to our surprise, the samples that we analyzed, all of them that were PCR positive ended up having COVID in the stools by whole genome.

So I want to emphasize here the difference between a PCR, which is what you’re all familiar with, and whole genome sequencing. So PCR is just a piece of the virus. They found a common piece that the virus has. And they basically say, “Oh, well, this piece, if you have it, then you have COVID.” Whole genome sequencing is really the whole entire virus. So PCR is, for example, if I have A, B, C, D, E, F, G and that’s my sequence, it’s just the A. The whole genome is really the entire alphabet of the virus.

And so we took patients, and it was kind of funny because it was sort of a challenge between my scientist and me, because he felt that I was spending a lot of money and may not find anything. And when we found that the patients that had positive PCR in the nose had positive NGS in the stools, that was really a revelation. We discovered that actually close to July 2020. It was actually June, July, something like that. So we ended up wanting to publish that. It took us six months to publish this data.

What we discovered was actually that the virus was different in different families. We also discovered from here that different spike proteins occurred. So what you see here on this graph is really the sequence of the virus at the beginning back in 2020. And you’ll notice there’s four spike mutations, but some people have two, some people have none, some people have four. And that’s how the virus evolved, right? When you look at the whole genome, you can actually follow the evolution of the virus. You can follow the mutations closely.

And so when I saw that, the first question that came to me was: Well, how is the vaccine going to work if the spike protein itself is mutating into multiple combinations, right? Because a vaccine occurs when you have a microbe that is A, B, C, D sequence. You match the vaccine with A, B, C, D sequence. So the vaccine recognizes the bug that’s A, B, C, D sequence, right? If the bug is A, B, C, E and your vaccine is A, B, C, D, it’s not going to match; therefore, you’re going to catch the bug. And so you’re constantly catching your tail, trying to catch that new virus.

And this is why the idea of vaccinating against viruses is not a really a good idea because, unfortunately viruses mutate more than bacteria. They mutate and they don’t have a mechanism to stop the mutation, right? So you’re constantly doing the research, but by the time you’re on the next sequence, you’re giving last year’s vaccine for this year’s virus, which is not matching. And this is why vaccines for HPV have not really been successful. That’s why vaccines for EBV (Epstein-Barr virus), herpes, HIV have not been successful.

So one of the interesting findings, and when you look at the patients with the symptoms that had COVID in their stools, one of the first observations that we did is: When we took the stool sample at day one, when the patient had a positive nasal swab, the NGS was positive in the stools. However, when we had the nasal swab that was positive at day one, but then the patient gave us the stools at day five, some of those patients—three patients—we noticed that they had a negative NGS.

And so, you know, inquisitive minds want to know. I called the patient and said, “What have you been taking that, you know, your virus was in your nose at day one, but now it’s not present at day five.” And two of the patients said, “Well, we took the protocol of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.” So that was interesting. So remember, I had a stool assay that was whole genome sequencing, which is very expensive to do. Each one of these stool samples is roughly about $3,000. So you can imagine when you’re doing 10 samples, that right there is $30,000. So we started looking at patients that were on hydroxychloroquine before and after.

So first off, I just want to say, because we kind of had an idea of what hydroxychloroquine was doing to the virus in the stools, we started a protocol with the FDA. So as I was looking for COVID in the stools, I started writing at the same time, “What is the best formula that I can think of with Dr. Borody.” Dr. Tom Borody is the father of fecal transplant. He was my partner in this when we started looking, because we said, “Well, here Dr. Borody has brought hundreds of patents for pharmaceutical companies. He’s developed a lot of products for pharma. And here I was a clinical research site with a portal to the FDA and a genetic sequencing lab.”

So I felt, well, you know what, this is divine intervention. Maybe I’m supposed to do this. Let’s figure this out. Who better than us to try to figure out how to survive COVID. And here I am on the front line without a mask, and my whole family of doctors is in the hospital. I’ve got to figure this out. So I started with a protocol: hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, vitamin C, D, and zinc. It was written in mid-March. It was submitted to the FDA April 2nd. April 3rd it was approved, within 24 hours. In fact, an FDA agent called me at three o’clock in the morning to tell me to go on to do these clinical trials.

It was surprisingly stopped because of system pressures. And also there was a big movement on Twitter that tried to discredit the trial, because it was initially an open label trial. Because I felt, “Well, we’re in the middle of a pandemic. I cannot ethically give a placebo to people. I must give open label.” Let’s turn off the fire and then go back and see what is working. Go back and say, “Well, what did stop the fire? Right? What did stop COVID?”

But instead we were suppressed in— I’ve done clinical trials, like I said, for almost three decades and we couldn’t even advertise. In the midst of a pandemic, I could not advertise on Facebook, Twitter at the time, Instagram, my accounts were completely blocked. I had 15 Facebook pages, California clinical trials, LA clinical trials, clinical trial recruitment. These were all the way we recruit for studies, for other trials. If I posted one ad for psoriasis study, I would get 10 patients in one day. The fact that I could not recruit one patient for my own clinical trials in the middle of a pandemic was a problem.

So we were stopped. We went back. We said, “We’re not going to do hydroxy, Z-Pak open label. We’re just going to do hydroxy, Z-Pak, vitamin C, D and zinc versus vitamin C, D and zinc on its own.” And then from there we started doing the clinical trials. As we were doing the clinical trials, we were putting each patient on a monitor. Now in full display disclosure, I had an intent. You know, I’m from the clinical trial world. So here I thought, “Well, Dr. Borody and I are going to start a product.” We called it HAZDpaC, but we said, “We’re going to put it in full disclosure for the world to see on clinical trials.gov so as many people could see our protocol.”

So the vitamin C, D and zinc that you all saw was all from those protocols on April 2nd. And when we posted it on clinical trials.gov, which is a site that is seen by a lot of doctors when we are thinking of like, “How do I treat psoriasis; let me see what pharma is doing,” right? Most pharmaceutical trials, when you look at them, they have a name, but you don’t know the compounds. I could have easily said HAZDpaC for treatment and kept it secret, and would have probably succeeded in putting a product to market in secrecy. But my intent when I posted that on clinical trials.gov was really to save as many people, to kind of send the message to all the doctors.

So when we discovered as we were doing the clinical trial that we couldn’t recruit, it was difficult, we couldn’t even raise funds to do these clinical trials. Nobody wanted to invest in a cheap solution. And so what we did is we basically started looking at the patients with halters. And then there was all this—not censorship but, you know, I want to say lies.

You know, when I was writing hydroxychloroquine and Z-Pak on my electronic medical capture for patients to get their prescriptions at the pharmacy, right away there was a thing that would say hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin cannot be written in combination because of cardiac problems. I was putting my patients on Holter monitors and I never observed a QT problem in those patients.

So right away I said, “What is going on here? Why can’t I recruit? Why am I blocked? Why is it that these things are being told about hydroxychloroquine and Z-Pak?” I mean, these drugs have been given to millions of people with arthritis, and all of a sudden they’re bad. So we decided: So you know, at some point you kind of think like you’re on the wrong side all the way, and then you start going, “Okay, well let me look at what I’m doing,” right?

So I started looking at the microbiome and I started taking my assay where I had found COVID in the stools, and I decided: So we took 17 patients, we took their stool sample at baseline, and then we gave them hydroxychloroquine, Z-Pak, vitamin C, D and zinc. And we noticed that the virus disappeared between five to eight days of consuming those products, okay. The only patient that the virus remained in that we had a very difficult time with was a very immunosuppressed patient. That week, he had so many other viruses in him, it was very difficult to eradicate this one.

So right away I started seeing the picture. I said, “Well, obviously it’s killing the virus. Maybe that’s how we stop the pandemic. But the problem is hydroxychloroquine. So from there—and that’s again in full disclosure—I created a patent, because I said, “Well, I know the data. I figured out what’s going on with hydroxychloroquine.” So we applied for a patent in July, 2020. We got it in December of 2020 because we showed the patent bureau the data that we treated people with hydroxychloroquine, Z-Pak, vitamin C, D and zinc, and they survived, and then we gave hydroxychloroquine–two pills if they were exposed to COVID.

So for example, you were in a family and you had a family member that had COVID and you didn’t want the other family members to catch COVID. We said, “Well you know, the half life of hydroxychloroquine is 30 days, meaning it stays in your system for 30 days. Let’s give one pill at the evening and then one pill in the morning. And then let’s give vitamins C, D and zinc,” which was also one of my protocols, by the way, which was a prophylaxis protocol of hydroxychloroquine—two pills if you were exposed to COVID only, and then vitamin C and D versus vitamin C, D and zinc. That data is going to be coming up, but unfortunately, like I said, it was very difficult to enrol. So we couldn’t get our 600 patients for both trials. And on top of that, you know, it was very expensive to conduct these trials.

So again the patent by the way, incidentally I was offered $10 million for it. And then somebody else offered me $40 million for it. I did not sell it because I felt that it would mess up with my research. So you saw the testimonial of Dr. Tess Lawrie earlier with Dr. Hill. There are some doctors that there are things more valuable than money, and that is truth. The truth is important, the truth to save my family. It would not have helped me to have $40 million in the bank account if my kid had had a complication from a vaccine or had, you know, gotten something.

So it’s important when we do research and when we take on this role as physicians to stay ethical, to stay righteous, to not be bought. And I think for me at the beginning, I didn’t stand up and talk because I was too busy doing the research.

When my research was censored—and I’m going to show you how this happened—you’re going to realize that there were pressures that stopped all this. And unfortunately, those pressures interfered with research. And when we interfere with research, we affect all of us. Because unfortunately, at some point, you’re going to catch a disease. And then you’re going to go back and say, “I could have, should have, would have, and I didn’t because I was too greedy, because I was too busy looking at the price of the stock instead of focusing on my health or my kid’s health or my family’s health.” Interference with research should never happen and should have never happened. And on top of that, research has been biased by politics and money.

So from discovering about the hydroxychloroquine: Now the problem with hydroxychloroquine and one of the reasons that I didn’t really push it, is because I’ve realized—and having been on the front line, this is why you want to listen to people that have actually touched patients with COVID, that have actually looked at the stools with COVID, collected the stools—the problem with hydroxychloroquine is unfortunately, it does kill the virus, but it also kills your microbiome. So it is a great solution. And this is where during the pandemic, not everybody was the same. Nobody is the same in medicine.

We like to remove the idea that physicians, “Well, we don’t need the physician, we’re just going to have a guideline and we’re going to put everybody in a box.” Well, the microbiome taught us that we cannot put everybody in a box because we’re all different. And if we’re all different, we have a different microbiome. That means that different microbiome absorbs different foods, takes on different medications. Different medications work for some people, others don’t work for other people. Vaccines may work in some, may not work in others.

So to put everyone in a box and say, well, hydroxychloroquine was the answer. No, because unfortunately in the young population, I don’t want to kill the microbiome of the young. I want to improve. So I’m going to find a solution that’s safer for the young as opposed to the old person with cancer.

This is where you look at your data and you become a physician and you say, “I’m going to stratify. I’m going to look at my patient, I’m going to take a history,” right? That’s the point of medicine. This is why you go to a doctor. Otherwise you go to a robot that can tell you you’re going to have cancer and tell you that you need to be on this chemotherapy. No, you go to a doctor so they can play detective to understand what category should they put you on? What medication should they put you on? And is hydroxychloroquine a proper drug for you, looking at the other drugs that you’re taking? Because unfortunately medications, you know, interfere with other medications. So it’s very important to take a history.

Now the finding of COVID in the stools was very important and was very critical because of the fact that one little girl at the beginning of the pandemic, I had treated her family in March and the parents had COVID symptoms. The kids never really had symptoms. So I didn’t really treat the kids. I just treated the family. And three months later, the little girl develops Tourette’s-like syndromes.

And by the way, I encourage everyone to go to the video of Dr. Hazan with Tourette’s. You’ll see this video of this little girl. She was having tics. She was non-functional, not able to go to school. I had a suspicion that possibly COVID was still in her gut. I took a stool sample. I looked at her microbiome. It was pretty empty, and it took us six months to actually isolate COVID in her, but we started her on treatment with the assumption that she probably had COVID in her gut. This little girl is treated, cured, graduated high school and is going into nursing.

So this is the importance of genetic sequencing: being that forensic that looks at the patient, that takes the history, understands that the kid was exposed to the parents. Maybe there was a virus in there. Going after that idea of, “Let me look, I’m sure it’s there,” and then finally finding it and going back and saying, “Well, no wonder she improved with my treatment, because here was the virus before and here was the virus disappeared after. And here was her microbiome completely empty, and now here it is repopulating with new microbes.”

And no, we didn’t give her poop. We just treated her with different medications. It’s actually the art of refloralization, a term I coined to basically change the term fecal transplant because refloralization is more about reintroducing the flora. And there’s so many ways to introduce the flora into your gut.

So this is a recent paper that we just published, and this was an interesting finding. I was reluctant to publish it, especially because there’s so much criticism out there. This was a paper that we had a donor that was donating stools for her mom who had a condition that needed a fecal transplant. And basically I was concerned that she may have COVID. And I tested her stools and, lo and behold, we found COVID in the stools of this donor, which is the reason why I was developing this assay to begin with—to find COVID to make sure I wasn’t giving it to her mom.

The reason this was an interesting case is because we actually found the original strain of the virus in there. And if you recall from the first couple of slides, the virus was much longer, a couple of locations, and then four spike proteins, and then the other regions. This one had like one spike protein and then what you see there, which is basically the ORF1AB and ORF8 regions.

So why this is significant for me anyways, and why I published it, is because one of the things I noticed during the pandemic was the concept that husband would go get vaccinated because he had to go to work, but then wife didn’t want to get vaccinated. So husband comes home and then a week later, the unvaccinated wife gets COVID. And I always wonder, “Well, how did that happen,” right? The wife didn’t leave home, the wife was at home, you know, the husband is vaccinated. Is he possibly—and that whole idea of shedding.

So the whole idea was: Well, if the husband comes home and he’s basically creating this, you know, COVID like sequence in his gut, it is possible he goes to the restroom and then the wife goes to the restroom—remember, I found COVID in the stools, which kind of tells you there’s possibly a fecal oral transmission. Every time you go on an airplane and you catch a virus or COVID, you have to ask yourself, “Is it from the toilet that is spreading out fumes and therefore spreading into this airplane that is not really well ventilated,” right? So the fecal oral transmission is definitely something we didn’t pay attention enough during COVID because then if we did, we would say the bathroom is probably your number one way of getting the virus than, you know, wearing the mask, et cetera.

So why this is important again, finding this original spike, is because this could be the transmission of why the vaccinated could be giving it to the unvaccinated. And this is an important concept, because never in history have we seen— Because I remember at the beginning, “Well, the unvaccinated are the problems,” right? We heard our politicians, you know, criticize the unvaccinated. But here’s the thing, the unvaccinated stood out there and did not catch COVID. I have numerous, thousands of people that have called me, that have texted me, that—Shawn, you being one of them—that have said, “I was exposed to so many people. I never got COVID.”

By the way, I analyzed a lot of those stools because I wanted to know. This to me is the answer, right? To know: How does a person go outside exposed to everyone and never catch COVID? That’s called a resilient microbiome. So a resilient microbiome that’s able to survive, we need to understand why they’re surviving, what microbes are making them resilient, as opposed to someone that basically just got vaccinated four times and keeps getting COVID. So this is an important—

Shawn Buckley
Dr. Hazan, can I just interject, because I just want to make sure I understand. Because you were saying, “Wait a second, it’s significant that we found the original Wuhan strain,” and I’m just extrapolating and guessing why it’s significant. Because viruses mutate quickly, and when you find the original Wuhan strain in this person, it shouldn’t be there—except that the vaccine is for the original Wuhan strain, which is a strong indicator that it’s shedding from the vaccine. Because you’re not expecting to find the original virus within the fecal matter. Did I guess that right?

Sabine Hazan
That’s correct. And we didn’t find that in one patient. We actually found it in two patients, again, because these stool samples are extremely expensive, and to go super deep to find this original Wuhan strain was significant for me.

Shawn Buckley
Right, because you’re just not going to find it unless it’s coming from a vaccinated person who his body has been taught to create the exact Wuhan strain.

Sabine Hazan
Correct. And here’s the thing. This would have not been significant for me, and I wouldn’t have even published. I would have said, “Well, it’s probably noise,” right? But the fact is over and over again on the front line—and again, this is why you want to listen to your doctors that are touching patients with COVID, and not the people that are reading the papers and criticizing papers—you want to talk to the doctors that are taking the history over and over again.

It was that situation of: Grandma got vaccinated, holds baby, baby gets COVID. Husband comes home, was vaccinated, a week later, the wife gets COVID. So that idea of shedding, I can’t understand it. Obviously it’s very difficult to prove scientifically. But if there is the original Wuhan strain, and as you said the virus mutates, we should not have in 2021 an original Wuhan strain in the stools. That’s why I published that.

So now, with that idea of the Wuhan strain and COVID, one of the questions that I had while I was looking at COVID in the stools: So when we look at genetic sequencing, we have an option. We can do shallow sequencing, which is we look at the microbiome at the surface, or we can do super deep sequencing, which kind of gives you the species. You want to see the species, you want to see the viruses.

And when you do sequencing, there’s multiple pipelines that you can do. You can do a deep sequencing to look at the viruses which will not show you COVID. Or you could do a deep sequencing focusing specifically on COVID. Or you could do a deep sequencing looking at the bacteria. In other words, when I have COVID in my stools, what are the bacteria doing? Or you could do a deep sequencing looking at fungus, okay?

So basically, it’s different pipelines, it’s different reagents. Just to tell you these reagents are about $5,000 to $6,000 on their own. So when you’re analyzing a stool, a few stool samples, and you’re using a reagent of like $5,000 or $6,000—I think they’ve increased it to like $6,000 now—you have to really say, “Okay, well, I’m prepared to look and find something, or maybe not,” okay?

So one of the things that while I had found COVID in the stools was: If COVID is in the stools, what is it doing to the microbiome? What is the bacteria? Remember, bacteria is 20 times bigger than a virus, right? You count on bacteria in your gut, your gut immunity. When we talk about immunity, immunity starts in the gut. So bacteria is much bigger than a virus. So you count on strong bacteria to essentially get rid of the virus. So if COVID is in the stools, what did the bacteria look at?

So I’m very big on looking at families, right? This is my family portrait. I mean, this is a family portrait, but I’ve done my own family portrait to look at the differences between my husband and me, my husband and my girls. And this is where I discovered, well my husband and I are very similar, and I’m very similar to one of my daughters, and my husband is very similar to my other daughter. So our microbiome, we share microbes, we live with family. That microbiome is really our signature microbiome in the family.

When I looked at families where one person had COVID: So this is a preexisting microbiome signature in a discordant family. You will see the first column is the kid that had COVID, okay? And then the other three didn’t have COVID. What you notice is there’s a bacteria that the kid is lacking, which is called bifidobacteria. And when you look at the mom, the mom had bifidobacteria, the brother had a lot of bifidobacteria, the sister-in-law had a lot of bifidobacteria. They lived in the same quarters, they didn’t wear masks, they shared foods, yet those three people never got COVID, but the kid had COVID.

So we started looking and saying, “Well maybe bifidobacteria is the bacteria that’s protecting some people. Maybe that’s your resilient microbe,” right? So then we looked at another family where there were five people, six people, and five of them had zero bifidobacteria, had severe COVID symptoms, but the newborn barely had any symptoms and had a lot of bifidobacteria. We then published a paper because we increased our pool where we said, “Okay, well this is a great finding of bifidobacteria. Let me focus on the bifidobacteria,” right? So we decided to do 72 samples.

So in that, you will notice that the majority were severe COVID patients and they had zero bifidobacteria. The mild to moderate had some bifidobacteria, the mild especially, and then when you compare it to the orange on the graphs, you will notice those are my high risk exposed. Those are the doctors, your politicians that were out there exposed to everyone, never got COVID, your nurses that were not masked, never got COVID. Well, she had a lot of bifidobacteria.

Bifidobacteria was one of the microbes we discovered. Another microbe was called Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. So if you were low in bifidobacteria, like you’ll notice some people in the orange were low in bifidobacteria, they made it up with Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. So that was protecting them. The severe patients had zero Faecalibacterium prausnitzii or very low Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. And I call it Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. Some people call it fi— I can’t even pronounce it. So these names are very difficult to pronounce, but this is my pronunciation.

So if you look at the severe patients, they had zero bifidobacteria and very low Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, as opposed to the high risk that had high bifidobacteria or high bifidobacteria and high Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. The other thing that they had was a high diversity. And then the other thing we noticed that they had was a low bacteroides level.

Bacteroides, which is a group of microbes we just recently presented at the Anxiety Association, seemed to be linked with anxiety. And if you’ll recall during COVID, a lot of patients were very anxious. Is it because they had high bacteroides, low bifidobacteria, and therefore were super anxious? And is it because they had, you know, a dysbiosis that we like to call it, which is leaky gut, that they got severe COVID to begin with? So this was an important paper.

Another important paper that we just published recently is Bifidobacteria Against COVID-19: A Mother and Her Newborn’s Gut Microbiome. So this was an anesthesiologist who chose not to get vaccinated, and she was pregnant. And she saw the data, and she didn’t feel comfortable getting vaccinated with the poor clinical trial data out there. And she goes to the hospital, so I started collecting her stools after delivery.

One of my big projects and research is actually collecting the microbiome of moms after delivery and newborns so that I can see the progression of the newborn’s microbiome compared to the mom’s microbiome, especially because I’ve done studies on postpartum depression. So it would be interesting to kind of see if there’s a signature microbiome in postpartum depression, analyze the women that are pregnant that get postpartum depression versus not.

So this was not a postpartum depression by any means. This was an anesthesiologist who basically was in the hospital and delivered her baby. I collected the stools on day one of mom and newborn, and you could see that the mom had a little bit of bifidobacteria there, 1.5% relative abundance. So we look at relative abundance. That means how much bifidobacteria do you have compared to the rest of the microbiome. Lo and behold, this mom on day 14 developed COVID because she was in the hospital. She took ivermectin, and this is probably why you’re seeing a bump on her bifidobacteria up to 19%. On the flip side, you’re looking at day one of the baby, and you could see day one of the baby, the baby doesn’t really have much, right? It’s a sterile gut. And then you could see the bifidobacteria has gone up to 61%. And then on day 14, where she had COVID and was on ivermectin, the baby had 74% bifidobacteria.

We followed this baby. The baby had one sneeze when the mom had COVID. The mom was very asymptomatic, barely any symptoms. She went back, we followed her at three months and six months. So those are the graphs that you’re seeing. And you could see that she dropped to 4.5% with her bifidobacteria, and now she’s at about 3.5%. But the baby went from 72% to 95%. And this is a non-vaccinated mom whose baby is thriving and is doing great. And this is what we like to see.

So when you look at babies and newborns and moms, what you see is that newborns have a lot of bifidobacteria. One of the reasons that I clued in on bifidobacteria at the beginning of the pandemic is I had this database before COVID, because I was analyzing stools. We’re doing 57 clinical trials on the microbiome and disease, so we had a lot of samples before the pandemic. So I got to see firsthand that newborns had a lot of bifidobacteria and old people had very little or none.

So when you look at the process of aging, the process of aging is really this loss of bifidobacteria. So this is important, because as you age, you get disease. You know, bugs come in, microbes come in, viruses come in. Is that the reason that we’re aging faster, because we’re losing our bifidobacteria faster? And is this the reason that newborns are really resilient? You know, they have viruses, but they get over them really quickly because they’re super strong in bifidobacteria.

What is bifidobacteria? Well, most of you don’t know it, but I’m introducing it to you guys because it is a billion-dollar industry of probiotics. In fact, your probiotics come from newborn poop. So if you look at the probiotic market, of course, they don’t take the poop, but they, you know, extract the poop and the microbe and then they culture it, and then they give you this beautiful probiotic in a capsule. Unfortunately, half the time, they kill that microbe on the way to giving it to you in a capsule because remember, microbes in the gut are anaerobic. They don’t breathe oxygen. You know, God made us very complex, and unfortunately, these microbes are not supposed to be given as capsules, and it’s very difficult to reproduce them.

It’s also very difficult to use these capsules and implant them into the area where they need to be implanted, which is your cecum, which is, you know, at the end of your colon. So if anybody’s had a colonoscopy, you put this long tube, and you end up all the way in the end of your colon. And then if you take it by mouth and you go through from the stomach, you have to take this pill and it has to go through your esophagus, your stomach, your small intestine—which if you stretch out the small intestine is the size of a tennis court—and then somehow it has to make it to the cecum. So it’s not very easy to get those probiotics in a pill to go all the way to your cecum. So needless to say, you know, $15 billion industry. I think it’s up to like $30 billion.

Interesting little fun fact about bifidobacteria is that it actually decomposes plastic. So are people having plastic in their gut found microplastic because they are losing their bifidobacteria? There’s actually a shortage of bifidobacteria. And there’s a shortage of good probiotics in the world because of that. So they sell you the idea of probiotics. They sell you the label, the marketing, the data that was done really well initially in clinical trials. But unfortunately, when it gets to mass production, you’re not being sold what was in clinical trial. And that’s the problem with research in general, is once it gets to the market and in mass production, it’s not necessarily the same quality. And I’m going to demonstrate that.

So we started following the bifidobacteria level. We decided to look at: Well, who else has loss of bifidobacteria? And you know, Lyme disease is very similar to long haulers. It’s very similar to people that have autoimmune processes. And what we discovered is actually Lyme patients have loss of bifidobacteria. Now is it because they’ve been over-treated with antibiotics going after that little Lyme, that little bug? Or is it that they started off with a gut dysbiosis to begin with because they killed their gut to begin with and therefore got Lyme disease from there?

The other population that we noticed had a loss of bifidobacteria was Crohn’s disease. So this is a study that we did looking at patients that were on medications versus patients that were never treated with Crohn’s versus a healthy control group. And you could see that the patients that were naive to treatment, never got treated, had zero bifidobacteria. So is Crohn’s disease a loss of bifidobacteria as well, like Lyme disease was loss of bifidobacteria?

The next paper that we showed, which we presented at the Digestive Disease Week last year, was this loss of bifidobacteria in invasive cancer. So we compared the microbiome of people that were having squamous cell cancer—for example, thyroid non-invasive cancer—to patients that had colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, head and neck cancer, spread to the lymph nodes, spread to the liver, to the lungs. And we discovered that one of the key features was this loss of bifidobacteria.

So is cancer a loss of your immunity, your bifidobacteria, and therefore maybe the reason the chemo drugs are not working completely is because they keep killing the microbiome? Maybe we should focus on building the microbiome while we are killing the tumour. Remember, with COVID, what I did was what I do with C. diff, right? In order to treat C. diff, which is that bacteria I said people have diarrhea, is I give Flagyl and Vancomycin to kill everything in the gut. Then I take the stool from a healthy donor and I repopulate the gut. So in essence, it’s blasting your microbiome and then boosting your microbiome.

What did I do with COVID when I thought of hydroxychloroquine, Z-Pak, vitamin C, D, and zinc? Hydroxy, Z-Pak I knew killed the virus, but also killed the microbiome. Then I added vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc, and I’m going to show the data on vitamin C anyways. Vitamin D, we will show it later. But vitamin C, D, and zinc was meant to kind of build up the microbiome, right? So it’s that same principle where you have to blast and then boost. And unfortunately, we’re not there in medicine because this is new research, and new research takes time to be published.

This was an abstract in May. We’re 52 papers behind on writing the data. This data is crucial for doctors to see when they start thinking about: How do I treat cancer? How do I treat Lyme disease? How do I treat anxiety? We now showed an assay that can show us what anxiety looks like in the microbiome. Now we can work with doctors and say, “What do you think would treat anxiety? Let’s see if it does treat the microbiome and changes that formula, that balance between microbes.”

So what increases bifidobacteria? So everybody, of course, thinks the natural response is, you know, “Bifidobacteria: let me take a probiotic.” Unfortunately, here are the questions you should be asking, and science is about asking questions. Question number one is: Is the label real? Sixteen out of 17 probiotics on the market say they have bifidobacteria in there, but actually do not. One out of 17 has.

And now there’s the second question: Is that one out of 17 dead bifidobacteria, or alive? Remember, alive is supposed to be anaerobic. It doesn’t breathe oxygen. So did I kill my probiotics when I put it in a capsule and give it to my patient? And therefore, is the probiotic not working because I’m giving it dead microbes? And what are those dead microbes doing in a gut that’s very much alive?

And then the other question is: Does that probiotic actually reach where it’s supposed to reach? Remember I told you the small intestine is the size of a tennis court. Did it break somewhere in your small intestine and therefore never really reach the cecum? Did enough of it reach the cecum?

Here’s the other question you should be asking: Did you take something with it that killed the microbiome? Did you drink those two glasses of vodka or five glasses of vodka the next day as you were trying to grow your microbes, and now you just wiped everything with five glasses of vodka? You know, are you taking foods that have pesticide in them that, well, you’re trying to be good, you’re eating green vegetables and you’re having your green juice and you think it’s amazing, but unfortunately you’re drinking a bunch of pesticides that is killing your bifidobacteria.

So it is very complex, and unfortunately because everybody— You know, I’m big on X and everybody asks me, “What probiotic? What should I do?” It’s not that simple. It’s not cut and dry because I don’t know what you’re doing. I don’t know in what environment you are living. Are you living in a house that’s full of mold? I don’t know these things. So I’m going to continue with: We published this paper that showed that basically loss of bifidobacteria was actually noticed in people that took the wrong probiotics that were not regulated. So the wrong probiotics is not good for you.

Another experiment that I did during the pandemic was actually looking at products on the market. I went to grocery stores and started analyzing in my area. I didn’t analyze the whole country, that’s why I’m not going to say which products it was. But in my area I analyzed products, 26 products, and we discovered that all those products said on the label: bifidobacteria—like your kefir, you know, of whatever company. And what we noticed, behind it was said bifidobacteria, but in the product itself only three products had bifidobacteria.

This paper got awarded at the American College of Gastro, because it actually made the physicians understand that not all probiotic drinks are equal, not all yoghurts are equal. Vitamin C, we published actually increases the gut microbiome. So this is the data of before and after patients took vitamin C and increased their bifidobacteria. Bovine immunoglobulin, the blood of the cow spun around that clear liquid actually increased bifidobacteria. And this paper was presented at ACG [American College of Gastroenterology].

Ivermectin: Dr. Tess Laurie was talking about ivermectin, how it’s a fermented product of a bacteria. Well, the bacteria is called Streptomyces, and Streptomyces lives in the same family as bifidobacteria. That’s why I started paying attention to ivermectin. What I was observing on the front line was that actually patients that were increasing their bifidobacteria were increasing their oxygen saturation. When I gave it to them with a fatty meal, I was noticing oxygen in the seventies and then went up to 92% two to three hours later. And my question was: I wonder if ivermectin is feeding the bifidobacteria somehow?

This paper actually was the most read during the pandemic and I had 47,000 views, which in the medical literature is huge. And sad to say, it was retracted. This is demonstrating the corruption and the censorship of research when a hypothesis is not even published, or [is] retracted. And the reason it was retracted is because in my paper were other papers that said that ivermectin worked for COVID. Well, I had published already. You know, those papers were not retracted at the time that I published. But even there, even if I quoted papers that were retracted, it doesn’t matter, it’s a hypothesis. I could quote Santa Claus if I want to in a hypothesis. The fact that that was retracted was a big no, no. And by the way, I knew the answer before publishing the hypothesis.

So from that, knowing all this on ivermectin and discovering that it actually increased bifidobacteria early on in the pandemic, we were the ones that started in July 2020 the protocol on ivermectin, doxycycline, zinc—again, in full disclosure on clinical trials.gov. I could have just called it Ziverdox like everybody else, like, you know, Pfizer called Paxlovid. You don’t know what Paxlovid is, but Ziverdox, I decided to put in full transparency.

We discovered ivermectin actually increases the bifidobacteria, but it’s short lived; it’s within 24 hours. We have not finished analyzing the data for long term. We’re still doing that to see if it is beneficial long term. However, the half life of these drugs is very important, how long they stay in your system. Ivermectin only lasts in your system 24 hours. So it makes sense that it would increase the bifidobacteria within 24 hours and possibly could drop it after 24 hours. So it’s very important to do the studies properly on these drugs.

But this is something that I observed and I documented and published, was the effectiveness of ivermectin-based multi-drug therapy in severe hypoxic patients. These were all patients that had oxygen saturation less than 90%. They all survived. By the way, I was conducting three clinical trials, high profile, with the FDA watching me on hydroxy, Z-Pak, vitamin C, D, and zinc. I didn’t know who was getting placebo, who was getting the vitamins and getting the treatment. Same with the ivermectin, doxycycline, zinc, vitamin C and D. That was a placebo control, so it was a full-on placebo. When the patients were crashing, it was my job to save them. And unfortunately, I had to watch these people very, very tightly and I had to give them everything.

No one died on my shift. I lost no one in any of those clinical trials that the FDA was watching. What I observed was critical, which was the increase in oxygen saturation while I was giving ivermectin in these patients. Why? Because actually there’s a hypothesis that it actually binds to the TNF alpha [tumour necrosis factor alpha] and therefore releases those toxins that give you that toxic shock in a way. So it’s almost like treating an anaphylactic reaction.

My whole point during the pandemic was: Why is the government telling me how to treat my patients? You know, it’s like the government telling me to not give epinephrine—“Oh wait, I’ve got to have permission from the government to give epinephrine for an anaphylactic reaction?” That makes no sense.

So the next paper that we published—which actually won an award at the American College of Gastro and unfortunately, never saw the light of day because it conflicted with the public health narrative—is Vaccines Affect the Microbiome: Specifically the Bifidobacteria. This was our study. We showed it before and after. And what we showed is it persists in damaging the microbiome.

So you can imagine, this patient has a high bifidobacteria, then takes the first shot, drops a little bit, then takes another shot. And then eventually they end up at zero being dependent on that shot, because unfortunately what’s going to happen is otherwise they’re going to get infected. And what you’ve seen with all these people that are getting COVID is really that drop of bifidobacteria and therefore making you immunosuppressed.

This is not a great slide because it’s kind of pale, but you could see in here, these are vaccine injured. We have over 150 vaccine injured that we’ve analyzed. Again, these stool samples are very expensive, so it’s hard to get to do these with a thousand patients. But out of all these vaccine injured what we noticed, the commonality is this loss of bifidobacteria. Not only the bifidobacteria, but the whole entire phylum of those people is wiped. And what we’re starting to observe is another phylum that’s slowly disappearing, as opposed to our super donor’s resilient microbiome that have a lot of bifidobacteria.

And lastly, I’m just going to show who I am. So I’ve kind of, you know, done a lot of clinical trials, but my research is acknowledged by the American College of Gastro. We’ve had three awards for our work on the microbiome three years in a row by the American College of Gastro, so I’m very proud of my team. Like I said, ProgenaBiome is a research genetic sequencing. We are here to see the data. It’s not for sale. And this is why I stepped into the pandemic to give you guys a glimpse of the microbiome and a new future and a new frontier that I hope we can explore without the corruption, without the censorship so all doctors can put their heads together and figure out this vast array of microbes that is surrounding us. Because believe me, the microbes will take over.

The process of dying is microbes consuming your body and putting you back to the dirt to be back with their other microbes. So if you want to understand how to live longer, you have to understand these microbes now before they put you in the dirt, and interference of research affects all of us. And why I opened ProgenaBiome and I didn’t sell out is because I knew at some point in my life, I’m going to have a disease. I’m going to be the patient. And I don’t want to be on my deathbed saying, “I could have, should have, would have.” So instead, “I could, I did, I would.” That’s it.

Shawn Buckley

Dr. Hazan, I want to clarify something. So you’ve described to us your research being interfered with. My question is: Prior to COVID, had you ever experienced interference with your research the way you did concerning COVID trials?

Sabine Hazan
Never, never. And in fact, I’ll tell you one thing that was really interesting for me. Prior to COVID, I had the FDA in my office investigating my trial. I never had a 483. A 483 is basically a form you get like a slap on the hand. I never had a 483. My trials were always, you’re basically following the ICH GCP guidelines [International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use Good Clinical Practice guidelines], et cetera.

I do an ivermectin doxycycline trial. It got inspected by the FDA and the agent was lovely and she noticed we didn’t submit a form to the IRB, to the regulatory board, and to the FDA. And this is just a form that’s a continuing education form, right? And she’s like, “Well, you know, I cannot blind myself and say that you didn’t do anything because you forgot this form.” And I said, “Listen, I expect you to report this because that’s your job. Your job is to find problems. So I respected that. What I didn’t expect is to have a 483 on a form that we forgot to submit.” Because a 483 is a big deal. It’s high, you’re not doing research properly. So that was one thing that was really interesting.

The other thing that was interesting: So somebody at the top, you know, directed that, in my opinion. But unfortunately again, that person at the top is going to be a patient, and interfering with research is going to affect them. The other thing was the advertisement. We could not advertise on social media for clinical trials. That’s never happened to me in years of doing clinical trials.

Shawn Buckley
Right? So there were two areas, both the FDA interference and social media interference, and we seem to be learning the government was involved with social media.

Sabine Hazan
And the other interference is really the delay in publication. That paper you saw on finding COVID took six months. The other paper of the lost microbes of COVID, which is basically a signature microbiome that could potentially be a marker of susceptibility for COVID patients, took eight months to publish—so delay in publication, also difficulty in publishing right now in high impact journals.

Shawn Buckley
And again, it might be helpful if you can then contrast that with pre-COVID so that we understand you were really—

Sabine Hazan
I did a clinical trial on an eosinophilic esophagitis, and it was in the New England Journal of Medicine. It was a great paper. It was a great research. You know, I’m publishing right now, trying to publish, the data on the messenger RNA affecting the microbiome, which won a research award at the American College of Gastro—and nobody’s interested in publishing that.

Shawn Buckley
And so that’s never happened before on any other topic.

Sabine Hazan
And it’s never happened to, you know, my colleagues either.

Shawn Buckley
Right. Okay, I think that contrast was important. I’ll hand you over to the commissioners to see if they have any questions.

Commissioner Robertson
I’m very excited that you’re here today. I found one of your papers and I was fascinated. And I hope that you can get these papers published. At this time, where can you get these papers?

Sabine Hazan
Where can I get them published?

Commissioner Robertson
Yeah.

Sabine Hazan
There’s a couple journals. They’re not high impact. You know, obviously my goal is to reach more physicians, so these high impact journals get us to reach more physicians. What I’ve come to find out is to actually reach more physicians, you just have to do a lot of conferences and speak to physicians directly. So I have 20 meetings this year alone where I’m speaking at Notre Dame, I’m speaking at different faculty. I just spoke at UCLA on anxiety and the microbiome. So unfortunately my work now is getting heard by physicians to physicians. But there are still a lot of papers that are ethical, that are publishing.

There is a movement that is retracting papers. And to me research is: basically everything is hypothetical. We don’t know anything. Until you’ve attained a cure on something, everything is hypothetical, right? And so what I find is: every research is good. Every research should be, if the research was done ethically. Obviously if a research, you know, they lied about certain things, you don’t want to put that out there. You know, a patient has psoriasis but really didn’t have psoriasis, that’s big negligence. But if a research is done properly and there’s something that could help other doctors, whether it’s right or wrong, I mean, research is about prove me wrong, right?

When I published that hypothesis on: ivermectin increases the bifidobacteria, and it was retracted, my main thing was “Prove me wrong—Hashtag-prove-me-wrong.” I mean, that’s what science is all about. Imagine if we stopped Madame Curie from publishing or Albert Einstein from publishing. Where would we be right now?

And even in the mistakes of the research, there are findings. Some of my greatest eye openers were from mistakes I’ve made. Even in the mistakes you find answers, because if everything is right, then where’s the discovery? Science is a field of discovery. There is no right or wrong in science. It’s either all right, it’s all wrong. We don’t know, and we’ve got to be humble enough to say, “We don’t know.” This is research.

And what we saw this pandemic was egos. We saw lack of humility and thinking that one way is the only way. And what we’ve discovered is that one way was not the only way because here we are four and a half years later, and we still have COVID amongst us. Imagine if we had caught it early, turned off the fire, and then gone back and said, “I wonder, how did I turn off the fire? What was the best?” Retrospective study, you know, that’s the way it should have been done.

Commissioner Robertson
I have one other question. I just want you to be clear that when somebody gets the vaccination, that spike protein remains in their gut and is passed out, and it’s producing the whole time it’s in the gut.

Sabine Hazan
So the data is not clear on the spike protein because the testing is not there yet. So for me to kind of say, “Yes, it’s in the gut,” there’s definitely data that shows that the spike protein is persistent. But as far as tools and testing of following the spike protein, it’s not very clear cut. So even what I demonstrated of finding COVID in the stools, even those two original strains early on, you know, it’s not clear cut. But it is, again, research that makes you start thinking, “Well, how is this happening?”

The message here is: How is one person having a vaccine and the other person that was not vaccinating catching COVID, right? It’s basically like—and I give this example at the beginning of the pandemic when people were accusing the unvaccinated of being the transmission, that they were transmitting—I said, “I’ve never seen virgins transmit STDs,” right? So how do you start thinking that an unvaccinated is the one that is giving, right? So.

Commissioner Robertson
Thank you.

Sabine Hazan
Welcome.

Commissioner Drysdale
I wasn’t quite sure when you were talking about the censorship and you were talking about you were prevented from advertising. Were you prevented by the FDA or the social media companies, or did you advertise and you got no response?

Sabine Hazan
No, no, no. I was stopped by the social media company. I was stopped. Like, my pages were—we could not advertise. I don’t know if there’s a program that basically blocked us, but we were not allowed. And it was misinformation, you know. Here I am, this was the biggest— You know, I found it so funny in a way, but I mean also so sad. Misinformation: I was doing the clinical trials. I was treating the patients. I was analyzing the stools. I was working with the FDA. Who’s giving misinformation? I’m publishing. You’re telling me I’m misinforming people? Who is misinformation are the people that are not touching the patients. Those are the ones giving the misinformation.

So when there’s a post—and I posted a hypothesis of ivermectin before it got retracted—and first of all, I was put in prison of Twitter for posting that. So basically my account was blocked. Luckily, I know some people in Twitter that basically put me back in there, some of my patients. And then the other thing that we noticed is basically there was that constant misinformation [banner] under everything I posted.

Commissioner Drysdale
Okay. So, I don’t know, I can’t quote you, but I believe you said that a lot of these papers were being retracted and there was an effort at foot to do that. Who’s behind that? Do you have any idea?

Sabine Hazan
So a lot of papers, there’s about 14,000 to 15,000 papers out there that are retracted. And you see them as being, you know, you saw the data from, like, Stanford and Harvard and you see them as fraudulent papers and falsifying data, and you could see these bars and they make it look like it’s basically been falsified, right? So there’s about 14,000 to 15,000. What’s interesting about these papers is they all go against the narrative that is meant to sell you something.

So that’s dangerous because if you’re trying to push a drug, a biologic, and now you’re removing everything else that is natural data, or data on ivermectin for example, then you’re putting everybody— So especially as you go towards a platform of AI, when you retract all these 14,000 papers, AI is not going to look at those 14,000 papers. It’s just going to go on what you’re giving AI, what you’re feeding.

So then there’s a movement that is trying to remove them. And this is why I ask everybody
not to be so hard on doctors, because really doctors are the victims here because they
were handcuffed. Not every doctor has the courage to be up here. I was trained to be a warrior. I was trained through my career as a woman, as a minority, to be a warrior, to speak. Not every doctor has that capability to stand up to the narrative.

And so when someone was asking Dr. Lawrie about other doctors, unfortunately a lot of doctors have obligations with kids, are scared, fear. You know, I don’t have fear. I trust God. And if you trust God, you jump in the Niagara Falls and you know he’s going to catch you, right? This is faith—faith above fear.

When fear takes over your life that you’re not living, you unfortunately are blocked. In California, we were not allowed to tell patients the side effect of the vaccines. Could you imagine? I know something and I am not allowed to say it, otherwise I could lose my license—otherwise I could have the Department of Health in my office.

And yes, people will say, “Well, you should have fought and you should have—,” but unfortunately not everybody has the means as physicians to hire a lawyer. The lawyers also were not excited to step in. And, you know, lawyers cost money to defend yourself, to go against the board. So it’s very easy for people to follow, okay—to be in a safer, cushier environment than being controversial and pushing this narrative.

Commissioner Drysdale
Did you tell me that some of the papers that you had that were retracted were actually hypothesis papers?

Sabine Hazan
I only had one paper retracted, the hypothesis paper on ivermectin.

Commissioner Drysdale
Now, maybe you can help me out with this. My understanding of science is that you see something and the first thing you do is you create a hypothesis that: “Maybe it’s this?” Then you do some testing and it becomes a theory, and then you test more. So what’s the effect of them eliminating you being able to publish hypotheses in that chain of events that science is?

Sabine Hazan
Because a hypothesis opens a door to a research, opens a door to a pathway. So for example, if I hypothesize that ivermectin increases bifidobacteria and I showed you that loss of bifidobacteria was noticed in invasive cancer, then you could start clinical trials on ivermectin in colon cancer, which is what we’re seeing. Because then you could say, “Well, you know what, Dr. Hazan said ivermectin increases bifidobacteria, and loss of bifidobacteria is found in colon cancer and invasive cancer. Maybe that formula can help colon cancer.”

And the other thing that you have to remember is there’s a movement of lack of transparency, right? A lot of these drugs, you don’t know what’s in them? For all you know, there’s ivermectin in some of these drugs, but they have a name that basically says, you know, XYZ, and they called it XYZ.

And so, you know, the FDA knows what XYZ is, and they do that to protect the business, right? Because otherwise everybody would create XYZ. And unfortunately the pharmaceutical company also has to make back the money, the billions of the millions of dollars they’ve spent on the research. So this is the way that the FDA in a way protects, but in that protection, there is lack of transparency. And I have no problem when you come out with a chemo drug for colon cancer and you want to keep it confidential, what’s in there, right? Because you’ve done the research, you’ve spent the money on the research. I have no problem with that.

What I have a problem with and what I had a problem with, and why stood up, and why I’m here today is basically giving a vaccine to the whole world without the proper research—with one week of animal studies, with very poor clinical trials, without informed consent. I have a problem with that.

Remember, my training as a clinical trial doctor, and Shawn showed you all those clinical trials that I’ve done, the one thing that the FDA cares about—and this is where you would get a 483—is if you didn’t get an informed consent. So informed consent is very important. Informed consent says: “I have talked to the patients, I have given the patients the time to ask me questions on the product, and then I have given the informed consent as a copy to my patient.” It’s a three-step process.

When we do clinical trials and we give people investigative products, we tell them, “Here’s the consent, go in an office, take 30 minutes to read it, circle everything you have questions, come back to my office, ask me the questions. And then if I’ve answered all your questions, then sign the consent everywhere, every dot, put your initials on every single page.” Then once the patient signs, I co-sign and then I photocopy the consent and I give it to my patient. That was not obtained during the pandemic.

So if I’m being dinged as a clinical trial doctor, because I’m bringing— You have to understand, a psoriasis product would not make it to market if the FDA found that I didn’t do informed consent. Why did a vaccine go to market without informed consent? Kids were lining up at the pharmacies getting the vaccine before the kids’ clinical trials were being done. That should have never been allowed. So that’s the problem.

Commissioner Drysdale
Well, you know, you touched on something here that I was asking a previous witness, and maybe I’ll ask it of you too. And that is: You talked a lot just now about informed consent. When you’re asking a patient for informed consent and you have knowledge that that patient is being coerced, blackmailed, forced by a third party, is that true informed consent? Are you obligated to accept that as consent, or are you obligated to take action or not accept that consent if you know it’s being influenced by a third party?

Sabine Hazan
You cannot coerce a patient. That’s against ICH GCP guidelines. There’s guidelines that are created for clinical trial doctors that conduct research. You cannot coerce a patient. In other words, let me give you an example: I did clinical trials. I do clinical trials. I mean, I still do it for companies that are legit. Now I’m blacklisted from a lot of pharmaceutical companies. So by the way, it didn’t help me to come out because it actually killed my business of doing clinical trials. I was doing very well doing clinical trials. So the fact that I came out was because I have to sleep at night.

So one of the things about consent and clinical trials: I get paid for bringing patients into a clinical trial. I get paid by the pharmaceutical companies to conduct and follow the patient on the clinical trial. If it was ever found that I coerced a patient— Even in the consent, it says a certain price you’re supposed to pay them. We have a problem as doctors when the consent [price] is too much, because then that’s a way of coercing the patient, because then the patient is coming into the clinical trial because he wants to make the money for the clinical trial.

So for example, right now there’s companies that are selling, you know, microbiome pills, right? Poop pills. And they’re paying their donors $500 per sample, right? Is that patient, that donor, going to really tell me the truth about his history if he’s getting as an incentive $500? Is he really suicidal? Is he not? Did he travel outside the country? Did he not? Did he use drugs? You know, most of these donors are college kids that are trying to pay for tuition, right? Is that kid, because the incentive is $500, is that kid really going to tell me the truth about whether he’s using drugs or alcohol? So coercion, you know, paying patients, trying to influence them, is not allowed.

Commissioner Drysdale
Well, let me ask it another way, though, because we’re getting to the answer that I’m perhaps stumbling towards, and that is: Let’s say you’re trying to get informed consent and the patient says to you, “Well, if I don’t do this, I’m going to get fired from my job.” Are you able to accept that as a—

Sabine Hazan
Ethically, no.

Commissioner Drysdale
Ethically, no.

Sabine Hazan
Ethically, no, because then that was the incentive. But unfortunately, you know, doctors were scared and the patients were scared and yeah, but ethically, no.

Commissioner Drysdale
One last question.

Sabine Hazan
Yes.

Commissioner Drysdale
Of course, your specialty, what it is, is the biome. You’re talking about the COVID-19 or the spike proteins being in the biome and the stools. Is it possible as well that it’s in other fluids from the body: you’re breathing it out, you’re sweating it out. Because you mentioned the word “shedding,” and are there other mechanisms for shedding apart from it being in the gut?

Sabine Hazan
So again, science is about hypothesis, so everything is possible. Yes, it is possible. Remember the virus itself, the spike protein actually goes on ACE2 receptors. We have ACE2 receptors in our blood. We have ACE2 receptors in our bowels. We have ACE2 receptors in our brains, in the heart. So anywhere that it can latch on, you know, it’s going to latch on.

So again, everything is possible in science. When you look at an experiment, you have to look at every single avenue where it could go right and every single avenue where it could go wrong, and then at the end, the number one thing is “Do no harm.” That’s what I was taught in medicine. If there’s one thing I was taught, is “Do no harm.” So, you know, we have to be sure when we give a product that this is the right way. And we have to be sure when we give a product to the whole entire world that this is the right way. Research was not done properly.

Here’s another thing. If a group of scientists are here speaking, going against this group of scientists, they should come to the table and discuss the research and each come out with their reasoning. The fact that this never happened— I sent letters to the NIH, I’m out there, I’m vocal. Why didn’t anybody talk to me, you know? Someone like Dr. Hotez, why didn’t he talk to me? I’m doing the research with the FDA watching me. I’m in the clinical trial business like he was, right? So these doctors are put out there to influence the public. And those doctors, I was blocked on X by Dr. Hotez and all those doctors that are talking about the vaccine.

Just because you have an idea that something is so clear cut to you, does not make it clear cut. And you have to be open to: “Hey, I made a mistake.” I’m the first person to tell you I may not know what I’m talking about. I’m the first person to say, “I may be right, I may be wrong. I don’t know, but I’m willing to look at it,” right? And then let’s look at it together. And if somebody tells me, “Well, you forgot this and you forgot this,” then I’m going to be the first one to say, “You know what? I made a mistake. I forgot this and I forgot that. Thank you for reminding me.”

The fact that we as physicians that were on this side were blocked by physicians and we couldn’t come to the table, there was a problem. That was a problem. That’s not science. That’s propaganda. That’s what we saw. This pandemic was propaganda.

Commissioner Drysdale
Well, in consideration of that roll of paper that Mr. Buckley rolled out on the floor and your many, many clinical trials that you’ve been involved with, if you were to consider the nature of these mRNA vaccines and consider the length of time under which they were tested, can you make a comment about that?

Sabine Hazan
If you talk to scientists who do animal studies on the mRNA, they will tell you that the rats are eating their arms. So that’s all I need to hear. That’s one. Number two: the technology may be promising, maybe, but it’s not there yet. It’s still very much experimental. It’s been in testing for many, many years. The fact that it came out just in time of COVID is just wrong.

And here’s the problem. Humanity cannot survive with one or two people in the planet. Humanity survives because of the diversity of the countries. The diversity of the people, like the diversity of the microbiome, creates a healthy human being. Diversity of humanity exists and allows humanity to survive. You kill off that diversity, you kill off humanity. This is what I’m seeing.

I will tell you that I’ve been analyzing stools now for the last four-five years, or five-six years almost. And what we noticed is a decrease in the microbiome of humanity. You know, bifidobacteria is disappearing. My whole platform is “Save the bif, and let doctors be doctors.” Because what happens when you don’t have bifidobacteria in this planet? Is bifidobacteria the reason we have so much plastic? Is bifidobacteria the reason we have an imbalance in the microbes of the planet and therefore all these, you know, climate issues—if you believe in the whole climate problem?

So we have to really look back at the microbes and we have to look at the microbes of not only us. Because we don’t live on a bubble; we live in a planet. My stools go into the ground and then feeds the ground that feeds the chicken that feeds the cow, et cetera. It’s a circle of life. You interrupt that, you kill off a bunch of microbes—you kill off that circle.

So I think this is a dangerous time for humanity when we are seeing, you know, newborns that are born with— I showed you a great baby that has a lot of bifidobacteria. It’s a difficult time in the world when babies are born with loss of bifidobacteria, and is that the reason that we’re seeing a climb in autism? You know, the rate of autism was 1 in 2000 in 1980 and 1 in 10,000 in 1970, and now it’s 1 in 33 in New Jersey. And it’s going to be 1 in 10 pretty soon. You know, what we do, we don’t do just to ourselves, we do to the future of generations.

The reason I stepped into this is not for me, but for what I see a hundred years from my life after I’ve gone from this planet. I’m not going to be here for my kids and their children, but I want to make sure that my actions today reflect on the future of my grandchildren, that my grandchildren are not autistic. I stepped into this because I didn’t want to be, like I said earlier on, I didn’t want to say, “I could have, should have, would have,” but, “I did.” And hopefully with my actions, my work, my, you know, ethics—hopefully I can give the courage to other doctors to stand up, to take a stage, to do what I did, to invest in their research if they feel that it’s strong enough.

I didn’t know that I was going to find COVID in the stools. It would have been great to have a commercial product out of that stool test of finding COVID in the stools, but guess what? The most important was finding COVID in the stools, which allowed the National Institute of Standards to look at the septic tanks, to look at the stools, which allowed gastroenterologists to look at the microbiome and to look at, you know, the gut for immunity—but also treating long haulers, because now we have a problem with the long haulers.

Commissioner Drysdale
Well, you know, I promised that was the end, but you’ve just said something I want to go back to.

Sabine Hazan
No problem.

Commissioner Drysdale
And you started out and then you said you had a hypothesis that you might find COVID in the stools, and then a lot of blood flowed out of that. What would have happened if your hypothesis would have been canceled at that point?

Sabine Hazan
I would have spent $125,000 on an experiment that failed, and I would have published it and said, “COVID is not in the stools.” Because everything is data. Finding COVID in the stools was great, but also not finding COVID in the stools would have been great too. So research is about, “Yes, I found it,” but it could have been a great paper without finding COVID in the stools. And believe me, it would have probably made my life easier, because I wouldn’t be up here and I’d be gardening in my garden and enjoying my kids.

You know, what people don’t realize is, the last four years have been hell for me because I wrote protocols. I had the FDA in my office, I had the Department of Health in my office, I had trolls after trolls, I had—you know, pharma is no longer really giving us clinical trials. And also the stress level of not being there for my family, for my kids, you know, taking care of patients, high risk, bringing the virus possibly to my house, giving it to my kids, infecting myself, infecting my parents, my family. This was not easy. None of it was easy. But it needed to be done because if it wasn’t done, you wouldn’t have had all this data. It needed to be done. Somebody needed to do it.

God chose me, maybe because I’m just that bulldozer that’s just not going to quit and probably a—you know, S-H-I-T stirrer. But that’s the only way you get to the truth.

Commissioner Drysdale
Isn’t that your profession?

Sabine Hazan
That’s mine, and that’s my book too.

Commissioner Drysdale
So thank you. Thank you, doctor.

Sabine Hazan
Thank you. Thank you.

Shawn Buckley
So there being no further questions, Dr. Hazan, thank you so much on behalf of the National Citizens Inquiry for being willing to come and testify as a witness. We so appreciate your testimony.

Credentials

Dr. Sabine Hazan is an accomplished gastroenterologist and clinical researcher with over 25 years of experience. She obtained her medical degree from Dalhousie University in 1992 and completed residencies and fellowships in internal medicine, clinical motility research, and gastroenterology. Dr. Hazan is the founder and CEO of Progena Biome, a genetic sequencing lab specializing in microbiome analysis. She is also the CEO and principal investigator at Ventura Clinical Trials, where she has conducted over 200 clinical trials for various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hazan comes from a family of nine doctors and has made significant contributions to medical research, particularly in the areas of gut health and the microbiome. Her work has been recognized with multiple awards from the American College of Gastroenterology.

Summary

Dr. Sabine Hazan testifies about her extensive research on COVID-19 and the gut microbiome during the pandemic. She describes her discovery of SARS-CoV-2 in stool samples using whole genome sequencing, which led to insights about virus mutations and potential treatment approaches. Dr. Hazan discusses her clinical trials involving hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and other treatments, as well as the challenges she faced in recruiting patients and publishing her findings.

A key focus of Dr. Hazan’s testimony is the importance of bifidobacteria in the gut microbiome. She presents research showing that low levels of bifidobacteria are associated with severe COVID-19 cases, as well as other conditions like Lyme disease, Crohn’s disease, and cancer. Dr. Hazan emphasizes the potential of treatments that increase bifidobacteria levels, such as vitamin C and ivermectin.

Dr. Hazan expresses concern about the impact of COVID-19 vaccines on the gut microbiome, presenting data suggesting that vaccination may decrease bifidobacteria levels. She also discusses the challenges of probiotic supplementation and the need for more research in this area.

Throughout her testimony, Dr. Hazan highlights the importance of open scientific discourse and the dangers of censorship in medical research. She describes instances of interference with her work during the pandemic, including difficulties in publishing papers and advertising clinical trials. Dr. Hazan calls for more transparency in medical research and emphasizes the need for doctors to be allowed to practice medicine without undue interference.