Ask Dr. Drew - 6ft Social Distancing "Made Up" Says HHS Insider Dr. Paul E. Alexander w/ Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 169

Episode Date: January 17, 2023

“I was there,” says Dr. Paul E. Alexander, recalling the room of medical authorities in charge of the frantic early-2020 response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Alexander says he resisted the proposals of “social distancing” and “lockdowns” but was ignored, despite his extensive experience in epidemiology. Now the former science advisor to the HHS alleges that the media and CDC – in decisions motivated by politics – ignored data showing immense harm was being inflicted upon millions of kids by lockdowns and school closures. “All we did was we shifted the burden of morbidity and mortality,” says Dr. Alexander, “from the affluent persons in society… to the poor in society, the marginalized. Women suffered with lockdowns.” Dr. Paul E. Alexander holds a PhD and has graduate-level training and experience in epidemiology, evidence-based medicine, and research methodology. Dr. Alexander is a former Assistant Professor at McMaster University in evidence-based medicine and research methods; former COVID Pandemic evidence-synthesis consultant advisor to WHO Geneva-PAHO Washington, DC (2020), and former senior advisor to COVID Pandemic policy in Health and Human Services. Follow Dr. Alexander at DrPaulAlexander.com 「 SPONSORED BY 」 • BIRCH GOLD - Don’t let your savings lose value. You can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it. Claim your free, no obligation info kit from Birch Gold at https://birchgold.com/drew • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get 10% off with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. Hundreds of millions of people have received a COVID-19 vaccine, and serious adverse reactions are uncommon. Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician and Dr. Kelly Victory is a board-certified emergency specialist. Portions of this program will examine countervailing views on important medical issues. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.  「 ABOUT the SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 WITH DR. KELLY VICTORY 」 Dr. Kelly Victory MD is a board-certified trauma and emergency specialist with over 30 years of clinical experience. She served as CMO for Whole Health Management, delivering on-site healthcare services for Fortune 500 companies. She holds a BS from Duke University and her MD from the University of North Carolina. Follow her at https://earlycovidcare.org and https://twitter.com/DrKellyVictory. 「 GEAR PROVIDED BY 」 • BLUE MICS - Find your best sound at https://drdrew.com/blue • ELGATO - See how Elgato's lights transformed Dr. Drew's set: https://drdrew.com/sponsors/elgato/ 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 For over 30 years, Dr. Drew has answered questions and offered guidance to millions through popular shows like Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Dr. Drew On Call (HLN), Teen Mom OG (MTV), and the iconic radio show Loveline. Now, Dr. Drew is opening his phone lines to the world by streaming LIVE from his home studio. Watch all of Dr. Drew's latest shows at https://drdrew.tv Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

BetMGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long. From tip-off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with the sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with BetMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM. A sportsbook

worth a slam dunk. An authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 As always with Kelly Victory today, it's Dr. Paul Alexander.

He's a PhD epidemiologist with experience in clinical epidemiology, teaching epidemiology, evidence-based medicine, and research methodology. Former assistant professor at McMaster's University, Canada. And he also was serving as an assistant professor in evidence-based medicine and research methods. Former COVID pandemic evidence synthesis consultant advisor to the World Health Organization and former senior advisor to COVID pandemic policy in the Health and Human Services. He was around when the stuff was going down. When stuff was hitting the fan, he was there. And today I was so shocked by some of the stuff he told us last time.

I was just sort of stunned. I want to hear more detail today. And of course, he's always full of good information and updates. Kelly Victory is here as well. Let's get right to it. Our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre. A psychopath started this. He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction, fentanyl and heroin, ridiculous. I'm a doctor for. Where the hell you think I learned that?

I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people. I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat. You have trouble, you can't stop and you want help stopping, I can help.

I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. In addition to the bio I mentioned to you guys, Dr. Alexander is part of the Wellness Company. We'll tell us about that. It's a new model for health care. And he has a book, Presidential Takedown. Caleb, if we could put that, there it is. Really again, chronicling what happened

during the early days of the pandemic. So he also has a sub stack. It's Alexander COVID News. Alexander spelled as usual. So let's get Dr. Alexander in here. Paul, welcome. Hi, Dr. Drew. Once again, thank you.

And Dr. Victory, it's an honor and a privilege to be on your show. Your show is always so informative and it's very different. So I'm privileged to be here. Thank you very much. Well, it's informative because of our lovely guests and I always walk away with, it's informative because of our lovely guests. And I always walk away with, it's interesting. I go down the rabbit hole with everybody.

And I listen to all this new information that so many of our guests have given us. And I walk away and then I think about it for a couple of days. And I always walk away with significant change in my understanding of what has gone down. And last time I spoke to you was no exception. And there was one part of your last interview that just blew my mind, which was the part, the story of social distancing and six feet being invented out of whole cloth. I wonder if you could take us through sort of more, who who were the players what was the department where were the what room were you in how long did they think about these things where did they get

the idea from in the first place do you remember all that well i mean well first of all again thanks for having me and um i think dr drew what we what we could say today after three years is that every single thing that was done in the Trump administration, in the pandemic response, and still the Biden's administration, they've been wrong. Nothing. The lockdowns, the school closures, the social distancing, the business closures, the mask mandates, nothing is supported by actual science. We can't find studies that underpin these policies, and that is one catastrophic situation by itself. For example, like the social distancing issue, I remember Dr. Redfield worked as the director of the CDC. His main office was in Atlanta. But because of the nature of the pandemic and the response, a lot of the task force

members had to go across. Health and Human Services, where I worked, that building is opposite the Capitol building. And the task force members had to brief Congress almost daily. They'd have to go next door to the White House almost daily. And so the decision was made that all of the agencies, FDA, CDC, et cetera, would have sub offices in the building that I worked in. So Gerard, Han, Redfield, the whole group, they would be in the building, my building, daily. And because Alexei is always the head of health and human services, they would be interacting with him

almost daily, and the assistant secretary and all of the other directors. So I had the opportunity, it was kind of unique to meet them and to talk with them and to be in meetings. You have to understand, sir, that there are things that for executive privilege and confidentiality and stuff, I just cannot discuss. I'm not even saying-

I'm not saying it's bad or it's good, I'm just saying the way it is. I had to- It just is. Yeah. I understand. Yes. Good.

But there are things that I've tried to say, and there are sayings that you read in between the white spaces of what people write, there's so much being said. So I remember around the time, so it was around July, we had a meeting with my directors and Dr. Redfield was one of the attendees with Dr. Hahn, et cetera. And after we were walking, he always has his aides with him between security and his assistants. So they were walking to the elevator on the sixth floor. That's where we were. That's where the boardroom office was. And, you know, I became friends with Dr. Redfield. You know, I always thought he was a decent guy and smart, smart person. People had reservations about his work in HIV and all. I was interested in that because I just came there

as a scientist dealing with the COVID issue. So we'd be talking back and forth about everything possible. So I asked him, we were talking about social distancing in the meeting and I said, you know, Dr. Redfield, you know, can you all share with me the studies and the science that we used in the United States to come up with the six feet social distancing rule. And, you know, as we walked and we got to the elevator, you know, he looked at me and he almost chuckled and he said, science, research, almost para.

He said, there's no science to back that up. You know, we made it up. So, you know, I thought he was joking because he had this way of speaking that he would chuckle a lot. He's a very, very friendly, a good guy, a nice person to talk to. And I said, made it up pretty much. Made it up, Dr. Redfield? What do you mean made it up? He said, yeah, we made it up. And then he explained.

He said, you know, we had this meeting because remember I arrived in DC at the Trump administration in me they had already formed the task force around February March and the social distancing who had been set so so so so I said so okay how do you all make it up and then then he basically said, you know, well, in the meeting, the task force was present. So I assume he meant Berks, Hahn, Girard, Adams, the whole group of them, and other scientists too. and they bandied around one foot. Some suggested in Task Force 3. Some suggested 9.

Some suggested 6. Some suggested 12. And we were still struggling whether it was droplet infection or aerosolized infection. And we still didn't have our arms around that, even though it was pointing towards aerosolizing transmission so we felt collectively that six feet sounded good so we agreed on six feet and six feet was it so so i said so that's it you say yeah that's it and you know something dr dr ju you know what was fascinating to me is you know um about a a few months after that, I think Scott Gottlieb was being interviewed. Dr. Scott Gottlieb, I think he was the prior commissioner of the FDA also. he said that in his own words that he knew from from uh verified sources that the social distancing rule was made up well yes because i was there also so when he said it i knew if i

ever told this story people would think well no no that couldn't be true dr scott gottlieb actually corroborated what i'm telling you here. They made it up, and it's true they made it up. The extraordinary, them making up a recommendation is sort of, I get it, they're doing the best they can, but the fact that it became,

thus saith the Lord, and the entire world adjusted their behavior, their operations, their operations. The little stupid dots with the six feet on it are still all over the airport, all over the Starbucks. It is the most insane thing ever, given that we totally undid our lives to follow a policy that had no basis in science whatsoever. Well, I mean, even today, like if you ask two simple questions, has anyone involved in the pandemic from day one

to day even in the Biden administration, so three years, any agency ever done one basic cost-benefit analysis? You will never have a response like this or any decision- making like this without cost benefit analysis to understand alternative courses. Or risk reward. Yeah, risk reward. Look, the vaccine is the same thing. They're unwilling to do any risk reward sort of a... That's all I'm asking for. How can you do informed consent without risk-reward information? You can't do it.

But all right, so Kelly will get into that stuff. I have one other thing I want to get some more sort of clarity on, which was the lockdown itself. So now I've spoken to a number of people where the evidence is very clear, and Dr. Fauci has now said it on the record in a deposition, that the whole lockdown idea came from China and that Dr. Fauci sent now said it on the record in a deposition, that the whole lockdown idea came from China and that Dr. Fauci sent some people over. They were literally hoodwinked by Chinese scientists

that I guess they were already associated with, so to speak, in terms of working on viral technologies. And that then became the other, thus saith the Lord, that had no basis, was strictly speaking a political maneuver on behalf of the chinese communist party had no evidence basis for it whatsoever uh they you know claimed success but i shouldn't there been a certain amount of healthy skepticism on part of the cdc and then that became thus saith the lord am I getting that right? Yes, because exactly correct. And the thing is that, first of all, we should not have believed what China said in terms of their success with it,

because even when you look at the epidemic curves from back then, you saw that curve flat with no infections. So it didn't look like any other epidemic curve, number one. Number two, from China, Italy followed that model, and they began lockdowns. And I believe then the United States started. We did it on March 16th. But at that point, Dr. Drew, there was no science. There was no study. There was nothing available to show that this would be of any benefit in curbing transmissions or death. In fact, WHO had written a guidance document in 2019 showing that lockdowns, et cetera, is not one of the strategies that you would use in a pandemic, influenza pandemic situation. In fact, Dr. Donald Henderson, who eradicated smallpox, had written

a paper about pandemic responding in 2006, and he has passed away, where he said that basically that the only thing, the only steps that we really take, and this is what we always is you isolate and you quarantine. Sick people. Sick people. Sick people, period, nothing else. You do nothing else. You leave the society alone and you deal, you basically, and that was part

of the Great Barrington Declaration, and that's what Scott Atlas, Dr. Atlas, and myself were saying. We were saying why did the white house simple what you need to do is isolate sick people you protect the vulnerable so that's grinding in nursing homes in your private you take steps which allow the complete vast rest of society to live free that's it and. We'll just call that plan, let's just pull a name

out of the hat, let's just call it Florida. Yeah. I'm not a medical doctor, but that's what I thought they should do. That's essentially what they did in Florida. Now, I understand. Now, listen, I want to be fair. You remember? I said it over and over. No, I know. I said the same thing. I want to be fair. You remember? I said it over and over.

No, I know. I said the same thing. I want to be fair that there was a fog of war. There was a lot of panic. They were using fear to cow the public. And, of course, the public freaked out. And, you know, there was some lack of clarity. And I get people were preparing for the worst case.

And, you know, I was very willing to comply with my leader's decision-making. But after six months of that, it got ridiculous. It got ridiculous. And the use of fear along the way began to disgust me. They're saying things like shelter in place. I mean, this is things you tell people when a nuclear missile is approaching. Where did that idea, where did that language even come from? Was that also from Washington?

Or was that just, we heard it a lot in California. Is that something that California came up with? That originated also from Washington, from Berks et al. and her team. And the truth of the matter is, Dr. Drew, that when you said that by about six months, look, two to three weeks out, by around the first week of April, second week of April 2020, we were already getting data across the world that showed that COVID was amenable to risk stratification and that baseline risk, your baseline risk was prognostic on your mortality and severity of outcome. Meaning we knew that there was a very steep age risk, age curve that very young was at appreciably minimal, if any risk compared to the elderly and that a focused protection

approach was needed. That's it. Not a carte blanche approach as they did. There was a 1,000-fold difference in risk of death between an 85-year-old and a 10-year-old back then. But they lied to us. Fauci and Birx still knowing this because we knew this. We knew the data already. We were actually getting data from China itself that was showing us that when Fauci went on the news and he said, well, we are equal. This was the one statement that hobbled President Trump's pandemic response. And I'm not absolving him from blame. I have to be honest. I'm not absolving anyone. I'm just

saying when they said that we are all at equal risk of severe outcome if exposed, irregardless of age and risk profile, that was a lie because how could you say a five year old and an 80 year old is at the same risk? And that was what stuck in the head of parents and women, particularly mothers. And everybody went particularly mothers that um and they everybody went nuts from that statement and they kept saying it and seeing it and people got people got scared and people start to act very rationally well let's uh speaking of rational let's bring somebody rational in here we'll take a little break and uh let's bring your friend dr kelly victory and so take a quick break and i'll get her right on in here.

So here we go. GenuCell has so many products that Susan and I love. Their XV Moisturizer locks in moisture, making dry spots a thing of the past, which is especially great with the colder weather, of course. And with the immediate effects too, you can see these results in as little as 12 hours. Guaranteed or your money back.

Susan loves GenuCell's Vitamin C Serum, the new deep correcting serum with lactic acid that hydrates your skin and reduces fine lines while preventing future wrinkles from forming. Don't believe me? Listen to Susan. I am a snob when it comes to using products on my face. The dermatologist makes a ton of money for me. But when I was introduced to GenuCell, I was so happy because it's so affordable and it works great. I was introduced to the Ultra

Retinol Cream, which I love at night. All the eye creams are amazing. People notice my skin all the time and I'm so excited because it's actually working. Take advantage of this New Year's promotion by going to GenuCell.com and getting 60% off now with a complimentary gift set when you subscribe to my favorite package at GenuCell.com slash Drew. All orders are upgraded to free shipping for the rest of the season. Use code Drew at checkout for an extra 10% off your entire order. That is Genucel.com slash Drew, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash D-R-E-W. My guest is Philip Patrick. He is a precious metal specialist, trains at University of Redlands. He has spent years as a wealth manager at Citigroup,

and his current position is with Birch Gold Group. So gold has always been somewhat of a safe haven, particularly in times of great turmoil. Much like our present moment, I imagine. Gold has always traditionally been a safe haven asset. Gold specifically has always been about wealth preservation, right? Gold has always held its buying power. You can look at as far back as you'd like in history and biblical times, one ounce of gold would buy somebody 400 loaves of bread. And today it does the same thing. So

it's a store of value. But I would say in times like this, as you mentioned, it's particularly important when you're dealing with things like 40 year high inflation, you know, the air that's coming out of a stock market bubble, these times in particular tend to drive gold and silver up quite significantly. If things are different, the solution needs to be different as well. So I encourage everyone to get informed. And we have a lot of good information here to help your listeners. Just a reminder, I am not a financial advisor, and I do not give out financial advice nor investing advice. Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business

Bureau, countless five-star reviews, and thousands of satisfied customers. Check them out now. Visit birchgold.com slash drew and secure your future with gold. Do it now. Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. This episode ends here. The rest of the show is available at drdrew.tv. There's nothing in medicine that doesn't boil down to a risk-benefit calculation. It is the mandate of public health to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population. This is uncharted territory, Drew. Kelly, victory I give you you Dr. Paul Alexander. Hey, Dr. Alexander, so happy to have you back and see you again. Thanks for being here. If you'll indulge me for a minute for the purpose of sort of forming these questions and where I'd

like to go in this 45 minutes and for the benefit of our listeners, I'm going to put the topics in three buckets, if you will, three categories of questions and issues I'd like to cover with you. The first bucket, I will call my data bucket. We have, as you well know, mounting evidence of adverse events from these vaccines. There's every day we see something. We first had data from the life insurance companies, then health insurance companies, and now we are witnessing young, healthy athletes dropping of cardiac arrest on national television. And the reason I think it's important to continue to expose that and address it

is because in my mind, these injections remain an ongoing clear and present threat to people. And therefore I think we are obligated to discuss it. So I want to talk about some things that fall into the data bucket. Bucket number two for me is accountability. And when I say that, what I mean is to really hold to account those individuals and agencies that were participant in this, whether it was pure fraud, corruption, malfeasance, incompetence. I don't know, but it certainly includes the pharmaceutical companies, the FDA, the CDC, medical institutions, and on and on. And the reason I think that bucket of information is worthy and necessary to discuss

is because without accountability, those people who have been harmed, and those people are many, have no recourse. They have no financial recourse and they have no legal recourse if we do not hold to account those individuals and agencies that were participant. And then the third bucket, I will call sort of the, how do we fix this? And what I mean by that is very smart minds, scientists, agencies, and a heck of a lot of money was put into developing the vaccines. It was into developing the narrative. It was put into the censorship and everything that went into silencing voices like yours and mine. And these same minds, I believe, must be brought to the table to unwind this, to figure out what are the possible recourses in terms of therapeutics? How can we, can we take the spike protein out? Is there a monoclonal antibody to undo this is there a drug

or drugs that we can employ to mitigate this ongoing risk so i will respectfully call you know bucket number three they this up how do we you know this is the how do we unfuck it bucket uh is bucket number three um so so those are those are dr. Kelly's three buckets for today. So let's start with bucket number one, the data bucket. I believe you would agree with me that we have ongoing evidence, mounting evidence, tragic evidence of ongoing harms. Talk just about the cardiac issues, this recent CHU study that looked at the massive increase in cardiac events, particularly after the second shot, and kind of catch us up to speed from your purview on where we are on evidence of adverse events.

Well, first of all, again, thanks, Dr. Drew, for allowing this balanced conversation and not just one side. So, Dr. Kelly, what you have raised is maybe the real elephant in the room, which is that we know that there's something wrong with the content of this vaccine. This, we call it gene injection platform, mRNA or DNA, that it is the spike portion of the viral ball that is the business end of the serious COVID. And it's that spike that the vaccine induces your cells produce that is causing a lot of damage in the body

in terms of damaging the vasculature, et cetera. And these studies are showing us repeatedly, and it's not one study and we have to keep reporting them, repeatedly showing us that there's a dose-response relationship in the sense that the more shots that you get, the higher the risk of reinfection, infection, reinfection, hospitalization, and death. And particularly what we are seeing is this is happening in males, but we also have some indications, too, from some research. There was this good study in Basel, Switzerland. I think Dr. Mueller and his team showed that there are extensive myocardial lesions in females post the mRNA shots. So it's raising a lot of concern too,

that it's not just the male young teens, et cetera, in that age group like 16 to 24, 16 to 25, but also females. And the data is clear right now that the spike protein is a problem. And there's another study just published. You mentioned the true study. There's one by Yonker et al. And what it has shown is that the free-floating spike,

they're finding free-floating spike in the system, in the bloodstream of persons who vaccinated with myocarditis symptoms. So we are connecting all of the dots and showing that there is a dose response. We are finding that the Moderna shot seems to be incurring much more pathology than the Pfizer shot, even though both of them are producing much more pathology than no vaccine. And it's a very troubling situation. There was this study by the Cleveland Clinic that I put out on Substack 2 by Schuster et al. And they looked at about 51,000 of their personnel in the Cleveland Clinic. And what they showed is a clear dose response, such that zero vaccine, persons who are unvaccinated,

had the lowest cumulative risk incidence of infection. And as you went up, and these curves, one by one, were so clear, that as you went to one dose, to two, to three, to a great number, three to four, that the risk increases. And so it's very clear now. And the problem is that the media, no one is covering these studies. Unless we write, you speak about it, Dr. Drew, bring people on his show. Unless we put out Substack now, my Substack, McCullough, these guys who are writing presently,

one of the key areas where people are just getting basic research, presenting it. I'm not even giving you as much as my opinion. I'm just explaining to you what the science shows, the key parts of the study. And it's very damning and very troubling, especially with the researchers come out. I think you mentioned about the insurance

industry in the United States showing so much excess mortality. I mean, we know that in 2020, that the virus itself, if there were deaths connected to this pathogen, it was due to the virus. We had no vaccine. But when you look at from mid-2021, 2022, we are seeing that the virus itself has declined, particularly in terms of lethality, and it's not contributing to the deaths. And the virus killed mainly elderly people early on. Now what we're seeing is the deaths that are happening are in younger people, but the virus is not lethal. And we are therefore making the cogent argument

that we have to connect it, that the common thread is this vaccine, the mRNA vaccine, the DNA platform, et etc and um I even read a study that InovaVax vaccine InovaVax platform that people were waiting on there is myocarditis post-shot yeah I saw that I saw that yes it's it's the spike it seems to be the spike protein seems to be the protein itself right that seems to and let me let me just say real quick i want to i want to get the balance thing again here quick um the the there was just a i read muller's article while you guys were talking and he it's very fair he doesn't know what to make of it it's all very mild but this is the first time they're prospectively documented

myocardial injury they just don't they're they're very careful not to draw conclusions from it, but there it is. The study's quite good. Number two, on the other side, there was a study, I think it was in JAMA a couple days ago, maybe yesterday, that showed some significant effect on hospitalization in the very elderly from the bivalent vaccine. So in the population most concerned, we're most concerned about, it seems like there's some benefit out there. Like I've said all along, I've continued to recommend that to my patients.

I've not seen adverse events. There is some suggestion that maybe the degree to which that spike protein is produced and the degree to which the metabolic machinery is geared up is dependent on the metabolic activity of the individual itself. And old people don't have a lot of metabolic activity, so they're not producing as much spike protein. Maybe that's why we're not seeing as much side effect. But go on,

Kelly. I'll leave it there for a second. I've got one other thing, but you go ahead. Well, what I was going to say is these are very, very complex issues. If you take just a subset of adverse events that fall under the cardiac moniker or label, I would tell you it's very complicated. We know, for example, now there are study by Lim et al out of Korea and another one from Thailand indicating that there may be some genetic predisposition to harm from these spike proteins, that not everyone is created equal. And this might explain why some people have these massive cardiac events following the vaccine or the injections while others do not. Why I'm excited about Covaxin. I'm excited about Covaxin, which is not a spike protein vaccine.

Right. But these are the things, these are the reasons why, as I've said from the very beginning and others have said from the beginning, there's a reason why the average vaccine takes six to eight years to come to market if it ever makes it at all. These are complex situations and questions that should have been addressed well before this was rolled out to the vast population, including all of those people who Dr. Alexander rightly points out were at such a de minimis risk from the virus itself. So, you know, but the reality is we have got to discuss these because these are, these injections represent an ongoing clear and present danger. We know from the data that they are dose related. And therefore I believe we are obligated to divulge this information and encourage people

not to get additional injections, particularly in light of the studies that, again, Dr. Alexander set out in Cleveland showing a negative efficacy. You're at higher risk to get COVID the more you get injected. So let's talk now, okay, Dr. Alexander, we have the myocarditis and pericarditis, and I would also put out there, I want to dispel the idea that there even exists an entity called mild myocarditis. It is, okay, there is no such thing as mild myocarditis, so people need to stop saying that. All myocarditis is serious, and the prognostic data is very,

very damning. Other than that, you know, we're all focusing, Dr. Alexander, on the cardiac issues, and those are clearly important. Where else is the data that you see on a daily basis taking you with regard to the large categories of injury that are happening from the vaccines? Well, I mean, when you look at the data, let's say at 30,000 foot level, you're seeing there's a lot of reporting on bleeding, bleeding disorders, clotting disorders, reporting of paralysis, neurological complications also. So it's not just localized to the cardiovascular system.

And our concern is that, you know, if you think about what we found from the very beginning, which is that this lipid nanoparticle platform particularly allows the payload to go, the messenger RNA to go everywhere and anywhere, and itself to go anywhere and everywhere in the system. And it stands to reason then that we will find across the human, across the body, that they're going to have a lot of complications. And the truth of the matter is that what concerns me is the more I read about the messenger RNA itself that's in those lipid nanoparticles, like these things that they did to it, like putting on caps on the ends of it so that it will not be degraded. It will increase the longevity of the messenger RNA. It will have repeated runs in the ribosomes, et cetera,

churning out spike constantly, substitution of the metal pseudo-uridine for the uridine to hide it from the immune system. So there are so many things that I don't think has been properly explained to us and that I don't think has been properly explained to us. And we don't really understand. And we are depending on like places like the FDA and the pharmaceuticals to tell us, but they're not. It's left up to us to speculate and to try and understand. And then when we do, we are called anti-vaxxers and insane people and that we are risking lives when we are not. We are trying to ask, look, today I put a study on Substack about a 21-year-old.

I think it's in queue, so it might come out around 10 o'clock tonight. 21-year-old Air Force Academy guy, his name is Hunter. He was vaccinated and he's on his way to class and he just dropped and he died. The question is, why can't we ask the questions? Why if we bring that to the forefront? I wrote a sub stack and I know others would because I found it in the news just breaking. Why can't we ask questions? I mean, what time in our lives have we ever lived where a 21-year-old male football player, I believe he was a linebacker, could be walking to class, the Air Force Academy, and just suddenly die? So we have all of these questions to ask, and we are just being attacked because, I mean, look at what happened with the NFL football player. They have many questions we can ask, but as we started to write and ask questions, we came into, and still the media will not question.

There's no one out there talking about that injury to the Buffalo NFL player from a vaccine point of view, as though it does not even exist. And we can't even get any accounting of what has happened. You know, what exactly happened to him? We have J.J. Watt, top NFL player, who he reported that it was going to be leaked, that he had to go get, he went into atrial fibrillation, he needed to go to get his heart shocked, et cetera. And he wanted to bring it out first. And then we got a subsequent report that he's retired. I mean, why? Why was somebody

at the prime? He's still very good at what he does, 33 years old, just suddenly retired after this medical situation. This is all private information, no doubt. And you want people to have their privacy. But even Dr. McCullough had said something recently that I agree with, which is because of the nature of this situation, it is a public health imperative that we know your vaccine status. Because if we know that, then other NFL, other sports team players could be informed. And look,

I published a paper on Substack that showed that with you at high risk of sudden cardiac death in a contact sport with myocarditis. So that raises the question. We know that myocarditis post this vaccine can be silent, can be silent. I'm not saying all are silent. I'm not even going there so people say, well, you're a conspiracy theorist. Where's the data? I'm saying it can be silent. I'm not even going there so people say, well, you're a conspiracy theorist, or where's the data? I'm saying it can be silent. So when I saw that study, I was surprised. I was saying, but look, this is almost like a smoking gun because it's saying that potentially, if you, I know you can get myocarditis too from the virus, but let's assume that you get myocarditis from

the shot and that you had silent myocarditis and no one knew, and you are playing contact sports, you are at constant risk this year, particularly last year, maybe next year for sudden cardiac death. Why can't we talk about it? Why can't we, why can't the NFL, as an example, set a policy that and they include it cost it might cost them a few bucks that every player held the balance of the season should be tested for myocarditis before they take the field well the the problem the problem with that is it is that that's be a cardiac MRI and they have a lot of false positives. So they're going to have to decide what to do with that.

But I would argue that it's still, they should err on the side of safety and do something like that. It's interesting to me that, uh, DeMar's case, they, we have still not heard what happened. So to me,

that means it probably wasn't commotio, right? They would have told us that because everyone ran to that immediately. I have a vague concern. I'm, I'm just wondering if this could have been a pulmonary embolus because he re-arrested and he had a lot of

respiratory sort of complications and if it were a pulmonary embolus, things get much more complicated, don't they, Dr. Alexander? Well, I mean, look, yeah, and I'm speaking as an academic scientist, I'll say there's so much that we don't know and that we need information, and that's the key.

If we shut out from information, we are left now to speculate because, look, using your term will you balance. All we want to do is to inform and share information. We want to help people. Help people. To help people. Help people. To help people. That's it. There's not a, you know, again, you have us saying it all the time, and I'll say it again.

I am not an anti-vaxxer, although in this era of COVID, I have now looked at vaccines in a very, very different light, in a very skeptical light. It's natural. And I'm very concerned about the whole industry now because it looks like a lot of, I mean, I've read before the dengue vaccine issue in 2017 with the vaccine and all of that. And so I know of all of these issues,

and I know the challenges that the industry has, but I think that it's incumbent. And look, Dr. Drew also said it earlier, so I'll just say what he just said, that how could you take something that takes 10 to 12 to 15 years? Well, I think it was Dr. Victory. Dr. Kelly, Dr. Victory said it, yeah. Yeah, to produce. And you bring it to us in four or five months and tell us that it's safe and effective. It is impossible.

It is impossible to do that under any condition. And I think that is where we are. We have been subjected to something that was not properly tested. And we don't know the sequelae. And that's a very frightening situation because you have everybody's running around with this thing in them and we don't know what to do, and we're depending on Dr. Zhu's show to bring balance to the discussion. And I'm very grateful that we are here. And that is why I think we are obligated to continue to discuss bucket number one, which is the data.

We have got to be allowed to discuss it. And the fact that they won't discuss it when it comes to cases like DeMar Hamlin and others and where they try to tell you this is private information and you have no right to know whether he's vaccinated, which is interesting since everyone had a right to know if I was vaccinated to get into any bar and restaurant in San Francisco. You know, you can't do anything without divulging that. But it's critical that we discuss bucket number one, this data ongoing, Dr. Alexander, because we don't have the answers yet. Yes, and just two things, Two things that we want to ask. One, when we look at all of the vaccinated nations,

high coverage nations in the world, they all have today one thing in common, increased infections and reinfections, hospitalizations and all emerging deaths, post-vaccine. And they have that common thread, vaccine. When you look at the Asian countries and the African nations with the lowest vaccine uptake, COVID vaccine, you see that they have the lowest infections. Omicron, BA4, BA5 just bubbled there a little bit, didn't even give them a challenge. This is like South Africa, et cetera. When you look at the excess mortality

curves, you see in all of these vaccinated countries, high vaccinated countries, excess mortality running consistently 10, 15 percent. We need to ask that, especially in 2021, the second booster, the third booster, you could see the infections track uniformly and then the death curve tracks. So why can't we have this discussion? Because we have data, you know, and we're not stupid. What the eyes are seeing is telling us something is wrong here and nobody wants to talk about it. And we just get attacked when we talk. But there's something wrong because between me, you, Dr. Victory, and Dr. Drew on this show, and all of his staff, I am sure we all know someone who got those shots and got sick, very sick, and some might have died. I know people who died from the shot, or shot.

And that's the key. It's there. It's not just an elephant in the room. We're actually living it. So we know something is wrong. so appreciated in this issue of accountability, holding our agencies, the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, and all of the individuals, and we all know who they are, accountable for their complicity in this debacle. And that is what it is. Let's talk about accountability. And again, I frame it this way, not simply for vengeance, but because we owe it, I believe, to those leagues of people whose lives and livelihoods were destroyed by what we did during this debacle. So let's talk about who you think, who are the big players in your mind who who need to be held to account? Okay, well, look, an account means, first of all,

I want it, it has to be no kangaroo court situation. It has to be proper, proper tribunals and legal inquiries, proper, proper judges, whatever you call them, judiciaries, whatever. And I want people like, come on, the government health side, I want Dr. Francis Collins, who's the head ofi's, whatever. And I want people like, come on the government health side, I want Dr. Francis Collins, who's the head of the NIH, Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of NIAID. I want Alex Azar, Rochelle Wolinsky, Ashish Jha,

Ralph Baric from University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, his involvement in gain of function research. I want Daszak from EcoHealth Alliance. I want Albert Buller from Pfizer, CEO. Stefan Bansal from Moderna. I think Sachin Rukin from BioNTech. All of these people, I want on everybody who've made policy and decisions across time from the Trump, and I work there, the Trump administration to the Biden administration. I want the people who made policy, made decisions that implemented these policies, their actions

caused these policies and authorized them and approved them. I want to understand what you were looking at. What is the data and the science? We need to see what you, because three years now from Scott Atlas to myself, to Bhattacharya, Gupta to you to McCulloch to Dr. Harvey Risch to all of us, we have spoken, rallied, written, published all of the science as it unfolded. Why we did that is so that no one can say that they didn't know. I can tell you from being in the administration, I wrote Health and Human Services constantly.

I wrote Dr. Hahn directly. I wrote Dr. Redfield directly. I wrote these people one-on-one. I knew them one-on-one because I worked there with them. And I told them, I gave them the science. As scientists from across the world gave me data and information, I shared with them about drugs, the treatment drugs, about everything,

about the failures of the lockdowns, about the failures of the damage that the masks would do to children, the ineffectiveness of the masks, that the masks were going to be a failure, school closures would be devastating and fail. I wrote. I could show you that I wrote if I wanted to.

And I even wrote, Hanan, across the government, where I saw all of the challenges with the Operation Warp Speed vaccine was, and that I warned them. I used those words, I warned you. I'm providing you a warning of the failures of this vaccine. If this is continued, that is continued. If this is not done and everything that I wrote, they still did. Wrong. So it became clear to me that these people had their own agenda. It's almost like they decided that we will bring a vaccine but let's

call it injection whatever you want to call it they will bring this entity doomed to fail from the beginning because that's what has happened what was that what what do you think that was this they had this they're this safety uber alice policy and then vaccine uber alice policy and then uh and then became aggressive if anyone challenged it what what do you think that was why was there this strange insistent on things that had no basis in science is that is that would cause them to double down on everything because they they didn't have the science to to sort of guide them? Well, first of all, just to finish with Dr. Victory, is that those people, I want them properly investigated in proper forums.

And if they can show that everything they did was fine and they did the best that they can and there was no malintent, then we have to celebrate people and hug them and make sure they get their pensions and celebrate them, praise them. But if we show that people did things that were reckless and did uncosted lives

and a court rules that, not me, a court, then we have to get accountability. We need to find them financially. We need to take very serious steps. This does not happen again. So to answer that question, I think that this erosion of freedom and liberties today, that they have this emergency powers declaration that they've now extended to April again, that they're keeping extending, extending. For you to do that, they have to fall back

on the fact that they still have infections out there and they still have hospitalizations, et cetera. So we are in an emergency. For you to remain in that situation and for us to have those, you need to keep this vaccine going because it is this non-sterilizing vaccine that is driving the invariance. Once you keep vaccinating, Dr. Drew, you know this, you keep vaccinating in the midst of virus circulating, you will drive the emergence of variants. And they are using that to keep this emergency going. So it's almost as though from the beginning, I mean, you could, people will say, well, you are conspiracy theorists. Well, no, I'm just trying to make sense of it. If you told me, Paul, how can you allow me as a government or us in government with ill intent, let's say, or power grabbing intent, we're drunk on power, just want power.

How can we go about that? How can we do that so we can implement the Gojiji powers and never let it go? I will tell you, well, you devise a pandemic like this, a virus comes around or a pathogen and you create a vaccine or an injection that you roll out while there's so much virus in the environment and you keep vaccinating millions of people rapidly,

then you will get variant. The virus will never be able to get into an endemic situation properly. And you will get new variants and you will be able to come to the public and say, look, we have this serious situation here. We need to continue these lockdowns, et cetera. You are creating the problem. The vaccine is creating the problem. And remember, I'm a student of good Vandenbosch. I mean, people find him to be very complex. I actually have to read his stuff five times sometimes. But I agree with him that there is a chance that we could drive the emergence of very virulent variants if we continue. And you might see it as a hypothetical, a theoretical risk, but he's not been wrong so far.

And that is a serious concern. And so I'm saying it's either ineptness or malfeasance that has gotten us here. Maybe it's a combination of the two. But there's some level level of I don't know if the word is scorn or malice or something because these people refuse to listen they had the science and the data they can't say they did not yet they did it complete opposite so I was speaking of speaking of you of you having written to these to these people and written and warned them,

speaking of writing, you have just written a book. And what I want to know is if your book covers these issues. There it is, presidential takedown. Do you cover this in the book or is it is it the science covered here or? OK. Yes, I cover a lot of things. I cover my view on a lot of the issues. And again, it's to the extent that that I'm privileged would allow me to say things, but I say things to the edge and I say things that people have not heard before, but I think the flavor of the book is this, that, you know, there's this view that President Trump lost the election because people stole votes. And I didn't want to get into that in the book as much as I did touch on it and say, well, you know, there's a potential that that did happen.

It looked like it happened. And I would want the fear investigations one day to show this, whether it did or not. I wrote this book from the point of view that President Trump was the CEO of the country and he should have fired Fauci on birth day one. Why he didn't do that, that was a problem. But what I was trying to say is that people worked against him and they worked against him in his operation of the pandemic response. And whilst in January 2020, he was unstoppable to be reelected, by around June, July, it became clear to even persons in the government as the election campaign was going that he was in a lot of electoral trouble and the internal polls and surveys were telling the administration

that it had to do with the lockdowns and the school closures people were devastated people were hurt people lost family people committed suicide people couldn't even bury their families, etc. So it hurt him and that's the key. But you see, I stopped to the water's edge from actually saying, well it was President Trump's actual fault and he should be 100% blame because I am giving him some benefit of the doubt. Some haters of Trump even will say, well, he probably has some mental deficit or he's just a lazy individual. And that's why the pandemic was such a disaster response. I am saying he's also a trusting guy and he trusted the counsel that he

had. He trusted the medical people because he was not a doctor and a scientist. He trusted Fauci and Birx and they, but they were not, they were not conducting the response in the way that the pandemic response would have been successful. And it actually turned out that way because there is not one, there is not one policy, there's not one step that they took was successful. Not one. And it is a devastating situation because as Dr. Ju. I think we lost people from the virus, but we lost a lot of people from what we did with the response. And above all, we lost a lot of our liberties and freedoms. But it's the collateral damage from the response that we're going to take many decades to recover from. Some modelers have said it will take us the rest of the 21st century. So 18 more years to recover, to get back to where we were.

So, I mean, I've seen, sorry. No, as you say, I am very much looking forward to reading the book and hearing your take on it. Obviously, I am a follower of your sub stack and you and I exchange thoughts frequently, but I'm looking forward to seeing how you've presented it. I do in the last few minutes want to do a quick dive into my bucket number three, the how do we unfuck it bucket. And again, by that, I mean, specifically, not the regulatory piece and this accountability piece, but some very, very smart people were involved in this, involved in the debacle. And I believe that people who are smart, if they turn their intelligence and their creativity

in the other direction, may be able to help us out of this disaster. Are you seeing anything from a scientific perspective? Are you seeing any talk about, is there a monoclonal antibody, for example, that attacks these toxic spike proteins? Is there a drug, is there a chelating agent, a electrophoresis agent? Is there some way, because the most common question I get asked by people when I'm sidelined is, is there any way to undo what I have done to myself? Is there any way to get this vaccine, these spike proteins out? Because they took the vaccine for whatever reason, and I respect people's decisions, whether it was by force or by choice. Are you seeing anything that's leading you to believe there is hope from a scientific perspective

to mitigate some of the risk? Well, I mean, Dr. Victory, from what I understand, I'm working with like McCullough and these people and Pierre Corian from FLCCC. Those protocols, those post-vaccine protocols, which promoted us detoxification also, I think we've been getting a lot of good response from people who are on those programs.

To say right now that the discussion is a formal discussion, I wouldn't say at this point, no. But individually as clinicians, I know people like Fareed, McCullough, all of these people out there who are treating patients are having a lot of success with people post-shot using the different variations tailored to individual patients to detoxify and to moderate the effect of the spike. And like I've heard Dr. McCullough said before, you know, sorry.

I was going to want to say that I also have some friends that have been working in this area. And what they have found is persistent spike particles in non-classical monocytes, whose job it is to go into the central nervous system and kind of mop things up and then go through a cycle of apoptosis. Those monocytes are not becoming apoptotic. They're persisting and elevating inflammation. You see elevated VEGF. They've been trying various techniques with some degree of success and getting people out of that, both through anti-inflammatory type medication for the brain, like fluvoxamine, that sort of thing, and also a series of different kinds of antiviral kinds of interventions to try to get those remnants out.

We don't know. The unfucket bucket is still a moving target. But I want to ask one more thing about the unfucket bucket, which is it seems to me that medical literature is one of the liabilities or one of the collateral damages in this whole thing. Somebody tweeted me about multisystem inflammatory disease in kids, and it was an article that was saying if you got more than three organ involvement, and it was an article that was saying, if you got more than three organ involvement, the outcome was very bad.

And it went on to talk about how common this thing is. And the pediatrician who tweeted me said, put it to rest, we need the vaccine. We gotta have it because kids get sick all the time. And I thought, wow, maybe this is the reason. I've been looking, I've been trying to understand why they're pushing the pediatric thing so hard. So I read the article,

and then I went into the medical literature for about 90 minutes and looked around everywhere, all the data on multi-system inflammatory disorder. And after 90 minutes, I literally could not tell if it was exceedingly common or exceedingly rare. I literally could not tell from what the medical literature had to offer me. And never in my career has there been anything like that in the medical literature. Something is dead, dreadfully wrong. I've, but Kelly, you and I have relied on medical literature our entire career is something is adulterating. And I'm, and this is back to the unfuck it bucket. I'm wondering if Paul, if you have any observations about that, if I'm seeing something real, and how do we get it back on track?

Well, I mean, Dr. Joe, look, I mean, Dr. Rich, you can probably comment on this too. From the word go, we've been writing scientific papers and submitting to journals, and we've all been getting rejected. And it's the most fascinating thing. We've written a paper on early treatment antivirals like hydroxy, ivermectin, et cetera. When we submitted to the journal, first of all, I'm sharing with you, they told us first they couldn't get no external reviewers to review. None. Nobody would accept it. They actually wrote us and said they sent it out,

and no doctors, scientists wrote back and said they will not review the paper. But we know that those words even are radioactive, but this is trickling into other topics in medical literature seemingly. Is that what's happening? Is that this editorial overreach has become... Yes. It seems that the COVID has revealed the underbelly of academic research and scientific writing, and it has shown us something that some of us thought was, but we didn't realize was,

which is that the journal publishing is a biased political system owned by pharma also. Look, Dr. McCullough and us, we produced a paper on myocarditis risk, I believe. That paper was on youth. And they had gotten the reviewers to review it and accept it. It was accepted. This McCullough, McCullough is the senior scientist on this paper. The journal editors accepted it also. So it went from reviewer to the editor. And then the publisher accepted it and published it.

We put it out on Medline, PubMed. And it ran there for about five days. And we started to cite it, to present it in conferences. And all of a sudden, it disappeared. It just dropped off. The journal removed it from PubMed. They removed the entire paper. And it was about one of the first ones on myocarditis. It just doesn't exist anymore. Now, we have the PDF, but that's what they've done. And it's a terrible. How do we unfuck it?

Well, we need to create these alternative publishing forums and formats and many people have been toying around with it and begin to tinker with it. But we need the right people with the kind of support for this because you need some investment, you need some support. But you have people like us, you all, me, we will write and we will even help edit, et cetera, and verify the veracity. But we need that next step because the present journal system is not working because they are picking and choosing only research that comports with the narrative. And it's devastating because a lot of good research.

I am publishing scientific papers as op-eds in Brownstone Institute. No one else will take it. No one. It's a bad situation. Right. And knowing this is what really was the foundation, Dr. Alexander, of this particular show, these Wednesday shows, was to try to bring back robust, vigorous debate amongst scientists, which had been a cornerstone in medicine up until the pandemic.

So I so appreciate you being here. Respect, love, blessings for doing everything that you are doing. I know it has not been without significant slings and arrows. So thank you for being in the fight with us. And Drew, any last questions? Otherwise, we'll let Dr. Alexander go. Yes, absolutely. with with with us and uh drew any last questions otherwise um i would just ask yes absolutely and i'm just wondering alexander is there anything we missed anything that's on your mind anything keeps you up at night anything new that sort of we should be paying attention to

well i mean i'm a disciple of yours in the sense that I watch your show and I really love it. I'm friends with Dr. Victory. We write, we communicate a lot in communications. Look, I think, again, I'm a disciple of Vanden Bosch in that the truth of the matter is I'm very interested in the vaccine and how it's working. And really, the real challenge is children. And I've learned a lot about the innate immune system, particularly in young children, when the maternal antibodies were in, maybe we can talk about it the next time.

And that this vaccine, the mRNA vaccine particularly, has the potential to subvert the natural innate antibodies from doing its proper education of the innate immune system, leaving children at risk for autoimmune disease. That's the key that we're trying to argue now and to wake parents up, that a healthy child, healthy, bringing statistical zero risk to the table, confronting an injection that confers no additional benefit to them, and it skews towards harm for this age group, there's no basis for giving it then.

You don't. I mean, as a parent myself, I would say that I would question a parent that would fall for this. And the good news is I think it's only 4% of parents in America that have taken the booster shot. That's the latest data I've seen, which is good news. It means it's working. We are getting true to parents.

That should actually be zero. I'm talking about health insurance. And the booster, I'm beginning to think is, yes, I get it. And the booster, I think, may be the bigger culprit than almost any of the other concerns about vaccine but dr alexander thank you so much again we're going to get the book we're going to read it we're going to look for you at dr paul alexander dr

paul alexander.com and hopefully we can talk again soon there's the presidential takedown thank you dr alexander and kelly as always it is uh great to see you. We are, Kelly, can I tell them what your day was like? May I share your medical information? Absolutely. I had a colonoscopy this morning, this morning colonoscopy, and still came and did this show. So I want you to know this woman is committed and a soldier. You guys didn't even notice it.

She did it without a beat, Susan. The Rumble ranters loved your fuck it bucket to the fuck it bucket i really think we ought to have sort of a no no no susan what do you think about a segment called the unfuck it bucket i'm not kidding see you get a you get a bobblehead see the graphics but dr you get a bobblehead but dr kelly gets an unfuck it bucket uh and and to be fair if we actually do unfuck a few things who i mean it couldn't be doesn't get better than that so so that was a that was a that was a that was a product of my morning episode with propofol when i woke up from my propofol, I said, I've got an idea. The third bucket is the eighth bucket.

I may have to call that anesthesiologist and put you out a few more times, see what you come up with. I'll just give it to Ron. He can administer it. I have kind of a weird story. My dentist had a guy come in, and he said his baby baby was six months old and he said he couldn't wait till he was old enough to get the vaccine. And I, we, you know, this is a friend of ours and we had told him, you know, he's, he's almost into the seventies, you know,

maybe to wait and find out more about the boosters before you move on. And he, he said, well, you know, it's, I know a medical doctor who said that maybe you might want to not, you know, do that. You might want to wait. And it's just, it's going to take a village here. I think that, you know, the mainstream media is not going to announce this because it makes them look bad. And we're going to, we're going to have to all do it by word of mouth, you know, and what we believe in and, and try to save these these kids because it scares the crap out of me to see that we're doing this. We're adding more insult to injury here.

Yeah, it should scare you, Susan. we could be altering and suppressing the normal ability for the sort of native immune system to develop and to amp up and to ramp up the way it should. I mean, one of the entire arguments for breastfeeding is that children will get antibodies from the mother and you will kind of kickstart the immune system and you help children when they have this native immune system that is developing. The idea of giving them an injection that stands to help them to avoid risk of nothing because they aren't at risk from COVID. So they have nothing to gain and potentially everything to lose, not only in the development of autoimmune diseases, but the increased risk

you put them at for the development of cancers and all sorts of other things if you screw with their immune system and don't let it develop the way that it should naturally. So I agree. I think we have to be vocal about it. I mean, I'm not anti-vax. I gave my kids all the other vaccines. Everybody's, they're a vaccine. But this is not, to me, the same thing. Covaxin may have a role in kids. It may. I'm not saying it's not.

I find it interesting. But why? They just should get the natural immunity. We've got to stay open-minded. Kelly, one of the things I've noticed. Yeah, I'm not open-minded. I wouldn't have vaccinated. I wouldn't have done it.

And good. That's your prerogative. And you and I would have maybe fought over it. No, I'm not sure. I'm not sure. But the point is that I feel like pediatricians have a really different risk tolerance than adult doctors. But you know what I mean? I've seen that's one of the things I've noticed. Yeah, yeah. And you know it from all the way back in medical school, and that's not any disrespect to pediatricians. I just think we all are wired differently. I mean, I went into trauma.

And their discipline, their actual discipline may be different. Well, it's different than yours. I mean, I got lucky because I had you in the household when things went awry, when the pediatrician didn't quite know. Internist, ER doctor, right. I mean, well, that was a whole other thing. The pediatricians, that's a whole other matter. you in the household when things went awry when the pediatrician didn't quite know right right i mean well that was a whole other thing the pediatricians that's a whole other matter yeah i i had a kid with uh murine typhus they told him to go home and i was like no no there's a vasculitis i mean then grandpa came over and said something's wrong with this kid you know but again it's the risk benefit analysis if i. If I said if you force children from a very young age to walk around in a rubber suit 24 hours, 24 hours a day, you will decrease their risk of getting struck by lightning by essentially 100%.

But you're decreasing their risk of having something that's likelihood of happening is fundamentally zero and you will destroy their lives in the process okay so you have a hundred percent very custom protecting them from something that they weren't at risk from in the first place and 100 probability of ruining their life i get it and you and i are very used to death and dying we're we're used to risk reward analysis i mean that you're you're you have i have to do it all the time but you have to do it in in very quickly in real intense situations and and we're just accustomed to it i don't think pediatricians are at all accustomed to at least most of them are not because because they they talk within great with great um fear about anybody getting sick and it's like humans

get sick and i agree i don't I can't stand seeing kids sick. It drives me crazy. But anyway, that's a discussion for another day. I had to be sober for nine months when I was pregnant. And I would not let somebody inject my child. As I said, Drew, let me just leave you with the thought that, thank God, vodka is a clear liquid. Okay? All right. that thank god vodka is a clear liquid okay all right uh we are uh let's get it throw up the upcoming guests we have a ryan cole coming up in a couple of weeks we have uh uh next week

yes steven hatfield should be interesting very Very excited for him. Yes. Yeah. All this stuff is very interesting. And so again, Kelly, we thank you so much. And thank you for bearing down and getting through this after a colonoscopy. And we will see. Stick around, though. I want to talk to you really quickly after the show. OK.

Should she call you? Or call me. Or stay on the line here. And we will get to the, we need to institute the unfucket bucket segment. I can't wait to see the graphics. We'll think about that. Caleb's Dr. Victory. Dr. Victory's.

Yeah. Dr. Kelly's unfucket bucket. All right. All right. See you all. We're going to be out the rest of the week. We'll see you on Tuesday at three o'clock. Sounds good.

Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky. As a reminder, the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment. This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only. I am a licensed physician, but I am not a replacement for your personal doctor, and I am not practicing medicine here. Always remember that our understanding of medicine and science is constantly evolving. Though my opinion is based on the information that is available to me today, some of the contents of this show could be outdated in the future. Be sure to check with trusted resources in case any of the information has been updated since this was published.

If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, don't call me, call 911. If you're feeling hopeless or suicidal call the national suicide prevention lifeline at 800-273-8255 you can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at drdrew.com help