Ask Dr. Drew - Alex Jones & Ivy League Presidents: Should "Free Speech" Have ANY Boundaries? w/ Viva Frei – Ask Dr Drew – Ep 300

Episode Date: December 19, 2023

In a Dec 9 poll, Elon Musk asked X users if he should reinstate the account of Alex Jones. After nearly 2 million votes (70% in favor) the Infowars host was allowed to return – reigniting controversy over “freedom of speech” versus “freedom of reach” and the boundaries of the First Amendment. Will the public defend a person’s Constitutional rights even if they disagree with what he says? David Freiheit AKA Viva Frei is an attorney and host of “Viva Frei” on Rumble and Locals.com. He also cohosts the legal podcast “Viva and Barnes Live” at https://VivaBarnes.Locals.com. Follow Viva Frei at https://twitter.com/thevivafrei and https://vivafrei.com/ 「 SPONSORED BY 」 Find out more about the companies that make this show possible and get special discounts on amazing products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors • 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 an extra discount with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew • COZY EARTH - Trying to think of the right present for someone special? Susan and Drew love Cozy Earth's sheets & clothing made with super-soft viscose from bamboo! Use code DREW to save up to 40% at https://drdrew.com/cozy • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at https://twc.health/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. 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. 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician with over 35 years of national radio, NYT bestselling books, and countless TV shows bearing his name. He's known for Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Teen Mom OG (MTV), The Masked Singer (FOX), multiple hit podcasts, and the iconic Loveline radio show. Dr. Drew Pinsky received his undergraduate degree from Amherst College and his M.D. from the University of Southern California, School of Medicine. Read more at https://drdrew.com/about Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

And those of you who were able to see that are watching a little taste of salty cracker. We're going to continue this conversation today with Viva Fry, also known as aka David Fryheit. We're going to talk about, amongst other things, a tweet that Viva put out. He said, this was Alex Jones' third strike on Twitter. That's what got him kicked off. The full video and blah, blah, blah, gets better with age. I want to hear what he's got to say about that.

I want to hear about his interview with John Bowden. I think that was yesterday. People have been directing my attention to that aggressively. We have a lot to talk about, including his wife's new children's educational material, which I'm very impressed by and I love. And we're going to talk about the,

oh, there it is, the Brain Coloring Book. Braincoloringbook.com is where you can find it. And of course, vivab barnes.locals.com for uh the viva fry on uh with uh barnes first name i'm blanking on it right now but we'll get to all that and more viva fry right after the break our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre. The 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 f*** sake. Where the hell do 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. If you have trouble, you can't stop and you want to help stop it, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is the holiday season and our friends at GenuCell Skin Care want to give you the gift of younger-looking skin with their best sale of the year. For the first time ever, get over 60% off our favorite skin care bundles at GenuCell.com slash Drew. GenuCell has so many products that Susan and I love. GenuCell's XV Moisturizer. It locks in moisture, making dry spots a thing of the past. It's especially great with the colder weather coming in.

And with its 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 and the new Deep Correcting Serum with Lactic Acid. It hydrates your skin while preventing future wrinkles from developing. Take advantage of this amazing holiday savings by going to GenuCell.com and getting over 60% off right now. Plus, all orders are upgraded to free shipping for the rest of the holiday season.

Use code Drew at checkout for an extra 10% off your entire order. That's GenuCell.com slash Drew, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash D-R-E-W. All right, let's just bring Viva right in here. We've got some social things to take care of first. Viva Fry, everybody. Direct from Florida. Welcome. Thank you for pulling this off at the last minute.

Oh, my pleasure. I was going to start off by saying, oh, I didn't see you there. I was just reading my wife's coloring book. But there's a few words in it. It was going to be my brain on the front. It should be a lot smoother. She and her, yeah, you don't have the necessary soul side. Very good.

But she and her partner, both neuroscientists, Canadian-trained neuroscientists, as she pointed out, because the coloring book is filled with a U. It's braincoloringbook.com to get the coloring book. It's a great educational material. Really carefully thought out. I like it. I love it because I just think

we don't do enough exposing young people to this instrument and how it works. And first you have to understand the neuroscience before you can understand its functionality. We exposed our kid to it early on where we actually got cow brain to look at and then uh cook and eat and i i still i've never gotten used to the taste of of cow brain

and i don't ever think i'm going to try it again uh we came to dinner at your house and you very kindly produced some wonderful steaks and was that did you try to fight some cow brain on us too was that part of what was on the table? No, no. No, I've done the cow brain once and bison testicles, which are beyond prairie oysters. And there's some things that they just taste too metallic. It's like too irony. It's like you're biting into an iron rod in the worst way possible.

I've had the cow or steer testicles uh deep fried you can get that in wyoming and that's not so bad it tastes like a eggplant sort of like fried eggplant yeah well now anything deep fried is is you know it'll taste like deep fried whatever but um when i did it i did it baked and like you could really taste the flavor and the texture of both the balls and the brain neither of which are worth repeating. So you let them learn. There you go. I think you just want to get the organs in.

You don't necessarily want to taste it, but be that as it may. Let's quickly talk about your interview, if you don't mind, with John Bowden. He is somebody that contacted me quite some time ago on Twitter spaces, and I started going down the rabbit holes with him. Interesting guy. What was the sensation? A lot of people have

been telling me, I've got to ask Viva about what happened in that interview. It was amazing. So initially, I thought we were only going to talk about, you know, put it in quotes, the bombshell discovery that there's the good reason to believe that George Floyd's death certificate was altered because what the CDC coded for his cause of death was, you know, drug poisoning. And notwithstanding that, the first description refers to compression on the neck. So I thought we were only going to cover that. And we did for the first 45 minutes. Then we moved over to Rumble. It's going to segue nicely into the free speech where we talked freely about his findings for COVID. And I mean, it's just phenomenal that you get someone who's on the one hand, not bound by any licensing constraints, can talk freely about it, who's on a mission of sorts and who's able to digest the information and repackage it

so that other people can understand it. And the data that he compiled, it's, you know, they say, what is it? There's three types of lies, lies, lies and statistics or whatever it is. But there's some questions that you ask that you're not getting the answers from our authorities. And he had those answers. And it's talking about excess death in certain age brackets, excess diagnosis of certain diseases within certain age brackets. And there's some tendencies that do not make sense unless you, you know, they don't make sense except for,

and many signs points to the jab. It was phenomenal. People should go watch it. It was great. Part of the problem in what I was telling John when I talked to him was the way we fill out death certificates in this country in particular is Extremely haphazard. It doesn't really reflect much You wouldn't believe how many times death certificates are brought back to me by the coroner saying we don't accept about over the county What are they? What do you guys call it the? No, no, it's the medical examiner. Medical examiner is, no, no, no, no. Don't accept it, don't accept it.

And you eventually, and when you try to describe what happened, they tend to not accept it. You end up half the time putting in cardiopulmonary arrest due to cardiac arrhythmia, due to low oxygen or something, or pneumonia with low oxygen, something that's more, I mean, of course, yes, people die because their heart stops. Yes, that's right.

Everybody dies that way. But what they threaten you with is that, I'm sorry, you want that family to be subjected to an autopsy? It's going to take three months. We're going to have to do an autopsy if, Dr. Pinsky, you don't fill something out that we can accept. That's what I don't think many people have realized is that even something as what you think is matter-of-fact death certificates

can be politicized in the most egregious of ways. I did an interview with- It's not politicized. It's not politicized so much as it is bureaucratized. Bureaucracies are the enemy. the enemy bureaucracies don't worry about reality or they don't care about anything for that matter i don't know you should watch the interview with john campbell and i'm trying to remember claire craig dr claire craig who i'm going to interview on tuesday And she is a pathologist who brings this up. And she goes, you know, it's hard to interpret what is in this excess death category

because we don't have a really good systematic way of documenting what people are dying of. And so John, one of the things he keeps coming up with is blood clots, right? He comes up with a bunch of blood clot sort of categories. Yeah, but in that, there's a lot of mixed pathologies in there. The ones that impressed me that he had were stroke and heart attack. When you have stroke and heart attack, those are very specific things. And I know, by the way, that the coroners accept those. You can say stroke, dead, and then they will accept that.

What I found interesting, and when i said politicized not like the trump versus biden but rather they can be modified to frame narratives and they don't actually they're not black and white like okay it's like you say lack of lack of oxygen to the brain is everyone's cause of death uh the figure that he came up with or the specific question was renal failure which he said look i asked how do you distinguish between all of these phenomena, whether or not they're caused by COVID or the jab or other stuff, for example? And he says, well, look, we didn't see renal failure being identified to the degree to which we saw it until they started financially compensating under the directives for, what is it called? Prescribing remdesivir. And so then it's just fascinating how he can then correlate,

you know, markers with certain things that occurred in time. And it's, you know, it's argumentative. Someone can find another alternative reality. Maybe it's a climate change, maybe it's energy drinks,

whatever they want to attribute it to. But it's a compelling, it's a compelling argument. And when you're dealing with just black and white stats coupled with other phenomena, it becomes much more difficult to explain away. Yeah. And I have so much incredulity at the fact that there's been this international rise in unexpected deaths and no no government is attempting to understand what is happening that's the part that i just i can't get my head around i i pulled up an article from from canada it said uh there's there's more deaths than expected in canada and doctors are baffled why I mean I'm paraphrasing one interesting thing that that uh we pronounce his name baudouin because that's the original French pronunciation

when he was talking about um renal failure and I said oh so you know when did they start diagnosing remdesivir which I think we all know causes organ failure if you know taking too much of over too long a period of time I said oh well it doesn't coincide with the beginning to prescribe it and he says no it began with the financial incentivizing to prescribe it and then you could see it like virtually he called it like a swimming with the fish correlation uh it was it was it was a phenomenal uh fascinating discussion he's gonna have to come back on because like each each section could be a standalone interview so he can break it down for people to understand but oh that was it excess death where he said you know actually what's confusing some people is you're not necessarily seeing excess death overall

because all the weak old people died in 2000 and 2020 i don't mean that right mentally that's right but you're actually seeing like it's not peaking except it's a different demographic that's accounting for what would have otherwise been the old people dying and that that that is shocking on this face and i would say you know i would dare say criminal at some point in time i'm keep my fingers crossed that the court's getting and and the the it's young people that's that's the thing that i as i think i've brought up with you before which is that look we could have done a much better job of protecting old people. But in terms of years of life lost, the old people we protected, you have to remember that if somebody is a male, is sufficiently deteriorated,

that he needs institutional care in a nursing home, his life expectancy is six months. Six months on average. that was before covid and so you're you're rescuing somebody from dying of something else six months to a year later and by now what we may have done that's the big concern is sacrifice people who had decades of life ahead of them and that you know the i I saw it again in some argument just today. New York Times wrote an article about somebody who had a vaccine injury and died. And then they went on to say, well, there's only 300 cases of myocarditis reported in that age group. It's like, yeah, and zero cases of severe COVID, zero hospitalizations from COVID, zero deaths from

COVID. And of those with myocarditis in a circulation article, it showed half of them had persistent myocarditis at a year. That is mind-boggling information. That means some percentage of those kids are going to need a cardiac transplant, are going to have inability to get a bout. I mean, this is, I don't care if it's three kids, that's three times the number that would have died of COVID from that age group. It's criminal, in my humble opinion, objectively so. Especially since the average age of COVID deaths was above the average life expectancy to begin with. And they talk about numbers for numbers and not years of lives lost.

And not to think too cynically, but the productive years of lives lost for people who need to pay into the system to support the elderly who are dependent on the system. And then to demonize anybody who asks the slightest question, pretend that all of these reporters collapsing on air, politicians collapsing, athletes collapsing. Oh, it's always happened. Start making commercials, normalizing kids having heart issues issues and then call us names. It's criminal. There will be justice at some point in time, but people need to get over the damage that I think they implicitly old and a school mandated you to get the vaccine in order to attend, and then you have some horrific reaction. If I'm the parents, I'm hiring an army of lawyers because there is no reason for that mandate. It doesn't protect the 20-year-old. It doesn't protect his or her peers and it only puts them at risk of severe significant consequence now yes it's remote yes it's not

common but it is a risk reward diathesis and when there's only risk and by the way an Austrian article just came out a couple of days ago that showed that the fourth booster doesn't seem to be helping anybody. So the fifth booster is what we're on to now, or the sixth. I don't understand the logic when the fourth has now been pretty clearly shown. What they showed was it caused a 17% reduction in, no effect on death, no effect on hospitalization a 17 reduction in covid infections for three months and then a rebound above baseline so there were more infections six months later so net effect zero well it helps somebody i mean it helps shareholder value although even that is taking a hit because nobody's taking these shots i i tweeted out you know tongue in cheek but

quasi serious albert burl is april 1st, 2021 tweet, 100% effective. And I was like, oh, if they knew that this was materially false at the time, we've all been stripped of our rights to go after the companies for any damages we've sustained. Shareholders didn't relinquish the right to go after the companies if they made materially false statements that impacted shareholder value. So the dam is going to break sooner than later uh you know i've now interviewed and dr drew if you haven't interviewed her i don't know if she's you know wants to do many more of these but uh shauna carroll whose 17 year old daughter was given two pfizer shots within three weeks so one and another one three weeks later got covid uh, then didn't feel good.

Donna Carroll went to the hospital with COVID and then had suffered three heart attacks and then passed away three weeks later. The fingers became necrotic. And the amount of stories of that

themselves are one thing, but the amount of injuries. I mean, I know more people who have died in proximity to the jab, young people who have gotten things like myocarditis, diagnosed, diagnosed, than I have of people who died from COVID in the first place. And it's not to say that it didn't happen. I'm just telling you, maybe my milieu was not very old to begin with, but anecdotally, it's everyone. But be that as it may, look, it is perfectly fine to say that I think the vaccine had a significant benefit, particularly for old people in the alpha and delta phase of this pandemic. I can say that with great clarity. And some of the boostering probably helped my elderly patients. I can say

that with a clear mind and I've seen little or no side effects from that. Beyond that, I don't understand why the CDC takes such an extraordinarily aggressive position that no other country takes or maybe only one other country takes. It's hard for me to understand. And because of my sort of confusion

about these extraordinary trends, I started reading this book. Is this a book you're familiar with? The Captive Mind? No. You're familiar with this? No. It's Czeslaw Milos. He's a Polish writer who lived through Nazi and Russian occupation and has thoughts about,

and I wanna read this to you. On the front of his book, he has a quote, and it's what I think really got me reading. And this is from an old Jew of Galatia, okay? Here's the quote. When someone is honestly 55% right, that's very good. And there's no use wrangling. And if someone is 60% right, that's very good. And there's no use wrangling. And if someone is 60% right, it's wonderful.

It is great luck and let him thank God. But what's to be said about 75% right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about a 100% right? Whoever says he's 100% right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal. And that 100% certainty is what we saw all through COVID and still, still seeing it. And that is the enemy. That's the enemy. That's it. That's a captive mind. 100% certainty. It should be, that's called irrational certainty.

We need rational uncertainty. 55% right, I'm probably correct, and I'm constantly re-updating Bayesian reasoning, updating my priors, trying to make sure I stay to ascend towards the truth. But this certitude, where do you think that's coming from? Well, if I get theological, I think something has to replace people's belief in God. And when you live in a – I'm not religious, and I think I've gotten around this.

But when you live in a godless society, something will replace that human tendency of the need for certainty. And so you replace God, which is the good certainty to believe in, and you replace the Bible, which is valuable life lessons, you replace that with ideology and government. And it's not a coincidence. I'm going to sound a little crazy. The government was acting like God throughout this entire thing, telling you who you could talk to, who your friends could be, what you could read, when you could go out, when you could work, what you could do with your own body. And people who live in a godless society will find a way to replace what would otherwise be the productive belief in God with a very destructive belief in something else. Ooh, somebody just bought your wife's coloring book. They just put that up on the screen there. I love that. So thank you for doing that. I think your kids will benefit from that. Even you can

benefit from it if you're not somebody familiar with neuroscience. But Viva, I would say that there is a bromide for this, and that is the invention of free speech. That free speech has been the one way of buffering that certitude and frankly getting closer to the truth. That's how we ascend to the truth, is through sharing ideas. And yet there's all sorts of limitations. You tweeted today about Alex Jones going on,

being taken down and now back on Twitter. I do not adhere to, I don't really listen to Alex Jones. If he hurt the Sandy Hook parents, I'm mortified. But I still would defend his right to go speak publicly. Drew, see, I was going to say it, and then you beat me to it, but now I know my initial thought was correct when you were talking to Salty and having Salty crack on. That's one hell of a crossover that people didn't know they needed, but they got. When you said, you know, people people uh think they don't like

alex jones and the ones who say that yeah i could i could i could probably guess accurately 95 of the time have not listened to him for any meaningful period of time i remember what i thought about alex jones into yeah and people i remember what i thought of alex jones in 2017 2018 the media said all these terrible things about him he was so controversial that like among family we never discussed it because it was just it was like it was talking heresy and you know you listen to what he says a he's been right more than the media has been right and so that's one thing people are under the the wrong impression that he said much more and much more harmful things about sandy hook and the parents than he did. He said a couple of very isolated... A billion dollars worth.

Oh, well, look, that only shows the absurdity of the system. People think that he said more than he said about Sandy Hook over a longer period of time than he did. You know, during the trial, which was only the trial on the damages because he had been declared guilty or liable by default verdict. So they had no trial. Even in the trial on the quantum that they were going to award for damages, the evidence was almost a joke, like 16 minutes, 20 minutes of airtime over four years. And the

evidence that was a juice, like people blame Jones for the families being harassed. The families were being harassed before Jones even covered the story. The FBI families were being harassed before jones even covered the story the fbi agents were being you know called actors even before alex jones spoke of the story the only reason he started talking about it was because it had gained such popularity for lack of a better word in pop culture um and so he makes a few stupid statements and then apologizes repeatedly and in this trial you find out that you know ultimately he didn't say as much as people thought he said but people don't even know that and people think that he had a trial where he was found liable after a trial which is not the case he was declared liable by by default

verdict for allegedly failure to comply with discovery obligations so the whole thing was a sham and a joke but people who think they don't like alex jones by and large have not listened to him for any extended period of time i've had had him on. The man is well-read. If anybody can, you know, people who don't know him will have a hard time believing that. Well-read, remembers things, and puts the pieces together. Well, Viva, based on your recommendation, my sort of policy on this show has been, I want to interview anybody, particularly people who've been silenced. Maybe you should join me if I bring Alex Jones in here.

Maybe you should be part of my, I don't know. It would be, you should. My assistant. Oh, well, I think it might even be better not to have me. Have Alex Jones on. It's impossible to come away and not think, not like, I say not like. I can't even understand the sandy hook families will never forgive him for the things that they said but that in my view is is displaced trauma

the the trauma um alex is the easy outlet because you can't hate the killer any more than you do and the killer's scapegoating that's it's like no it's just um what's the word displaced anger he said stupid things people say stupid things and also people hypothesize uh alternative narratives for very cataclysmic events it will happen inevitably the i heard joe rogan was talking about him and he said you know the guy has addiction alcoholism and bipolar disorder and you know you saw me to Salty Cracker. I really feel strongly that people who say and do things when they're in an altered state due to a brain disorder should not be held to whatever it was,

unless they cross over. I mean, I guess it's interesting. I don't feel like their whole life should be condemned because of stupid shit they do when they're in an illness state. On the other hand, if they delay coming to treatment and they harm somebody else, well, then I feel like that's the legal system now. Now the legal system has to handle this. This is no longer my responsibility because they waited too damn long. You got to get treatment before you hurt somebody. It's in the opening of this, my show, in fact. So I do feel that people should be given

a little bit of a dispensation for this. And by the way, I would give the same, what should we call this? A flexibility to Hunter Biden. I would give it to Hunter Biden. He was in his addictive disease. Now show me your recovery, but they got to show me the recovery

and you got to have rigorous honesty, but I will give it to him as well. And his little press conference the other day was like, I'm not sure. It's so hard to know how much is orchestrated, how much not. I mean, he might've been speaking none of his truth at that point.

But the point being is that everybody of a public figure, everybody is made into a cartoon figure. Everybody, no one escapes that. Everything that's written about a public figure, everybody is made into a cartoon figure. Everybody. No one escapes that. Everything that's written about a public person in print is false or distorted or moving towards cartoon always rather than the complexity of the truth.

I know that Rogan said the things about Jones. I saw the clips of Jones saying the things he said. First of all, it's offensive. It's objectively hurtful. And I don't even think it's true to have referred there have been crisis actors before in history it's a tactic used by the government there have been false flags in the sense that uh events have been allowed to happen for political purposes weaponization they've been outright fabricated like the reichstag fire or the polish uh radio station in in world war ii there have been crisis actors in the past and you take a cataclysmic event like Sandy Hook and the way it was politicized afterwards by the likes of Piers Morgan, Obama, they were going to use this to come after everyone's guns. And they were open about it. You can't blame someone who

knows things of what the government has done in the past for asking those questions in real time, entertaining those ideas, albeit very, very limited in time. Are they crisis actors? I mean, we saw the video of one of the parents laughing off camera, then crying on camera. People come to that conclusion. I don't. I say, look, I don't know what level of trauma goes into all of this. I don't know how one acts when they are under such circumstances, but that's not the conclusion I would draw. But at the end of the day, when you talk about you're given the, not a free pass, but understanding so long as they don't hurt other people typically we're talking about you know hurting other people as in running them over with a car when you're drunk or sex trafficking

correct sex trafficking when you're on drugs in the case allegedly of hundred biden in alex jones we're talking about having hurt people with words and we're not even having hurt people with words of direction like hey guys go harass the That never happened, though people think it did. Hurt people with words of questioning events. I mean, imagine. It's a terrible thing to suggest that they were crisis actors, that no kids died, and people still believe it to their hearts. People say the Holocaust never happened. I mean, at what point do we say, if this is the new normal, deny historical tragedy and you'll get sentenced to a billion

dollars. Well, then you go after Kanye West for suggesting that George, although it's not clear that it's not even the case, but George Floyd died of a drug overdose. Well, a billion dollars there. Holocaust never happened. Billion dollars there. I mean, this is not how free speech works. And it's also not how damages for words should work.

When Piers Morgan had on Zuby today, and Piers Morgan says, well, there's limits to free speech. There's six carve-outs under the First Amendment, defamation, fraud, criminal. Yeah, but not hurt feelings. Call to actions, incitement, but not hurt feelings. And saying, I don't think you lost a loved one on that given date. I think you're an actor. Well, at some point in time, that's not the traumatic thing that happened then the traumatic thing was the event itself whether or not the government or the school failed in protecting the kids but none of those questions are going to get asked and alex jones became the ultimate scapegoat for all the directed rage from all the parents based on what we now know is basically total misrepresentation of what he said. Not to defend Donald Jones.

No, I understand. Scapegoating is alive and well for sure. One quick question I have I meant to ask at the beginning. Your name, Freiheit, I asked you before, what does that mean? Is that a German word? Or is it a... It depends who I'm... In the company of who

I am, I sayheit is literally freedom in german but it's also freiheit in yiddish any germanic language it means freedom even in some like like danish language is similar but freiheit literally is but i state of freedom and i and i was noticing in viva we could say is live and fry is also free not freedom but free right so is it is it is that what you're playing on there it was it i picked the name of the channel when i was posting squirrel videos and like you know and leg waxing with drone videos i just i picked it one day and my parents were like no you know when the channel started getting popular my parents like you have to change the name people are going to think it's vivian they're going to

think you're a woman and uh stubbornly stuck with it it's become it's become a brand more credibility for that you would get your your status would have gone up if they just thought you're a woman or were a woman anything anything other than what you are a white male anything but that white male i ended up i'm hiding it with the hair. Sorry, go for it. But fry means free, right? German for free. That's what I was thinking when we came into the show.

Yeah, okay. It's like Zimmer fry, right? When you go around looking for a place to... Or Arbeitmachfrei. Or as we use during the COVID, you know, Vaccinemachfrei. Just do this and you'll get your freedom. Oof. Arbacht macht frei is what they, what was it?

That was something to do with what was, yeah. The work will set you free. Auschwitz. Yeah, Auschwitz. Arbacht frei. Blech. Yeah, it's weird that we're getting into this. These are the conversations we have to have today.

And I'm saying this almost every show now, which is when people start to flip out about freedom of speech and misinformation, there are, as people have said other than myself, that the suppressors of free speech are never the good guys. Just look at the Red Scare and the McCarthyisms, whatever you wish. That's just the more recent version of it. Certainly the suppressors in

Lenin's camp and in Napoleon's camp and in Hitler's camp, not the good guys, not the good guys. And to me, the most clearest example of misinformation and the most dangerous misinformation was leaked out by none other than Galileo, Galilee. Galileo had the temerity to suggest that the earth revolved around the sun, which literally challenged the being of the church and the wisdom of God. And he was silenced by the Spanish Inquisition. Is that who we've become now? The Spanish Inquisition in this country? We think those are the good guys? We think silencing Galileo was a great idea? Who's the Galileo they're choosing to, not that we are, but there might be a Galileo out there they're silencing right now?

I don't think it's ever been done with sincere belief that they're doing the right thing. If, you know, the past is prologue, but also the present is prologue to the past. The people clamoring or complaining about Alex Jones and free speech, I don't think they genuinely believe they're even doing it for a good reason. They are doing it, and I presume the church was doing it for a similar reason, to prevent people from knowing the lie, to prevent people from knowing the truth, which was, it is true what they're saying. And if the world understands it, then our control, our grip on power dissolves. And that's exactly what you have going on here.

These idiots complaining about Alex Jones and complaining about free speech, there's limitations on free speech. They have no problem with Hamas and terrorist leaders having Twitter accounts. They have no problem with the CP that had been on Twitter that remained largely unaddressed until Elon got involved. They have no problem with Iranian leaders having Twitter accounts or BLM handing out flyers with paragliders on it saying they stand with power. They have no problem with that. It's only the Alex Joneses.

It's only Infowars. It's only, who else are the big ones? Russell Brand, although they found another way to go after him. They're not doing it out of any sincere belief they're doing it because these people challenge their grip on power and their grip on the narrative. And you want to take Alex Jones' wrong? oh go for it i saw a video with klaus schwab today at the waf saying that what it what it what this is counter what do you call it counter-revolutionary or something like how how could this be that these libertarians want to dismantle government involvement in their life i was like oh my god he's saying it out loud he's saying out loud that he idolizes, he cherishes what government does.

I thought, wow, that's okay. Please give me some examples of where it's been better than the private sector or than with competition. No, Jacinda Ardern, if you want your news, you're going to have to come to the government. We'll tell you what's true. I'm doing a terrible accent.

They are tyrants. They know they're tyrants. And the only way they can maintain their control on power is not to let the people discuss freely among themselves. For the limited things that Jones said that were wrong, you compare that to Rachel Maddow. Go get the jab. It'll prevent infection. I implore you, please just go do it now. How many people did that harm? What's his face there? Brian Stetler coming out and everything they said about the Covington kids. If this is the standard, having said one wrong thing over the course of your many years on air gets you disqualified forever, they should all

be disqualified. And when it comes to quantifiable damage, yes, the things Alex Jones, I'm sure, the things he said, I'm sure they caused some harm to the family. I'm sure more harm than the actual trauma. I doubt it. When it comes to the things that Rachel Maddow said, all of the outlets, they cost people their lives. And now they don't want people really discussing COVID myocarditis, which they said was not a thing. Interfering with women's menstrual cycles, which they said was not a thing. What their lives have cost lives and they want to punish only the Alex Joneses of the world. It's not about truth. It's not about protecting free speech.

It's about protecting narrative and covering their asses. We're going to take a little break. When we get back, you were talking about the three Ivy League university presidents and their testimony before Congress in regards to whether or not they should be protecting speech that advocates genocide, which was a pretty stunning thing to watch. And that's really seemed to me what the question was at hand. Viva, where do people go? They can go to Rumble, right? Viva for Ion R go? They can go to Rumble, right? Viva Fry on Rumble. They can go to the,

at Twitter, it's the Viva Fry of our EI. And then with Robert Barnes, where do they get that Viva and Barnes pod? VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com. So Viva Barnes is B-A-R-N-E-S, VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com. So Viva Barnes is B-A-R-N-E-S, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.

Are you doing any more stuff in that studio that you interviewed me in down there in Miami? I haven't gone down since I've been back for the summer, but no, that's silly. I've been down there. I've done a couple, but I should go down more often. It's a bit of a trek, an hour and a 20. Oh yeah, we were there. But it's a beautiful studio. I should do it more often, you know, but the convenience of having a home studio, you know, it's tough to compete with. I totally get it.

Viva Fry, we're going to hear from the people that make this all possible and be right back with you. If you're trying to figure out the right present for someone, you will not go wrong with gifting the most comfortable sheets, clothing, and accessories that your friends and family have ever felt. Of course, I'm talking about Cozy Earth. Cozy Earth has the softest and most comfortable sheets, blankets, towels, PJs, joggers, and more guaranteed. Susan and I love them. In fact, we still have Cozy Earth sheets on our bed. I slept in them last night.

I was thinking of how great they were. And look at this. I'm wearing one of their super comfortable t-shirts right now. I don't get, I just can't get enough of Cozy Earth. Their sheets are durable, machine washable, and come with a 10-year warranty against defects. So no surprise that Cozy Earth's brand has been featured on Oprah's favorite things

for five years in a row. Whether it's their luxury pajamas, super soft bedding, loungewear, or plush bath towels, you will love shopping and gift giving at Cozy Earth. Here's my gift to you this holiday season. Go to CozyEarth.com, enter code Drew to save 40%. That's CozyEarth.com with code Drew. CozyEarth.com, code Drew, save 40%. I think everyone knows the next medical crisis could be just around the corner, whether it comes in the form of another pandemic or something much more routine like a tick bite. You and your family need to be prepared. That's where the wellness company comes in. You know the wellness company. We have their physicians on like Dr. McCullough frequently. The wellness company and their doctors are medical professionals you can trust.

And their new medical emergency kits are the gold standard when it comes to keeping you safe and healthy. It's really, it's a safety net. It's an insurance policy that you hope you're not going to need. But if you need it, you sure as heck are going to wish you had it if you need it. Be ready for anything. This medical emergency kit contains an assortment of life-saving medications, including ivermectin, Z-Pak. The medical emergency kit provides a guidebook to aid in the safe use of all these life-saving medications. From anthrax to tick bites to COVID-19, the Wellness Company's medical emergency kit is exactly what you need to have on hand to be prepared. Rest assured, knowing that you have emergency antibiotics, antivirals, and antiparasitics on hand to help you and your family

stay safe from whatever life throws at you next. Go to drdrew.com slash TWC. That is D-R-D-R-E-W dot com forward slash TWC to get 10% off today. Just click on that link. Look forward to several other really interesting products from TWC coming in the new year.

And I've been using their Restful Sleep product. That's what they call it. It's just phenomenal. It's a supplement that really, really, I've never had a supplement work quite so well. And also, I just had stem cells put in my shoulders so I can keep up in 2024 with my resolutions to maintain with V-Shred. So check out V-Shred. Susan and I have been doing that quite a bit. And I've had to take a little bit of a break here because of my shoulder procedure, but they're actually going to help me rehab myself and get myself back. So

you've got some comments on that? You're leaning towards the mic? No? Okay. Susan says no. All right. Let's get Viva Fry back in here. So Viva, we all, I think, saw the testimony of the president of Harvard, MIT, University of Pennsylvania. And I kind of feel like so much of the excesses ideologically and the excesses of things like government overreach that we've been talking about, the courts are going to solve a lot of this, as you were saying. I think you were saying that the dam is going to break soon. Also, I would think the market will handle some of this. For instance, when some of these schools lose their major benefactors, suddenly they're

going to feel a little differently about some of the positions they take, I think. What did you take away from that testimony? Well, interesting thing you say, you know, if they lose their benefactors, they might reconsider the obvious inappropriateness of not being able to condemn calls for genocide. And if they don't, you might want to wonder who their benefactors truly are robert and i talk about this all the time and people are under the impression that like you know jewish donors are carry the influence you know barnes has another idea there's actually a bigger group a bigger class of donors that might control politics much more it might be very surprising to many people out there setting that aside uh you watch this who Who is it? Who's the group?

It would be the idea is it might be actually sort of brotherhood money and not Jewish lobbyist money. I don't want to spoil it. I also don't want to mischaracterize it. So people are just going to have to maybe go watch our last Sunday episode. But Chinese, too, right? Well, no, it's it's this. There's it could be. Well's it could be well it could be very easily chinese as well uh and in fact probably is but that in the context of this particular conflict you it would be interesting to know exactly where the donor money is coming from

what do i think about the president of uh of an ivy league university uh unable to say overt calls for genocide against a specific group violates the bullying and harassment policy. I'm not more sensitive to this because the example pertained to calling for genocide of Jews. I'm not more sensitive to calls for genocide against Jews than Armenians, for example, than gays, than blacks. The question was such a soft, soft lob ball question does it violate the policy the obvious answer is yes unequivocally calls for genocide uh violate bullying and

harassment so let's let's let's break it down let's break it down a little bit so they were not asking is it is it would you protect someone's right to call for genocide right they didn't ask that question so so let me ask you that question first from the standpoint of the first amendment would you defend someone's right to say out loud uh that they're calling for some sort of genocide against some group on on a personal level i i i say on the level, I don't care because a lot of – when people do this, it's not – I'm asking as a lawyer. I'm asking as a lawyer. Well, I don't know exactly where that line is for direct incitement or call to action under the U.S. Constitution.

If we're talking about – it has to be imminent. There's the Brandenburg test where it has to be an imminent incitement to violence. You know, just willy-nilly saying death to Jews, death to whomever, you know, it's not hard to say why that violence- So generally speaking, yeah, right. So generally speaking, abhorrent speech, you would say that is protected speech.

Abhorrent speech, so long as it, so you would protect somebody theorizing that a genocide would be a good thing, as opposed to, let's go do it right now, and let's get our pitchforks and go, that's a different thing. But let's just, let's for the sake of argument, say you defend it. You're a good lawyer, you'll take your job and you'll defend it. But that wasn't the question at hand. The question is, does it violate the bullying and harassment policies of their universities let's remind ourselves universities that wouldn't allow speakers to become to come

because some some opinion might hurt somebody's feelings thereby violating their their harassment policies they have safe spaces so people don't have to hear certain words because it's violating their harassment policies. But this one, contextual, depends on the context. Depends on the context. And this was, again, to distinguish between First Amendment constitutional rights and policy contracts. A student comes and says, I want to go to your university. We have a policy you're contracting to abide by these rules of bullying and harassment. They're two totally different things. And so the threshold for what is awful but lawful or not violative of immediate calls to action is not the question when it comes to implementing school policy, which is something of a contract between the school and the students.

And it's just so stupid. Imagine they said would be calling for the genocide of transgender students be qualified as bullying and harassment for goodness sake misgendering a transgender student is bullying and harassment i think calling for genocide is a little bit more of a serious violation than uh misgendering so right so but one of the things why why do you i i was sort of miffed that the congresswoman, I think it was a congresswoman, who was great and did a wonderful job and was clear.

And, you know, she asked her question, yes or no. I liked the way she framed it because it should be a simple, yes, it's a violation. And they wouldn't answer the question, which was wild. And apparently a lawyer, oh, of course, Jordan Peterson can't come and talk he's he's rescinded all over the place for various reasons because his words uh saying that men and women have different kinds of brains that could harm people okay um but uh she didn't say exactly what

you're saying though she should have don't you think she should have said uh exactly what you're saying though. She should have, don't you think she should have said exactly what you said there about the transgender transgressions or microaggressions versus calling for their genocide? That they would say that that was a violation, but the other one is not and make them explain why.

Oh, there's nothing to explain. These idiots are, they're intellectual to a flaw where they say, I mean, I don't know what the potential hesitation was. to explain these idiots are they are they're intellectual to a flaw where they say i mean i don't know what the what the potential hesitation was was she confusing first amendment with school policy i mean just just back it up one more step let's just assume supposedly an attorney advised them all to that's why they all said the same thing supposedly they had legal advice that told

them to take that position. Get new legal advice. And I can even understand what she's saying. Well, look, if they're chanting from the river to the sea, is that genocide? That might be the question. I would even be prepared to grant give a little bit of the benefit of the doubt to many people who, when they chant that,

either don't know what it means or don't mean it the way it purportedly originally was intended to be meant. Correct. What is the call to genocide is it death to jews or is it from the river to the sea it depends on context but that one the question didn't leave room for ambiguity it's calling for the genocide is it is it and it's like yeah obviously if it's bona fide calls to genocide and not what someone hears is a call to genocide, as in, I don't know, the Church of Satan, as I saw how sometimes people refer to the synagogue of Jews, is that a call for genocide? Someone might say, I hear that as a call for genocide,

in which case the answer would be, well, if it's bona fide call to genocide, like death to Jews, or Hitler was right, or all these things. Now people are going to clip this. This is how the internet works. I know, just, it's so wild. It's so wild. But again, this is how untruths about public figures are spread, everybody. This is it. He's going to take it out right now. It's too late.

No, but, so, I mean, I understand, like, okay, well, are they saying death to Jews, or are they saying from the river to the sea, or are they saying Judaism is a sinful religion? I mean, they're, okay, well, are they saying death to Jews, or are they saying from the river to the sea, or are they saying Judaism is a sinful religion? I mean, they're, okay, well, what are the words? You want to weasel out of it that way. But the bottom line also, even then, even then, for goodness sake, misgendering is an attack on all things holy. Silence is violence. The answer was yes.

And she's not getting canceled. I think you're zeroing in on the point, which is I think whatever legal advice they got, they were expecting a question about a specific slogan that required contextualization. And that wasn't the question that was asked. The question was asked was, is a call, a clear and unambiguous call for genocide, a violation of harassment, yes or no? The perfect question. Well, I think the reason is even a little bit more sinister than that. The answer is obviously yes.

And the reality is that the calls for genocide have obviously been going on on campus. And then if they say yes, clearly it violates our policy. Then the next question is, then why the hell aren't you enforcing it? And so that is the weasel way out because they knew it was going on.

They want to contextualize it. Oh, it didn't really mean that, so let's try to weasel. The bottom line, yes, it would obviously violate the abuse and harassment policies. And two, it has been happening. And three, they haven't been enforcing it, which is why and I look, I don't, you know, when people say

I don't feel safe, typically they're not meaning it in any meaningful way. The environment now is one in which I think I can understand people objectively not feeling safe. And they've been creating a campus life where people objectively don't feel safe and not because they got called a he instead of their desired she. So they were screwed one way or the other. Answer truthfully, the question becomes, why aren't you enforcing it then? Or try to look smarter than, you know, too smart for your own good, and then you're forced to resign. And on the issue of, you know, oh, now the right supports cancel culture. Even if you

support free speech, by the way, the right to protest, the right to speak your mind, if the speech that you engage in compromises your ability to do your work, your employer is entitled to terminate you for that reason. Having a pilot come out, as happened in Canada, and say, I support Hamas on social media, when you're a pilot for an airline company, that allows your employer to have reasonable fears of your ability to do your work and terminate you. So it's not cancel culture, and I'm not going to pull the cliche, It's consequence culture. It's a logical connection between the manner and exercise of the freedom of speech and the inability or incompatibility to make that fit with the job that you're hired to do. So this woman, she wants to support free speech.

Good for her. But she's not able to do her job as president of a university for all the students. As far as cancel culture, it was inevitable that everybody becomes the subject of cancellation because you only need study your history. When the guillotines come out, it's first the self-righteous bringing the guillotines out, and then the self-righteous end up on the guillotine. That is a mathematical feature of human behavior it is predictable with 100 certainty and sure the people that are first up on the guillotine are complaining vigorously and they are also the ones that will pull the guillotines out and hit robespierre and then

once robespierre is gone then they'll hit josephine's family and you know they just they get everybody uh and that's the way these scapegoating mechanisms work. So this notion that people can say, oh my gosh, some group is using cancellation on this poor woman. Yeah, it was inevitable. It was inevitable that everybody gets under the gun, under the guillotine, everybody.

I don't consider this cancel culture. I don't consider it a form of cancel culture because she has a job and her job is to make student life good for all students. And by saying what she thought, whatever she's counseled by attorneys, what she's illustrated is that she is incapable of doing her job properly. And so it's not cancel culture. It's not the same thing as pulling up a rude joke from 10 years ago cancel culture this is real time a a woman or a man or whomever through their words um clearly displaying that they are incapable of doing the job that they're supposed to be doing

by virtue of their words and expressed uh intent well the question is why let's talk about the job okay why did one quit the others didn't? Is that the question? No, the question is, yeah, why one got the cancel culture? What's her name? Liz McGill got forced to resign. Yeah, and Claudine Gay from Harvard didn't. One can think that when one talks of privilege, there might be some political privilege going on here where the white woman is an easy

target the black woman uh you know well if she gets canceled then she'll you know she can scream racism to maggie kent also the the jewish woman didn't get canceled either though so it kind of it cuts all these different ways it's it's not as clear as all that but yes in any event my prediction is she's going about my prediction is is Claudine Gay is done within a month, and they're not going to get her on what she said. They're going to get her on the plagiarism. Once they come for you, it'll either be the initial target, or they'll find something else as the pretext.

And with the accusations and seemingly well-founded accusations of plagiarism, they'll find another way to get to her. But they're all going to be gone because you can't have leadership like that. Okay, Mr. Stalin. So they will always find something to come. That's how we operated. They always found a reason to come for people. That's how he did his thing.

That was Stalin's deal. But it's worthy. Go ahead. No, no, it doesn't help when you say things that are incompatible with your role as a president it's what they said was in well that's what i want to that's what i want to get at i the role people keep talking about the job of president the role of president you know the the i've been around those Ivy League schools many, many years. And the primary role of president, in my experience, fundraiser, primary role, that is really their numero uno, getting money into the campus and funding the family. Then it's leading the faculty, right?

It's being able to adjudicate the problems of the faculty and whatnot. And whatever comes next is sort of up to that president. How much are they going to be a cultural leader? How much are they going to be involved in campus life? But really, it's about getting money for the university. That's what I've seen them be, fundraisers. Am I wrong? Well, I don't know on an individual basis, but whatever their role is, they cannot be a distraction, a source of humiliation for the institution for whatever the reason, whether it's for donors, whether it's for student life.

So, you know, in as much as they can be innocuous money getters, they cannot be sources of distraction, sources of detraction and sources of shame of the university. So why not. Why not? Why not defend that? Not as a freedom. I would say there could be like an animal house university out there that doesn't mind if they have a drunken president who goes out and publicly urinates on the weekend. Maybe it's good for brand. But as far as the role typically goes, if you're talking about what would be grounds for compelling a resignation, if they

are a source of a distraction for the core functions of the university, they could be exercising their right to free speech, but it's not cancel culture to say they lose their job and they can go out and not condemn genocide on their spare time. No one will de-platform them for that.

I think we just got a glimpse at Fry Height U. We had one of those. Sorry, go for it. We had one of those? We had one of those. One of our kids had a headmaster, a guy that was kicked out for reasons that... For drinking or something?

No, I remember it was all sexual. Oh, yeah. No, no, that was later. He wasn't kicked out. He got picked up later with cocaine and a prostitute when he had a bigger job than university president. But he also got kicked out for that reason. Let's take...

No, he didn't. Because remember, he was a fundraiser. He was coming after us all the time. Let's take a couple of calls here. This is Da Vinci. And very quickly, give them a chance to have that, Viva and myself. And you got to remember, buddy, show the little cartoon there, Caleb, on how we do this. You have to hit the mic.

Do you? Good. Yeah. Well, we're going to give you some of that. There's a microphone, DaVinci, in the lower left-hand corner of the screen. I didn't hear it first. There you are. Hi, Dr. Drew.

Hi, Dan. There you are. Okay. Yep. Good. Have at it. So, yeah, I just wanted to give a point is why is this like a cancelable thing to say? Is it because like it's a genocide?

Because both sides are kind of excluding that it's a genocide. The Palestinians are saying that the Jews are genociding them. The Jews are saying the Palestinians are genociding them. So I don't think it's like a right or wrong thing. I think it's because majority of the major colleges are run by Zionists. And that's why this is a cancelable offense. I don't think she's saying something outrageous. If she would support the Jews. Israel, she would not be—

Hang on a second. Hang on. You're a little bit—you're not quite linear. Help me here. So you're saying that Zionists are the most—Jewish people are the biggest contributors? Is that the contention? Oh, Zionists. You have people who support Israel.

Well, that's a term I really had never heard until about a year ago, frankly, except as a historical anachronism. Yeah, never heard it, really. Almost never used. So do you mean Jewish people or do you mean people? Ben Shapiro has always called himself a Zionist for years. I mean, it's been around Zionist for years he may be

I understand Zionism was a Hungarian I've heard the word Zionist I've heard the word the point is it was never used to describe Jewish people per se I'm not describing all Jewish people I'm describing a specific

sect of Jewish people but then the question is I've had this define Zionism I'm describing a specific sect of Jewish people. No, but then the question is going to be... The people that... I've had this... Go ahead, Fiva. Define Zionism. Some people are going to say

believing in the state of Israel, believing the state of Israel has the right to exist. Others are going to say Zionism is genocidal occupation of land that's not their own. So the term is loaded. It's often used more as an insult than a description. But back this up a bit. If Zionism is the reason why

Liz McGill got fired, then why isn't Claudine Gay and the other one getting fired? Or being forced to resign? Well, they're still getting a bunch of backlash and they almost did get forced to resign. I mean, they're not open to the remarks. They weren't getting cheered on by the

major universities for that. And maybe they will have to resign soon. But she's the one that's getting attacked right now. I think they should. I think that as their functions are, they should be forced to resign or resign voluntarily because this has nothing to do with Zionism or Jews. If they had said calling for genocide against Hutus or blacks or gays or whatever, can you not say that that violates the abuse and harassment policy?

If they can't say that, then either you have a problem with the policy or you have a problem with their understanding of it. But she wasn't specifically calling for the, sorry for cutting you off, but she wasn't specifically calling for the genocide of anybody. She was just supporting-

That was, first of all, that was specifically the question. This is why I've had some fights with people on Twitter. The question was, is calling for the genocide of Jews violative of the abuse and harassment policy that was the question not specifically yes was that what she specifically said that was specifically what she said it it wasn't a question of whether or not she said it repeatedly she said it she said it like she kept saying it over and over again she says is calling for the genocide of jews a violation of

your harassment policy yes or no and what you got back was it depends on the context and and but wait a second i want to get into the scientism because because on the context because people will call anything the the genocide of jews people will say you will take any point you make and say you're trying to call for the genocide of Jews. I think that's why she was trying to say that. This question was not whether or not from the river to the sea is a call for genocide. The question was, is calling for the genocide of Jews? This is a sign that says genocide for Jews.

Is it violating the law? This is where it gets shaky because it's just the idea that you don't have to specifically say it to be calling for the genocide of Jews for these people. You can say anything and we can say that you're calling for the genocide of Jews. But that wasn't the question. The question wasn't whether or not someone's belief that they had been called for genocide was, the question was whether or not calling for genocide violates the rules. It's, that's the, it's baked into the question. So there's no room to interpret the question ambiguously. It was baked in definitionally. And she couldn't say, yes, calling for genocide is violent,

is abuse and harassment. She couldn't say it. And let me just say one other thing, Da Vinci, real quick. So I've lived longer than you have. And throughout my entire life, the whole notion of Zionism was a historical reference to a rabbi in Hungary who came up with an idea of a Jewish day at seven. It was always, always used in the context of that historical moment. It wasn't

ever used to describe a group of people until rather recently. Now, I know people have described themselves that way. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying that when the sort of the widespread use of that term, it strikes my ear every time I hear it because it literally did not happen my entire life. Even though there were Zionists, I understand that. It's just, you would just say Jews or Israelis. You'd say one or the other. You wouldn't use the term Zionist, which suddenly became pejorative. Yeah, it became pejorative. So, yeah. Yeah, it became pejorative, which is weird.

It's just, it's like saying, just think of some, I don't know, some political party that doesn't exist anymore or something or existed for a few minutes and describing a people by that party or something. It's very odd. It's a very odd thing that just that by itself. But go back and listen to the interviews of the presidents.

I'm not convinced by that. I haven't been really good. I haven't given my opinion. I'm not sure they should resign. I'm not sure of that. I'm really against cancel stuff. I really am. I don't like it.

And if it materially puts the institutions at risk legally or really materially affects their ability to fundraise, well, the board might want to think about it because that's their responsibility. But I don't like the fact that people get angry and therefore they have to be canceled. I don't like that. I don't like it. They are unfit for the job that they are hired to do or the position that they've accepted. They're unfit for it. You cannot be the president of a university that is a multicultural institution

that has students from across the world of all walks of life and cause any one group, it could be Jews, it could be gays, it could be whatever, to feel neglected by the people who control the institution. You just can't do it. So it's not cancel culture. It's not suppression of freedom of speech. They're unfit for their job. But you're laying it at the feet control the institution. You just can't do it. So it's not cancel culture. It's not suppression of freedom of speech. They're unfit for their job. But you're laying it at the feet of the president.

You're laying it at the feet of the president. And I don't know. I'm laying it at the lips of the woman who could not say, yeah, it's obviously a violation of policy. But Da Vinci, I think you would find it really interesting to watch the interviews again because she is the um and thank you for your question the the interviewer is so crystal clear

she's so she's i and by the way i i again i she had some following questions i thought she should have done that she didn't but but the the question at hand was so crystal clear you know you know are unambiguous calls for a genocide of a group of people okay in your institution, which is what she was asking. All right. Boy, lots of people now

with their hands up. Look what you've done. I can stay longer. I can stay longer if you can have me, Drew. All right. All right. We'll add Marcel in here.

You have to get what? The what? Okay. So the door is going to ring pretty soon. Marcel, what's going on there? Hello, Dr. Drew. Hello, Viva. First of all, I wanted to start off by thanking Viva so much for his coverage around the trucker protests. It was definitely a low point in my life and watching the coverage definitely was a moment that buoyed my spirits and brought me back from a rock bottom

spot. So thank you so much, Viva. I, I truly appreciate that. Are you, are you Canadian? I am Canadian. I am from the province of New Brunswick. His name is Marcel. Well, and he's got, he's got, you've got've got it you've got the Canadian accent I mean I can hear the the maritime yeah yeah I can't hide my Canadian that's for sure for sure I guess like so so uh go ahead yeah my uh my question is um for. It's around the vaccines. I hear a lot of stuff around bad interactions with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine. But myself, I waited to get the Novavax vaccine, and I haven't heard a lot of coverage around that.

Correct. Is there anything that I need to be worried about long term with that vaccine or any side effects? Or would those mostly have been noticed earlier yeah there have been some similar side effects it doesn't seem to what the some of the thinking is that you're probably getting a some people are probably producing more spike than others with the way the mRNA is being taken up and the machinery is being activated in some individuals or their spike protein is persisting longer. They're getting more spike protein and the spike protein is the

pathogenic piece of the organism. And while all the vaccines are directed at that, some seem to produce more spike than others potentially, not always, but potentially. What is that now? I'm hearing somebody's phone go or something. That was me. I was trying to. Was that Susan? Ah, sorry. Okay. But I would, the Novavax I thought was a better product. I thought it was a better product myself. The spike protein the same way that the mRNA is. My understanding was that the mRNA was sort of turning your body into a spike protein factory,

whereas the Novavax was more you had a concentration of it put in you during that initial shock, but it didn't generate additional ones afterwards. Correct. And again, in terms of the production of the spike protein by the mRNA, I have a feeling we're going to find that some people, for some reason, produce more than others. That's my sense of this. When people get into trouble with the vaccine, it looks to me like something is sort of idiosyncratic to the individual, not the vaccine. And yet, the vaccine is the proximate cause. So yeah, Novavax is a good product. If you listened to me in the early days,

I kept saying, wait for Novavax, everybody. Let's get the Covaxin in here. That's even better. We never got Covaxin to my knowledge and the Novavax came and then ended up having some problems too. It was not as quite as clean as I thought it would be. Well, Viva, we got to kind of wrap things up. We were coming up against the clock.

Although you and I could go on forever. Susan and Caleb have to eventually, Caleb has to return to his new baby and Susan has to run downstairs to get groceries. Is that what you said? So how come we don't get the camera on you anymore? I don't understand. There, let's see.

Let's say hi to Susan. No, we don't seem to be getting that picture. Caleb, oh, there we go. There you are. So- Caleb doesn't put it on me very often because I always complain that I don't look good enough.

But I had my hair done today. So he doesn't want to take the wrath of Susan Penske. And then I'm over your shoulder. That's a pretty good little picture. I like that. So, Viva, again, thanks for dinner the other night.

Our buddy, Mark Robert, who I've known for many, many years. I didn't know you knew. And we ended up at the same dinner table with him at your house, which was a lot of fun. And he has some interesting, I don't know if you've heard his predictions for the presidential campaigns and stuff.

He's similar to sort of uncanny ability to predict the future politically. So you might want to pick his brain a little bit. I'm going to go and listen. I know that he was not happy with RFK's campaign manager pick, that he thinks RFK running is going to take more from Trump than from Biden. I don't agree with him on that, but I'm going to go hear what his predictions are. He predicting some monumental changes as we go into the conventions and the run-up to the elections and stuff. And I did

Roseanne's podcast yesterday and had a lot of fun talking to her. And her contention is it's going to be continuity of government, COG, that there's going to be an emergency declared and just keep the same people in and let it go. And that will be that. And I looked it up and there is

some provisions in some law that you're in an emergency allowed to have continuity of government. I don't know. You ever heard about that? We've learned it from the democracy of Ukraine that when you declare war and you declare martial law, you don't conduct elections to preserve democracy. So, yeah. Wait, was this… Well…

I'm sorry. Wasn't that what they were most terrified of Trump doing just like four years ago like they were screaming he was going to try to do that and now that's a possibility

with oh yeah there's so much there's so much projection going going all over the place for whatever whatever somebody says

somebody else is doing expect them to do it soon that seemed and as I saw a French I saw a French psychoanalyst say something very clear the other day I was I listened to a lot of French television seemed, and as I saw a French, I saw a French psychonaut say something very clear the other day. I listened to a lot of French

television and things. And he said, listen, when a narcissist says to you, you are, what I want you to hear is, I am. And we have a lot of narcissism

running around here. So always when you see the point finger going out, know that it really is meant to go in. There's the old expression expression when you point a finger there's three pointing right back at you but when they when they start parroting the talking point if trump comes in he's going to weaponize the system to go after his ideological political

adversaries when that's exactly what they've been doing for the last since 2016 i mean the fact that it works on some people and they don't have the insight to say, holy crap, you're accusing that guy of doing exactly what you're doing. That's what's discouraging. But it's clear as day. It's undeniable at this point. Whatever they're accusing their enemies of doing is what they're doing themselves. Hold up the coloring book again. Let's get the brain coloring book out there again.

The braincoloringbook.com. Lots of folds. That's an indication of intelligence. Yes, that's brain volume. That's the folds. It's clearly not Viva's brain there, nor mine. It's our wife. And I happened to flip to the about.

That's my wife down there. Speaking of a Canadian accent, it's about her and his wife. And I also want to hold up two of the books I've mentioned today, which is The Captured Mind, The Captive Mind, The Captive Mind by someone who lived through Nazism and Bolshevism and how that all worked. And then this is something we talked to Rand Paul yesterday. I was suggesting that Viva check that out. It's about the really it's it's a about uh the the really it's he's just reporting on the the uh house findings and the the the senate and the hearings and what he was listening to and what he speculates he puts it all together it's pretty it's pretty

interesting stuff but and he goes places i i didn't expect to go frankly i i but he's pretty convincing in terms of what evidence is there. All right, everybody, we are back. Viva, I'll let you go. I'll see you soon. And thank you for quickly running over here. And we'll talk to you no doubt very, very soon and hopefully visit you in Florida better yet. Anytime, and you're always welcome.

Thank you very much. And you here too, if you ever come out here, my goodness. I mean, I hope you'll join us. And we're coming up to Claire Craig. I think if you want to watch, preview what we're going to talk about, John Campbell did a two-part interview with her. A very interesting physician

who immediately got suspicious and started looking at the facts. We've got Michelle Effendi on Wednesday and Brad Williams coming in on the 21st. Li Meng Yan coming back on December 28th. Emily Kaplan, who is a friend and a skeptic. And you'll see what her sort of take on things is. I'm seeing also Roseanne, yeah, Jim.

All right, Sean Baker on January 2nd. Brian Kilmeade on January 3rd. Jim Brewer on January 4th. Roseanne coming in on the 10th, and then Dr. Paul Alexander on the 11th. I love how we go from a little person to a virologist, a Chinese virologist. We mix it up over here. We're rangy. We're rangy here. But this should be very, we have some great guests lined up. Thank you, Emily Barsh, for sending this all up.

This is an all-star lineup coming, and hopefully we'll all learn something and share something along the way. We've got some Rees on the Rumble, I see. We've got Rees. We've got new followers. We see you out there. This is a, thank you, Salty Cracker. XS Skater, XS Skater.

And a reminder, VivaFry is VivaFry.com, F-R-E-I. Twitter, The Viva Fry is vivafry.com. F-R-E-I. Twitter, The Viva Fry. Rumble, Viva Fry. Instagram, Viva Fry. Facebook, Viva Fry. Everywhere, Viva Fry. YouTube, Viva Fry. And then the Viva and Barnes Live,

vivabarnes.local.com. Thank you, everybody. Have a nice weekend. We'll see you on Tuesday at our usual time. We're gonna see Abraham here at Brad Williams. He's here or she's here for the little people. So you go. See you on Tuesday, 3 o'clock Pacific time.

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.