Ask Dr. Drew - Are “Bad Batches” of mRNA Causing Adverse Reactions? Dr. Vibeke Manniche Discusses Danish Research w/ Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 255

Episode Date: August 28, 2023

Are there differences between batches of mRNA vaccines – and are some more dangerous than others? Dr. Vibeke Manniche recently joined John Campbell to discuss a peer-reviewed research paper she coauthored titled “Batch-dependent safety of the BNT16b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine” published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation, which appears to show connections between mRNA adverse reactions and specific batches. Scott Schara – father of Grace Schara – also joins the show to discuss his case against Ascension Health and the dangers of healthcare being entangled with financial incentives. Dr. Vibeke Manniche is a Danish physician, PhD, and author of 35 books. For over 34 years, she has focused on epidemiology and rare diseases. Dr. Manniche has spoken widely against lockdowns and COVID mandates since the earliest days of the pandemic. Follow Dr. Manniche at https://twitter.com/mannichevibeke Scott Schara is a nationally-recognized expert commentator on euthanasia and the dangers of incentivized healthcare. He is the father of Grace Schara, a 19-year-old with Down syndrome whose death is at the center of Scott’s landmark lawsuit against St. Elizabeth’s Hospital (Ascension Health), currently underway in Wisconsin Circuit Court. Scott alleges that Ascension Health staff fraudulently designated his daughter as a “Do Not Resuscitate” patient and murdered her with a lethal combination of drugs. After being removed by armed security guards, Scott says he was forced to watch his child die via FaceTime. Follow Scott at https://twitter.com/GraceEmilysDad and https://ouramazinggrace.substack.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 • COZY EARTH - Say goodbye to hot, restless nights with soft, temperature-regulating bedding from Cozy Earth. Susan and Drew love Cozy Earth's sheets made with super-soft viscose from bamboo! Use code DREW at checkout to save 40% at https://drdrew.com/cozy • 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 • PRIMAL LIFE - Dr. Drew recommends Primal Life's 100% natural dental products to improve your mouth. Get a sparkling smile by using natural teeth whitener without harsh chemicals. For a limited time, get 60% off at https://drdrew.com/primal • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get 15% off your first order at https://drdrew.com/paleovalley • 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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Well, first of all, apologies for misquoting the time of the show yesterday to you all. We are obviously here early. We are here because Wiebeck Manneke is in Denmark, and we didn't want her to have to be up at three o'clock in the morning. She, of course, is the physician and researcher who published some data on really clearly showing that about 5% of vaccine lots were responsible for the vast majority of adverse vaccine reactions. She had a great deal of difficulty getting this published. You may have seen her on John Campbell's show chronicling this misadventure, and I would like to get into

that great detail today with her. There's a lot to be said. It's excellent studies. The fact that it was not published immediately is scandalous, in my humble opinion. And Dr. Victory, of course, will be here with us as well. Please let everyone know that we are here today. Also, we have a second guest who will be here in about 45 minutes, Scott Schara, an expert in euthanasia. He had a child that was essentially allowed to die of 19-year-old Down syndrome, and there's a landmark lawsuit at the center of that. We'll get into that in about an hour, 45 minutes or so.

But first now, let's get right to Dr. Manicke and Dr. Victory. Our laws as it pertain 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 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 help stopping, I can help.

I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. I suspect you've seen Susan and I gushing over Paleo Valley products. We love the taste and how well they fit into a paleo-based nutrition regimen. They're delicious and we use them for travel all the time, but there is more. We are huge fans as well of Paleo Valley's grass-fed bone broth protein. It comes in three flavors, unflavored, vanilla, and chocolate. It's a powder you can add to really anything. We add it to coffee literally every day. Smoothies, baked dishes, just hot water dissolves really easily. The bone broth protein is made with 100% grass-fed and finished bones that are free from pesticides or antibiotics

and are slow simmered to extract as much collagen as possible. As we age, collagen breaks down. That's what wrinkles are. And research shows that there are significant benefits to adding a collagen source in your diet. I don't think it's too much to say. It's changed our lives. And Susan is now reporting that after drinking the bone broth for a few weeks, her hair is stronger and longer and nails are stronger too. Try it for yourself. You can order at drdrew.com slash paleo

valley and use drdrew at checkout to save an additional 15%. A lot of you have been asking for more information about how to counter the adverse effects of the spike protein from COVID infections and the COVID vaccine. The spike protein is not your friend. Let's just say that. So I'm glad we have the wellness company Spike Support Formula as a sponsor, especially since renowned internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, who's also chief scientific officer of the wellness company, is one of its champions. There's some very intriguing research around natokinase, which might be a way to take on the spike protein. Listen to this.

So start, if you would, talking about nairokinase how you got to that and where you see its application so with the viral infection or the vaccines the spike protein stays within the body and it's found in the heart the brain the vital organs and is causing problems the japanese have been using this for heart and vascular disease now for 20 years it's safe it is a form of a mild blood thinner that it dissolves the spike protein nearly completely. Spike support formula is the only product on the market containing natokinase, dandelion root, and a host of other antioxidants, all showing promise in helping you protect yourself and your family. To order this unique, specially formulated supplement, go to drdrew.com slash TWC. That is drdrew.com slash twc that is drdrew.com slash

twc use code drew at checkout for 10 off today welcome back everybody and uh susan you asked something about vivek ramaswamy do you want me to talk about the fact that he's likely to be coming back here is that oh yeah i was just yeah i was just thinking about him with his shirt off playing tennis preparing for the uh i decided that we're not gonna ever do that to you yeah thank you for that uh but in any event he is coming back in for another interview and i have maybe a special guest to join me on the interview we're sort of working on although he looked fine but it's just sort of a brand new thing if you want to take a shirt off you should take a shirt off yeah who cares i'm tired of everybody telling everybody how to how. I'm very, very sick of it.

I liked it. And to that point, I believe I have a comrade in arms as it pertains to please let people speak and behave as they will. Dr. Viveke Menakee is a Danish physician, a PhD, author of over 35 books. 34 years she has focused on epidemiology, rare diseases. She's spoken widely against lockdowns,

which is maybe why she was pilloried when she attempted to publish a peer-reviewed journal called The Batch-Dependent Safety of the BNT16B2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine, which eventually was published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation. You can follow her on Twitter. I'm going to spell her name because it's Danish, and I apologize for my doltishness, foppishness.

M-A-N-N-I-C-H-E-V-I-B-E-K-E. I think I did that right. M-A-N-N-I-C-H-E-V-I-B-E-K-E. You can follow her also on Instagram at the same, and she is vbemanakey.dk if you want to see her website. Later on the show, we've got Scott Sherris coming in here. That's a whole other topic we'll get into. That's going to be 45 minutes at least from now. But let's bring in Dr. Manakey.

Welcome. Thank you so much for joining us. And thank you for having me. Thank you very much. So I think many of my audience saw your actually outstanding interviews with John Campbell, where you chronicled your struggle to get these papers published. And you wrote, you went through the data carefully with him and it's rather compelling. I'm going to let, I may let Dr. Victory get in the weeds a little bit about that I want to step back a couple of giant steps and ask what do you think is going

on here I'm very concerned about medical publications and the editorial process there I've never in my career seen literature medical literature only go one direction it's usually a back and forth until you arrive at a consensus of things so what do you imagine is going on having been through the gauntlet with this i wish i could answer that question because it's a very important question you know to ask from my point of view it's been the last three and a half years has actually been totally crazy. Because as you said yourself, we have been used to have, you know, the scientific articles will go this way, that way, you would have the scientific debate,

and you wouldn't have or you wouldn't expect to have censorship. And just like literally on a date, when the whole world was closed down, it kind of brainwashed a lot of the population. Also our colleagues, also colleagues at the scientific journals. And then at that minute, it was what were expected to be. What could you publish? I mean, look at some of the articles, studies you had, like in New England Journal of Medicine. And, you know, it was literally embarrassing what kind of studies they may come through. Every study, which was, you know, a big hooray for everything against COVID-19, everything which was for the vaccination. Literally, it was like they didn't have the peer review any longer. They just said, oh, yes,

just keep it coming. But anything which was at least a little critic, they would censor it. And we felt that ourselves because when we found these data or had them, we thought, well, this is so major news. So, of course, we would go to the big ones first. And we realized how immense the censorship was. And so I wish I could explain, because you and I and Dr. Kelly, we have all been, you know, our whole way of being doctors has been always look at both sides, what's pro, what's against, be careful, you know, what is most important, do not harm, and all that. And suddenly it's like, no, there's just one side of the coin. Be careful. You know, what is most important? Do not harm and all that.

And suddenly it's like, no, there's just one side of the coin. There's no flip side. There's no discussion about side effects, whether there could be side effects. It was literally like you from above and then everyone should just be clapping their hands. Also, the doctors, the colleagues. And I think that has been very depressing and also very disillusioning because I would have expected that peers, colleagues would be much more awake, would keep their critical sense, would say, okay, that's fine, that's the pros, what's the cons? But you just forgot everything about about cons it's depressing but i think i have you i i the disillusionment is sort of deep in me as well as kelly and i often say you know we we

now are contemplating things that in the past we'd been completely dismissive of uh and now we're at least open to a conversation about it. But what one of the, you know, I know we're crazy in this country, but it's so odd to me that the entire international, thank you, and the entire international medical world seem to go the same way, or at least the Western world. Is that the new world of the internet and social media? Have our governments changed? How medicine is practiced changed? Is there

something that was happening here that we weren't really aware of? I thought it was in this country that so many physicians were employees. That seemed to be a really serious impact on all this because doctors were afraid to speak up. They didn't want to lose their job. They just shut up and did what they need to do. Interestingly, the surgeons didn't do that so much because surgeons, nobody can interfere with their improvising when they're in a surgical field. They're very used to making their own decisions and just doing what they need to do. But the internist and the whole medical side was all completely cowed by this. It was caved.

But it seems something much more than that was afoot. And then we have on top of that, we have the World Health Organization seemingly, I don't want to say enjoying this, but capitalizing on it and continuing to move in that same direction as though this were a good thing. What are your thoughts on that? Well, first of all, I think that, you know, if you have asked me before the whole pandemic, whatever we call it, started out, I would have expected that some of my colleagues, which are professor and this and that, you know, I would have expected that they would keep being critic. They will know that, as I said before, it has a flip side, what's pros and cons. And when something happened, like it was, I can only call it a brainwash, really, that everyone was like, oh, this is terrible. This is something that's going to happen.

Oh, please help me. Oh, is there a vaccination? Thank God for that. It was like people forgot to think themselves. It was like people forgot to think themselves. It was like people forgot what we have. You know, my whole learning has been always think, OK, that's fine. But what are the side effects? What are the costs?

What is pros and cons? How can you get the treatment to work? But what are the side effects or will the side effects kill the patient and so on? And suddenly that just disappeared. And I think there has been many reasons for that. There has been a wish of power from the government, from, you know, the Biden administration, the Trump in Denmark, from our governments, there's been a wish of power. There have been a huge amount of money, you know, on stake on this, you know, see Pfizer's and how

their stock went and the other MRN products and so on. So I think there has been a lot of interest also financially in this, which has kept it going. And then there has been like a censorship, whether it has been controlled from somewhere. We know that when we saw the Twitter files, we know that the Biden administration paid Twitter, Google, LinkedIn, Facebook, you know, I felt it myself, you probably also did, to censor critical doctors and so on. So there has been a lot of things going on. And I think that's not one explanation. And then I think one thing is, which is very important,

is the fear mongering. Like if you're afraid, like then you will do whatever the government tells you to do. And they were very brave, also the press, to make people afraid. It was like, at least in Denmark,

now you should be afraid or you should be even more afraid or saying, oh, be afraid. So it was like, everything was there. Fear mongering and fear mongering makes people walk in one direction. That's my explanation. I don't have. Yeah.

I just keep, I have all kinds. I try to be objective about this and I keep constantly trying to evaluate myself. Like, is there something wrong with me that I'm feeling this way? maybe it's maybe i'm the problem maybe these people are right and of course i just can't see it but but the fear thing it fears it feels more global for instance we had a tropical storm down here in southern california recently and they spent three days

scary trying to scare people to death. And they had meteorologists 24-7 talking about the horrors that were going to befall this area. And I thought, God, this reminds me so much of the virologist I saw during COVID. They were all predicting catastrophe all the time and never trying to reassure people.

It's just this weird direction we've gone as a species almost where fear and control. And then the next version of that is I care. It's because I care. I care so much, which is just a grandiose, narcissistic, passive way of projecting aggression, frankly. I wear my mask because I care, and you're a bad person. You're interested in people dying. That's why you don't care, but I care. So it's fear and care. And I think we've had a massive narcissistic turn. It's worse

than I even thought. And I actually wrote a book on this. And I think that's kind of, I never imagined hysteria would be part of the psychology, but I feel like our narcissism internationally has now bordered on hysteric. And I worked in psychiatry for many, many years. And so I'm not a psychiatrist, but I was around it for 35 years. And so that's my kind of assessment of the ground under which this has all happened. Plus you said money, plus government control, plus a group of people that like that. And then a group of people that like following that, which is again, sort of a passive narcissism, but what do you say?

But, but you see as a doctor, your main issue, if someone has like a serious disease, whether it's cancer, whether it's like heart failure or something, I think a good, a brave doctor will try and, you know, comfort the patient. Of course. It's not going to be okay. It's going to be fine. You know, relax. You feel safe and all that.

That's what a good doctor is doing. And this was exactly the opposite. Of course. Because everyone was, as you said, oh, you have to be afraid. Oh, what a good doctor is doing. And this was exactly the opposite. Because everyone was, as you said, oh, you have to be afraid. Oh, you have to be really afraid. And for me, it was like, that's not how a doctor works. That's not how a doctor should behave. I expected, you know, I followed from the first science we had from China. And I would have expected my go-to for that would have been, you know, easy peasy. Hey, be careful, you know, relax. I did that. I actually did that. I canceled for doing that.

I got canceled and I thought it was the press. I thought it was the press taking advantage of us to try to capitalize and capture eyes. I thought they were at the core of it, but it was something far more pervasive and far deeper. They were there. They were part of the problem. Maybe the whole problem. I don't know, but they, but I kept yelling at that. And I, and at the core of it but it was something far more pervasive and far deeper they were there they were part of the problem maybe the whole problem i don't know but they but i kept yelling at that and i and at the time i kept saying listen to the cdc listen to fauci of course when i got cancelled they took all that out but you're not allowed to say calm down you can't do anything to the fear-mongering because that's that's i care i care you should be afraid exactly what you would expect a good

doctor would say you know take it easy you know and all this but then again when i saw in denmark it was like we were counting one is dead and next day breaking two more deaths and the next breaking breaking yellow and everything three people have died. And it was like, literally, I said, well, come on, calm down. Nothing's going to happen. We're so far, you know, into the spring. You know, I know Denmark very well. It's not going to happen. You know, just relax, sit back and enjoy life.

And as someone said to me, well, listen, if we have had like a headline saying Manneure or manager says you know easy peasy then they wouldn't sell any newspapers no one would go in oh my god does she say they wouldn't have clicks so it was also the fear-mongering you have to be afraid you have to be very much afraid and i think that's so much against being a good doctor. I think being a doctor is to comfort and make people relax and not be afraid. That's the worst part you can do if you want someone to recover. And we saw that also when you put the people, the patient in IQs and they were afraid. They even, you know, they almost had the COVID.

Oh, my God, I'm dying. And before they even reached the IQs, they were afraid. They even, you know, they almost had the COVID, oh my God, I'm dying. And before they even reached the IQs, they died already because they were so frightened. They were so afraid of, oh, I get this disaster. And I think, so in many ways, I think, talking from a doctor's point, I think it has been a disaster. And I think we should be very embarrassed on our professions because I think it has been very bad doctor work, so to speak. I think we should be ashamed of ourselves as a profession because we haven't done it very well. We should have, as a group, tried to comfort the population, tried to make them relax, take out the frightness and all that. But we did the opposite.

Some of our colleagues were part of that fear-mongering. They would, oh, yes, oh, yes, be careful, take care out there, oh, and take care, go get your vaccination so grandma won't die. You know, they went on this, I don't know what we can call it on your channel, but I thought, I think that ashamed of my profession and I want to apologize. I want to, some of our behavior was inexcusable, sending people home, telling them to come back to the, when they desaturated, not following people properly.

It, I am ashamed. I am ashamed. And this is something, you know, you, you know, we've been, most of our life have been in this profession. It's deep in us. And to have to feel this way is not comfortable. We'll take a little break here.

Go ahead. Take a break. I want to bring Dr. Victory into this conversation as well. She's going to get more into the weeds with you about the study for sure. I wanted to get this part, the emotional part of this up front.

So we'll take a little break, be right back right after this. I want to share with you a teeth whitening system that goes beyond merely enhancing your smile. Primal Life Organics real white teeth whitening system offers convenience and rapid results without harsh chemicals. Light, blue light for whitening, red light for gum and oral hygiene, and you can just do both if you wish. Works naturally, promoting gum healing, tooth remineralization, gives you a brighter and a healthier smile. Again, no peroxide involved. Consistent usage yields remarkable results. Take this opportunity to transform your smile and at the same time, optimize your oral health. Aim for five times a week for the best outcomes. Discover more about this remarkable teeth whitening system and other

products at drdrew.com slash primal today. That again is drdrew.com slash P-R-I-M-A-L. Be sure to use that link for 60% off. D-R-D-R-A-W dot com slash P-R-I-M-A-L. Do it today for 60% off. There are three steps to great-looking, glowing complexion in the summer. Of course, apply sunscreen, stay hydrated, and use the amazing skincare products from our friends at GenuCell.

Most retinol creams are not recommended for sunlight, but GenuCell's Ultra Retinol uses a powerful plant extract retinol. It's an alternative called Bacuchiol, which helps the skin stay hydrated, smooths out fine lines without harsh side effects, and it is safe to use outside under your sunscreen. Genyacel works so well, you can see the results in this unplanned live moment on our show when the Redness Repair Cream repaired my skin in just minutes right before your eyes. And Susan and I love GenuCell so much, we created our affordable bundles at up to 72% off of our favorite products at GenuCell.com slash Drew.

And just for the summer, every subscription includes a customized summer spa gift box absolutely free. I know I'm a snob about the products I use on my face. Everybody knows it. Every time I go to the dermatologist's office, they're just rows and rows of different creams. And then when I get to the counter, they're overpriced. All kinds of products that you can all find at GenuCell.com. See what's in our bundles. Get ready to show off your summertime skin. Go to GenuCell.com slash Drew. That's G-E-N-U-C-E-L dot com slash D-R-E-W Genucel dot com slash Drew. And remember to use the code Drew at checkout for extra savings.

Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. If 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. Dr. Victor, I hope I set this up properly for you. So here you go. Absolutely.

Thank you. And Dr. Manica, thanks so much for joining us. I've really been looking forward to this conversation with you. I am going to get into the weeds specifically about this issue of variability with the mRNA batches. But before I do, I just want to amplify what you and Drew were talking about. You and I share a common background in public health. And to be clear, there is absolutely no legitimate role for the employment of fear in managing public health.

You know that, I know that, Drew knows that. But we now have the evidence that this was not only done because we witnessed it, but we have the documents now from the FDA, the CDC, multiple advisory boards where they talked about leveraging fear, leveraging the hype, amplifying it, really, really optimizing on fear. I think it's despicable. It's absolutely unconscionable and the people who did it should be held to account. So to be clear, fear does not play a role in medicine. Education does. We are there to educate people, to compel them with legitimate things that they may end up finding fearful. If you tell somebody, if you smoke

cigarettes, your risk of lung cancer is exponentially increased. They may find that fearful, but that is a fact. We're educating people and helping them to make better lifestyle and life choices. So I truly find this absolutely despicable that they did it. Yeah, this quote, this was one from Peter Daszak, where he's talking about the hype. The word hype, I find just chilling. The idea that they're acknowledging, the word hype means nothing other than amplifying and really trying to make people believe that there is more to be concerned about than there really was. And as I said, I think despicable is the word that

applies here. Now, changing gears, with regard specifically to this issue of variability within the vaccine batches, this is something that I reported on from the very beginning, and it was based largely on what we were seeing clinically. We were trying to come up with why is it that we are seeing these huge differences with regard to vaccine response some people obviously you know many people got the vaccine and had nary a symptom they did fine and we had other groups of people who had horrific side effects uh including clearly you know death um death and lots of other problems in between. So why we were seeing this huge variability and early on there was a website that I'm sure you're aware of called How Bad Was My Batch? Where you could actually go and enter not only the brand, Moderna or

Pfizer or J&J, what brand of vaccine you got, but the actual lot number and look up and see how many adverse events were associated with that lot. So I was aware of that. What I'd like you to lead us through is how you first became interested or aware that there may be some variability in the lots. Let's talk about that first, and then we'll talk about why we think that is. But how did you get to where you are in terms of looking at this? Well, we are a group,

you know, we are a group of three authors. We have one statistician, and that's me, and then there's a professor in cardiology. So we are a team of three of us. And the two of us, that is Mark Smelling, who made all the statistics. And I started very early to talk. I mean, I have been from the start, been looking very much about how many did have the disease in Denmark, how are the numbers going up and down, and trying to find out how many were getting into the IQs, how many were going to the hospitals, how many was dying, and how was it all going. And so we kept looking at all the data to the hospitals, how many were dying, and how was it all going. And so we kept looking at all the data from the beginning just to see how it would go.

And it went as we expected, you know, nothing really to worry about, at least not in Denmark. I'm very good at the Danish data, but nevertheless. And then when the rollout of the vaccine rollout started out, that's like a year ahead in the pandemic, whatever you call it. And it was like, all right, listen, we know already at that time that, you know, people weren't dying all over the place. They weren't like, oh, you know, SARS-CoV-2 and there they go. So we knew already that it wasn't that, you know, fearful. It wasn't that deadly a virus, and especially not for younger people, especially not for healthy people and so on. So at that point, it was like the whole

pressure from the Danish authorities and the Danish government was not only go and get your vaccination, but also the people who choose not to be vaccinated was being harassed. And, you know, they tried to make life difficult for people who were not vaccinated. And they tried to get someone to stigmatize them and so on. And then we started to think, all right, you have an experimental injection. Going back to what we talked about beforehand, usually you would go and talk about what's the pros and what's the cons, what's the cost of this, like literally money-wise,

but also your risk and what do you gain, all that discussion. And it was like, this doesn't make sense. It's an experimental injection. It hasn't gone through all the usual projects, how you do a new product. has been tried to be used for HIV, and they have been working on that technique for many years without even succeeding, and suddenly in three months it's there. So we started to think, all right, one thing, should you vaccinate everyone? I mean, I never felt that there was a reason for vaccinating everyone, and even less with an experimental injection.

But nevertheless, and then as you said yourself there came some um uh what can you call it trends like from uh uh from bears in in the states we saw some people who make made kind of said will there be a batch difference we had the vice president from pfizer saying in the nature article, which really frightened me, like we are building the airplane while we're flying. And I was like, what are you talking about? You know, are you like, are you changing the product along the way? And then I had some colleagues which were doing the vaccination, like a practitioner and so on. And they started, as you said yourself, to talk about it was funny, not funny, but it was odd that like someone became very sick,

very close to the vaccinations at some of the elderly homes, like people were literally dying within a few days after. So there was these signs. And then we said, all right, let's look into the data. Because I've like all my life been looking into data, to facts, to the epidemiology. And I'm like, I'm curious. It's not like I expect something to happen. And if it doesn't look like I want it to do, I just move around on the numbers. I keep an open mind, like saying, oh, well, thank God if it's safe and sound. But it turned out, when we looked into these data, that there was a difference between the risk of

getting side effects, and this is reported side effects, whether you have that or that batch. And the minute we found that there was a difference, and the minute we found that we had to look into it, then we had these three trends, literally, as you can see on one of the slides, that some batches gave literally like 71% of all side effects or suspected side effects, reported side effects were literally only 4.2 percent of the batches. So something very odd was going on. So it was like a process with one thing was that what's going on? Why are we not being critical?

Why are they building the airplane while they fly? I don't want to go on that airplane. I'm frightened already for flying, so if they're building the airplane while we're flying, that counts me out. So the odd thing is that when we got these data, and Mark Smelling, who is the statistician, we thought, oh, this is varying news. This is very varying. So he actually informed the government, the Danish government, the people deciding to do this and that.

So the minute he actually did what he should, or we did a little bit together, but nevertheless, and what was even more frightening was they couldn't care less. They just came back with a rude answer like, you know, I would expect if you were sitting in like an authority and still have an open mind and someone shows up with very varying data, this is officially data, this is not something we have made up ourselves, this is the official data and you shows how varying it is i would expect that everyone you know sensible would say oh my god

what's going on uh hang on for a minute we have to look more into this but instead they did the opposite they harassed they defamed they you know it was laughing stock right you know like you were you were um you know what you call it as i don't know what you call it in english but a crazy person conspiracy conspiracy so so yeah so so let me interject here for let me interject here for a second because and then we're going to get into more of the actual data because some of the things you've talked about i think people don't realize, I have spoken, you know, ad nauseum about how poorly tested or untested these shots were. You know, the average vaccine takes six to eight years to come to market if it ever comes to market at all. We have never give vaccines or new therapeutics to groups on whom they've never been tested,

like pregnant women, and on and on. But a couple of the things that you mentioned, I think, get glossed over. Number one, that they acknowledged they were, quote, building the airplane as they were flying it. In other words, they were making it up. And you asked a critical question. Are you changing this midstream? And the answer is yes. They not only didn't test these adequately, but they made changes that never got tested. They changed, for example, from uridine to pseudo-uridine without ever starting back over at ground zero and testing again. They changed some of the carriers, some of the adjuvants without retesting it.

And to be clear to people listening to this, when you are testing a drug, normally a new drug, if you so much as change the color of the capsule, you change from a blue plastic capsule to a red, you got to start over. You start over because that is a change. You don't get to change the formulation of the damn drug halfway into it. So now you and your colleagues yeah you had brought us jessica rose early on also who also raised the alarm about the manufacturing process which you and i couldn't really have known but that she said there was a lot problem way back so she was identifying how it happened too and so that's that's where I want to go next. I want to be, Dr. Amanaka, I want to ask you about that next,

but go ahead if you wanted to jump in there. Just a short note, because as you said, also with the cold chain, because when I started, I was talking about these colleagues who were doing the vaccinations, and they said, you know, you have this minus 70 degrees, the cold chain storage of the vaccine. And one of my colleagues, who used to be a director beforehand, but nevertheless, she came back and she said, and I said, well, it must be difficult to take the vaccines from minus 70 degrees.

And how quick should you go to the patient and give the injection? And then she said, oh, well, don't worry. It's not necessary any longer. And then again, I thought, that's odd. You start out with having something which should be minus 70 degrees and just one day like that. No, don't bother.

Just have it. And then they just lined it up. Like one day it was minus 70 degrees and next day no no let it just get get hot and then i realized how how much do they have control of this product will it change along the way have they changed the product itself why do you have a product which one day should be minus 70 degrees and next day don't bother just keep it on the heater. You know, it was so crazy. And also what they said to the people who vaccinated is that we will change it along the way. So as you said, that's even more crazy.

Yeah. So the question is before. No, no. So before we went on, I was telling sharing with you before we went live that I posted three times today about this show on Twitter and posted in my post about the show, asking the question, was this variation in the lots, the variation in the mRNA shots, was it, quote, purposeful or was it simply sloppy manufacturing practices? That post was taken down three times by Twitter. They don't want me posing that question. They knew we were going to get on here to talk about vast variability in the mRNA lots, but when I asked the elephant in the room

question, was this purposeful or just really sloppy manufacturing? That apparently makes the fact checkers at Twitter real uncomfortable. They don't want that out there in the Twitter sphere. So I'm going to pose it to you. You just quoted a really, sort of a stunning bit of data that I believe if I got you right, that you're saying somewhere around between 70 and 80% of all of the severe reported adverse events were related to less than 5% of the total batches of the mRNA. Did I get that right? No, we call it, well, we call it suspected adverse events, and that's about 70% of those, which has been reported, because I think that's also 70% of those, which has been reported.

Because I think that's also a very important point to make. This is the tip of the top of the iceberg because there's a huge amount of underreporting of the side effects. So this is like, and that goes for only 4.2% of the badges. So like you have what we call the blue badges or the bad badges. You have some badges which literally gave many more side effects, less serious, but many more side effects, also death than some of the other badges. But I think it's a proper question to ask, how could this happen?

Because what is also interesting is since we have publication out, we have got access to data from Pfizer, which shows that exactly the blue badges, as we call them, the bad badges, so to speak, Pfizer knew of that already in, I think it was in August 21. There's a file from Pfizer where they show or they tell the European Medical Agency about the post-marketing. And it tells which batches gives the most side effects, exactly the blue batches, which I think is even more varying. Not only did Pfizer knew about this, but the authorities was actually told that there was this.

And that makes me even more worried because they knew that, not only because they could make up the data themselves, and that's why you have a pharmacovigilance system where you look into the safety, but they actually have the report from Pfizer itself, which shows that they knew that about the badges. And that makes me even more worried because I'm like, why didn't the public get these informations? So we had, Drew and I spoke in the past with both, he mentioned Dr. Jessica Rose, who had done some deep analysis of this early on, as well as Sasha Ladopova, who also reported on the variability in the different batches. So the question is, if you look at those, quote, blue batches, as you referenced them,

that were well known by the manufacturer to be, quote, bad batches or associated with the adverse events. Do we know in what way they were, quote, bad? Is it because they have higher concentrations of the mRNA? Is it because they have higher concentrations of the lipid nanoparticles? Is it because they have a contaminant of some other sort? Are they contaminated with something else? Do we know what is it about those particular batches that has caused them to be, quote, bad? I wish we had the answer because what we know after we had the publication out is that before

we published the data, we asked the Danish Serum Institute, as it's called, and the Danish Medical Agency, if we could have which batch been given at what time. And at that time, they denied us these informations, so we didn't know if the batches were the early batches or the later batches. But after the study came out, they actually went out and said that the blue badges were the early badges, which makes sense in the terms of Pfizer saying that we're building the airplane while we're flying. So the blue badges are actually the first badges which

were given in Denmark to the population. But whether it was a product problem, whether it was the transportation, the stores, the way of injection, we don't know. This is like a safety signal, really. So what I would have expected was that the authorities took this serious and said, well, this is very varying. We have to look into these badges and try and see if we can find a difference between the bad badges, as we call it, or the blue badges, which gave so many suspected adverse events to the ones in the yellow ones, which hardly gave any reported suspected adverse events. So I would have expected that they would say, we have to look into these badges. Give us the badges. Let us check the product, whether it's the product, as you said,

or maybe it's more than one explanation that we don't know. But we know now that the blue badge was the badges given in the start. Because you don't have to have just... Go ahead. Finish your thought. No, that raises another very important question because you see a timeline where it starts with the blue badges which gives many more side effects than the badges given along the way later on. But that, I think, raises a very important question,

and that is, well, if the side effects changes and they, you know, they obviously change the product or the product line, whatever, the logistic, they change something. What about the efficacy? So, you know, if the side effects drop like that, what about the efficacy? You know, that's't work at all.

You don't have to have a modicum of experience in manufacturing to know that there should not be batch to batch inconsistency. If you're making something as low tech as, you know, bags of M&Ms that have five colors, every 1,000th bag, they tear it open and they make sure that there are an equivalent number of red and green and blue and yellow M&Ms in the bag. Certainly when you're talking about a biologic like an mRNA injection, you would hope that the vaccine manufacturer would be making sure that there was batch to batch absolute consistency, not only with the amount of mRNA, of course, the amount of nanoparticle and the stability of the mRNA, which is known to be a relatively fragile compound.

So it sounds like, so we now know that there was at a minimum, at a minimum, there was gross sloppiness. The best I can give them was absolute incompetence, abject incompetence, and an willful negligence with regard to manufacturing practices. That's the best I can give them. That's a guess. You know, of course, we don't know. We can just see that there's this bad safety signal. But I must admit, I've been watching the Senate hearing in Australia, and I've seen how they have answered both from Pfizer and Moderna. And I've been like, are that literally the best people they are putting on the stand? Like, is that the best answers?

So I must admit, and also what we have experienced here with some of the press in Germany and the answers they give, and I'm like, are you kidding me? Is this the best card you're having? So maybe some of it is. Yeah, this has been shocking. A couple quick things from me here real quick. We're going to have to wrap up, Kelly, in about 10 minutes or so with Dr. Manneke.

But I have this quick question, which is anything about those side effects you were documenting in the blue group? Were they more intense? Were people more likely to die of whatever these side effects were was there cancer mix it what what were we what were what was in that in that mix well well in that mix there was a a bigger amount of serious side effects as you said and death is of course the the most serious part more deaths and more serious side effects, more serious neurological heart attacks, heart failures, and so on. So there were more of the serious side effects. But what worries me is that this has been reported in a very kind of close timeline to when people had the vaccination.

Like, you know, I get the vaccination today and tomorrow I get a heart attack. I'm like, all right, that could be a connection. But what worries me now is that people may get cancer or may get, you know, heart failure later on, maybe a year or two, because we have had in Denmark and many other European countries excess mortality since May 21. And I'm worried that some of people who may have had the blue badges and get cancer, you know, brain tumor in a young age where they shouldn't, you know, get brain tumor, get cancers in a young age or get heart failures and that. And I'm worried that, you know, less people will think, oh, well, I had the blue badge or I have this or that or the doctors. And that's why I'm saying to my colleagues, please be aware if you have like an odd story, like if you've been a doctor for many years and you know your field, then you know when something odd, this is unusual. If you have someone, patients who, where this history is

unusual, go and look to the beds. Could there be a connection? And that's why what we're going ahead with now for our study is to look also on all-cause mortality. So, you know, I'm not saying that will be the, but you could expect that now this is like May or no, January 21. So it's more than two years ago we started vaccinating. Will there be a different all-cause mortality, not only from, you know, straight up with the vaccination, but just all causes? And we try to get those data. But what happens is because of the censorship, suddenly we can't get the data.

You know, the doors are closed. They won't let us have the data. And I think that's an important- You're quite right that cancer is going to be the lagging indicator. We are already seeing a significant increase in cancers, as you said, in age groups in which we would not previously see them. For example, colon cancers, advanced colon cancers in people in their 30s and early 40s, very aggressive multiple myeloma, lymphomas, leukemias in people in their 20s and 30s. We're seeing cancers in a distribution that was previously not seen, but I agree with you whether people will connect those dots because

if you don't find out for a year from now um will somebody go back and relate it to to vaccination status so i think um and then the last question i would ask before absolutely we should be looking at those data we should be looking we should to try and and you know get those data and see will there be a connection will there be a batch dependency let's say in aggressive breast cancer colon cancer and so on and by the way i would think that would be a that would be a relief for the vaccine companies and for the governments and for the people who've been vaccinated if there was a marked difference between people who got these bad batches so to speak and everyone else and all the

adverse events we can watch those people more carefully and feel more comfortable about everybody else we'll be be fine i mean what's the problem so exactly but you're not expected to you're not allowed to have that and and that's why we want to look into these data, because also it could be that there isn't any difference. It could be that, you know, we know now that since Pfizer has confirmed our data, we know that our data are right. But it could be that that's it and that was just side effects in the start and nothing more to come for after that. Well, that would be also reassuring. So I think that's what it's all about is to look into the data with an open mind, but you have to be allowed to look into the data. And as it has been with the censorship and now where we feel that we're not allowed to get the data, that worries me even more. Have you gotten any, has your government or the authorities just in general, since the publication of your study, have you gotten any more attention drawn to it?

Are they willing to actually say, wow, there's something that we really should look into? No. Well, we have got that attention that they won't give us the data. So that's the difference. They have kind of closed, slammed the door, so to speak, and try and make it very difficult for us to get the data. Although, you know, we should have the data, you know, literally also through Twitter and shows like yours and other, John Campbell and so on. And when you look out of, you have this score, 24 million research articles, 24 million articles. Our article is number 426 most read articles ever out of these 24 million, which shows the big interest.

And in spite of that, none of the mainstream media in Denmark, it's a Danish study, no one has mentioned it. They don't even dare to mention the study. So that shows the immense censorship where it's like, well, at least try to understand or try to maybe call us names, but at least try to look into these data, which has such a huge attention all over the world. But what they do is sip it. Like the censorship is still so immense, you're not allowed to talk about this. And then you're going back to where we started.

I think that is so bad doctor work. I mean, it's so embarrassing for our profession that this is actually happening. And it's so embarrassing that our colleagues are not going into this fight for, you know, free speech also for science because it's free speech. There's no free speech for scientists the last three years yeah no and then there's no if there's no free speech then there's no science there's no science and i think this is a perfect place to uh to to leave this conversation and i'll let kelly thank you because i interrupted her thanks but i i want to thank you as well yeah i just thank you

so much i appreciate not only you joining us, but your brilliant work in bringing this to the attention. They can try to bury it, Dr. Imanaka, but they can keep trying to bury it, but it is there. It is published. We know about it. Our viewers now know about it. And that, you know, it will go viral, whether they want to shut it up or not. It's important. And the more they refuse to give you the data, the more you know, it will go viral, whether they want to shut it up or not. It's important. And the more they refuse to give you the data, the more you know you are directly over the target. And we are obligated to expose it.

So thank you. Thank you again. And I hope you'll come back and give us an update when you have more, if you ever get access to the data, so we can sort of really try to understand the reality, the truth of what happened. I'm sure we will get the data. You know, they can't keep the data away from us. So eventually we will get the data. And I think we have to, I think now it could sound like this is a depressing thing, but I actually think I'm very happy that we ended up having it published because, you know, all the other journalists said no. So I think on a happy note, so to speak,

I think we should appreciate that it actually has been published. It has been peer reviewed. Someone tried to get it, get it retracted. They didn't manage to, you know, so I think we should end on a happy note saying, well, at least it's out there now and we are spreading the news and people are getting the information and that's how it should be. Absolutely. And we thank you so much and hopefully we'll talk to you very soon. Yes, we will indeed. Thank you very much for having me. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Vybeke Manike. Again, you can follow her on

Twitter at Manike Vybeke, M-A-N-N-C-H-E-V-I-B-E-K-E. And also, same name, VBKManikee on Instagram and.dk for her website. Kelly, I'm going to bring Scott Scharr in in just a second here. Do you want me to let you go so you can get on with your stay? Yeah. And I'll just do that interview myself and I'll report. No, you want to be in on it? Okay.

As I say, yeah, let's start. I've got, I've got another 12 minutes. So I at least really like to say hi to Scott and hear his story. You're, you're, you're, you're messing with my OCD and anxiety. So let's do it. So Scott Scharr is a recognized expert and commentator on euthanasia and dangers of incentivized healthcare. He is the father of Grace, who was a 19-year-old with Down syndrome, whose death is at the center of a landmark lawsuit against St. Elizabeth Hospital, Ascension Healthcare. And he's going to tell us about that and other warning concerns about, this is a really interesting topic, incentivized healthcare. Welcome, Scott Chara. Well topic, incentivize healthcare. Welcome Scott Jara.

Well, thanks for having me. Welcome. Thanks for being here. Thanks for having me. So tell us what happened and how you got into this, unfortunately. Well, that's a great question. I was just a dad that owned a business and I had a healthy distrust for the government, but I was not awake to anything.

And during COVID, I actually set up beforehand. We were awake to something. So our daughter, Grace, who was 19, she had Down syndrome. We never vaccinated her with anything. So we were awake to vaccinations, but we weren't awake to the fear propaganda and all the things surrounding COVID. So when Grace's oxygen saturation dropped to 88%, we were motivated, unfortunately, by fear to take her to the hospital. And we took her to the hospital on October 6th of 2021. And seven days later, she was gone. And what happened was so egregious as I dug into the

records that we decided to start speaking out. And as God kept opening doors, ultimately, one of the doors was the lawsuit. And so we proceeded with the lawsuit, which is one of the things I know you want to talk about. But just to dive into Grace's hospital stay, which ultimately got me into being a full time advocate and researcher. It started on October 6. I was in the hospital with Grace from October 6 until the 10th. That's very rare during the COVID experiment. What happened was almost no families, 99.9% of families, they used the excuse of COVID so you couldn't go in the room. Well, Grace had Down syndrome. And so when the emergency room physician suggested checking Grace into the hospital, I said, I'll be staying with her. And they immediately said,

you can't. And I challenged that. And, you know, unfortunately they came back and said, we decided you can stay. And I say, unfortunately, because if they wouldn't have said that I would have taken Grace home and Grace would be alive today with, and I'm a hundred percent confident of that for multiple reasons. So I was in the hospital then with Grace from the 6th until the morning of the 10th. On the morning of the 10th, I was taken out by an armed guard. We had to hire an attorney to negotiate with the hospital attorney to allow my daughter, Jessica, to be in as a replacement advocate. My wife couldn't do it at the time because she had COVID. So Grace is in the hospital by herself for 47 hours without an advocate. During that timeframe, unbeknownst to us, the day before I was taken out on October 9th, they started Grace on a sedation med called Presidex. And during the 47 hours where

we didn't have an advocate, they increased the dose of Presidex six different times. So they sedated my little buddy instead of taking care of her. Scott, can I interject? Can I just interject here just to clarify? What was their rationale for having allowed you to stay from the 6th until the 10th, and then all of a sudden they do some kind of a 180 and not only tell you you can't stay, but forcibly force for sure what was their rationale for having made that change do you know what did they say well i sure do know yeah so when the head nurse came in at seven o'clock in the morning on october 10th she said you need to leave immediately i said what's the reason she said first of all the last three shifts of nurses

don't want you in the room second of all you've been shutting off the alarms at night, which I said to her, I've been trained by the nurses to shut off the non-essential alarms because they're going off multiple times during the night and Grace has to get sleep. And then third, she said, we suspect you have COVID, which that's a complete joke because they're the ones who told me I'm going to get COVID while I'm in the room with Grace. I said, we suspect you have COVID, which that's a complete joke because they're the ones who told me I'm going to get COVID while I'm in the room with Grace. I said, that's fine. I don't care.

I need to be with my daughter. So to tell me that they're taking me out because I had COVID was an obvious excuse. But the first thing that she said had some merit to it. You know, the last three shifts of nurses don't want you in the room. Well, what's the reason? I was challenging what was going on. So, you know, from the perspective of a dad taking care of his daughter. So for example, on October 9th, Grace's oxygen was in the nineties. And so I started feeding her and the nurse came running in the room and said, you can't do that. I said,

what's the reason? And she said, well, her oxygen saturation is only at 85%, which on their big monitor, it showed 85%. So I thought, this is impossible. So I put my finger monitor on Grace's finger and it read 95%. And so I called the nurse back in and said, is my finger monitor accurate? And she said, yes, it is. And so I said, well, if my finger monitor is accurate, why is your machine reporting 10 points less? And she said, well, because the leads get sweaty. So then I said, if that's a known fact, why aren't you proactively changing out those leads every four or six hours, whatever it takes. So you have an accurate reading given this is the primary statistic you're using to manage my daughter's care. And she shook her finger at me

and said, you should just be thankful you caught this. So that was one of many, there was multiple challenges like that that happens. I mean, you could call them confrontations, whatever. But I mean, it's nothing that you would get taken out of a hospital for, but I presume they saw me as a threat at that point. And when I see what they did to Grace, I see that they couldn't have got away with what they did if I would have been there. So I needed to be out of the room. Gotcha.

Great question, Dylan. Okay. So what is it? No. Okay. So then did your... They started this sedation protocol. To your eye, you know, obviously you know your daughter better than they did.

Was she agitated? What was their rationale for beginning a sedation protocol? So when you look at their records, so people understand when you get records from a hospital, every doctor who enters a room has to write a daily report from their stop in the room. So in their report, they say Grace was agitated. Well, that's absolutely not true. I was there. Grace is not an agitated kid. There's absolutely no reason for Presidex for agitation. But as I dug into what is really going on here, and the purpose of the Presidex is threefold. Number one is that their goal with COVID, and by the way, it's still the goal today because the FDA

has extended all the emergency use authorizations. So their goal with Presidex is to set up the ventilator. The ventilator has about a $300,000 payday to the hospital. So in order for a ventilator to be inserted in the patient, the patient has to be sedated. So that's their primary goal. The secondary goal is that as soon as a patient is on Presidect, and of course I learned this by dissecting the records, as soon as they're on a sedation med, the room is now classified as ICU. So the amount of money that the hospital receives increases. Grace never changed rooms, nor did the care change, but the classification changed to ICU. And maybe the

most important thing, even though those two are important, is that if you try to take a patient out, of course, you know, realize, Dr. Kelly, I'm learning this all after the fact, but I'm trying to tell people to warn them now. If you try to take a patient out that is sedated, they use a scare tactic called against medical advice. So you can't just, you know, if I would have just said that morning of the 10th, I'm taking grace with me, they would have used the against medical advice card on me to try to scare me to keep her in the hospital. Right. So hang on a second, because I mean, against medical advice is a legal thing that we have to do every time someone leaves the hospital or refuses care. You're entitled to do that.

It's a form. It's called against medical advice. We didn't create it. The attorneys created it, and we have to do it. Everywhere throughout the land, that's just the way it goes. Number one. Number two, prosthetics is something given in order to intubate people, not to precipitate intubation. Now, there is no doubt that the intubation protocols

that people were doing early in COVID were completely wrong, inadvisable, harmed people. There's no doubt about it. But that was the protocol at the time. And the reason they converted regular rooms into ICU rooms, they ran out of ICU rooms. And it's because they were sticking all these people on ventilators. It was a huge misadventure. It was a giant mistake, but that's what they were doing at the time. That's what they thought they needed to do when people's

desaturation went down. And by the way, somebody with Down syndrome is very likely to desaturate badly. They have more secretions. They don't clear them quite the same way. They have more issues with cardiopulmonary functioning. And so this was sort of standard fare for the moment, no doubt caused by all the fear, no doubt caused by the hysteria, but it's what they were doing at that time, unfortunately. Well, I would interject here and say, and obviously I didn't know your daughter, Scott, but I have a lot of experience not only in hospital-based medicine and ICU medicine, but also with the overuse of sedation and ways to control patients. I worked in the prison system as a psychologist before I was a doctor. And Drew, you know from working on psychiatric wards

that it is the default. But not precedents. Not precedents. All I'm saying is you will use- Precedents is an anesthesia, essentially. What I'm saying is that the nurses have the ability to use things at their discretion to make patients easier to manage

and to make patients' families easier to manage. And a patient who is somewhat sedated isn't complaining, and the parents of that isn't complaining. It makes people way easier to manage. And so I'm not so sure that that's what I'm trying to get at. What was the rationale for initiating Presidex on a patient who seemed to be doing fine? She was up eating, being fed by her father the day before. Why would they have started that drug? And I'm not saying I have the answer, but I could say that I have experienced in my long career in medicine times where patients were given sedation when that's not really what they needed. The

sedation made them easier to manage from the nursing perspective. It wasn't something that was medically indicated. And the reason I bring up the ventilator, I think what you're saying Dr. Kelly is right on. The reason I bring up the ventilator is because by the time Grace's last day on earth half on October 13th she was now on Presidex for four full days the package insert says to not use that drug for more than 24 hours because if you do it causes acute respiratory failure which is the first cause of death listed on Grace's death certificate. Well, in that window, they pressed us for

a pre-authorization for a ventilator five different times. And we rejected that push five different times because we studied ventilators live. Once the first push happened on October 8th, I thought, what's going on here? because the doctor at that point did tell me a piece of truth which he said Grace's chance of walking out of here alive if she's put on a ventilator is only 20% well as I then I started the alarm ball went off so I started digging into it and realized oh we're not doing a ventilator in fact it's not really a tool that should be used with cold so then that is that is you were you were prescient in that one because although you were contrary to the what they were doing that is absolutely shown to

be true hey kelly i'm going to let you go your your alarm clock has gone off so i'm going to see you um next wednesday is that correct yes next wednesday and scott my my abject apologies um for for having to leave a wonderful story that you're sharing with us and i appreciate you being willing to share this heart-wrenching experience that your family went through uh god bless you and um drew i will see you uh next wednesday. Thank you. Got it. Thank you. But, but Scott, yeah, this, this, I, I'm, I'm being, I'm being a little pushy, but pushing back a little bit because you have a great, you have a very important story to tell. And I want to make sure the, the emphasis is in the right places because the reality is you were well ahead of the medical profession. You were well within your rights to question what these treatment protocols were.

This was the anathema to general medicine, which was just doing what the hospital wanted us to do with a protocol that we had to follow with COVID. And this was, this was the horror of that particular time. The, the, um, the President X that's what they do when people are, it's just, that's not done to sedate people that's done to to make them comfortable when they're on a ventilator and when people fought the ventilator particularly with covid they were more likely to die that's why they sustained the

press six but the reality is when you were saying no to the ventilator in the beginning and were being pressured that was that is where the rubber hits the road in your story. That is where people were killed hand over fist. And the Presidex is just part of the ventilator procedure. The ventilator itself and being on the ventilator is really what did the trick. And the fact that they took the one advocate out of the room, which is the other part of the horrors of that period the the people that should be engaged in the decision making of health care the parents the family were kept from the process to me those are the two things that were just again i'm ashamed of i'm ashamed of our profession for doing that so go ahead i'm sorry for interrupting but i i'm upset about all this i want to make sure we get it right. I actually appreciate the interruptions.

For years and years and years. The interruptions are perfect, Dr. Drew, and I want you to keep doing that because I'm out there doing this because I want people to wake up to what's happening. And if we can capture your questions live, it is by far the best way to do it. So as we progress now into Grace's last day, and when I sorted through the details of her last day, it's really what got me to the point of realizing that Grace wasn't just killed. It wasn't just medical malpractice. I started calling it murder in April of 2022. And the reason I did is because if we start out the morning of Grace's last day, October 13th of 2021, the doctor called my wife, Cindy, and I at home. And the purpose of his call was to follow up on a conversation we had the night before to ask us now for the fifth time

for a pre-authorization for a ventilator. We said no for the fifth time. And he immediately switched gears and said, Grace had such a good day yesterday. Now, this was in spite of being sedated for four days already. And we knew she had a good day because our daughter Jessica was with her. So he said, she had such a good day yesterday. Let's work on nutrition. At this point, Grace is malnourished because they wouldn't let us feed her, which was one of the challenges that, you know, I didn't go on that detail before, but that was one of the challenges that I had for the nurses that why can't I feed her? And there's multiple levels of

that, but ultimately he says, let's get her out of bed. Let's work on nutrition so she can get out of here in the next several days. So my wife and I not only agree to a, we agreed to a feeding tube in that conversation because that's what he recommended. We're still trusting the white coat. Well, we find out that before he told us that we should get Grace out of bed, about an hour before they strapped Grace down to the bed and made her defecate in the bed. While we were on the phone with him, he approved increasing precedents to the maximum allowable dose. Simultaneous with hanging up the phone with him, he put an illegal do not resuscitate order on Grace's chart. And that was only eight minutes after increasing the Presidex to the

maximum allowable dose. So my suspicion is they thought the Presidex was going to take Grace out because of the dosage, but it didn't. So now they combined Presidex with lorazepam and morphine in a 29-minute window. That's the thing that got me to realize that Grace was murdered because for that to happen, the doctor had to order the meds, the pharmacist had to sign off, the alarm had to be overwritten because those meds are contraindicated according to the morphine package insert. And then the nurse who was in charge of Grace's care that day had 14 years of ICU experience. So she had to have known better. So that combination, now Grace starts to tank. And Jessica called.

Go ahead. You have a question. I'm just confused. So they allowed your daughter to stay in the room, but not you? That's the oddest thing. Well, I agree. I mean, it's interesting to me how the chain of events happened. We had to hire an attorney to negotiate with the hospital attorney to allow Jessica back in.

So, they must have been afraid of the Americans with Disabilities Act rights that Grace had. Interestingly, the American with Disability Act rights expire once the patient is dead. But our attorney brought that up to the hospital attorney, and then they negotiate. I mean, what are you negotiating for? But they negotiated an agreement to allow Jessica in as the replacement advocate. But, you know, the entire time, there's no informed consent. So, we don't know what they're doing. And, you. And you look at the records, you can see that med combination. Well, then what happened next, just to finish the story, Jessica called us and said, Dad, Grace's numbers are dropping like crazy. I said,

get the nurses in. And she said, I have been trying. They gave Grace morphine at 6.15. So the 29-minute window I'm talking about ended at 615pm. No doctor or nurse came in the room to monitor grace or anything after the morphine was given. Jessica begged them to come in. She's getting cold, take a temperature. They would not come in the room. So when Cindy and I started screaming to save our daughter, that's when we found out she was DNR. they hollered back from outside the room she's dnr and we hollered back she's not dnr they they refused they would not they would not come in the room to give grace the reversal drug nothing we watched her die

on a facetime call at 7 27 on october 13 of 2021. I'm so sorry. That's the egregious part of this. I'm so sorry. It's the instituting a do not resuscitate in someone that was a full code. That goes beyond, man, I don't know. I can't even explain that. That's a bizarre thing. I can explain the meds. She must have...

If you're on a ventilator, antamorphine and the other sedating meds can't hurt you. They can drop your blood pressure. So if her blood pressure was dropping and she was a full resuscitation, they should have been very sensitive

to the morphine dropping the blood pressure. But the combo... You're on a ventilator, it breathes for you. You don't have to worry about it. They do that all day. They give that combination all day long in the name of keeping people comfortable. But if somebody is a full resuscitation and the morphine is causing low blood pressure and they do nothing, that's your problem. That's where there's a problem.

Well, I agree. I mean, there's multiple, interestingly, there's multiple problems as we have dug in. And one of the main problems is our state regulatory agency, the Department of Safety and Professional Services, I filed a complaint with them about the doctor's med order and the illegal DNR. And they wrote back and said, I'm just going to quote it so that you understand the gravity of this. They wrote back. This is the Department of Safety and Professional Services. They said Chapter 154, which is the Wisconsin DNR statute, of the Wisconsin statutes does not apply to physicians operating in a hospital non-emergency room setting such as the one in question. So they're telling

anybody in Wisconsin that a doctor can unilaterally put a DNR on a patient against their will or against the power of attorneys will in a hospital setting. So in our lawsuit, we're asking for a declaratory judgment on that fact because this is about protecting other people. That's insanity to think a doctor can put a DNR on you anytime you're in the hospital. I have never heard of that. It's really not that way in California. What have you found? Are there other states that have a similar statute?

I haven't looked at other states, but there's a number of anecdotal stories because people are writing us now all the time. So I've seen many, many, many stories where DNRs are put on people in other states. And, you know, what they did at the beginning of COVID, they floated this idea that we've got a triage because our hospitals are going to be full. So we, you know, they floated this idea that doctors should have that concept. Then you actually see it being implemented that's insane i agree yeah that's

insane wow oh my gosh well it really it's it's a kind of a euthanasia right it's a euthanasia not to keep a patient do what's best for a patient but to try to protect the system when it wasn't it wasn't needing protection that's the horror horror, horror in all this. It's one thing. If, if this thing had turned out to be a situation where, Oh my God, we were making decisions about who would live and who would die kind of thing, which I mean, there were some of that stuff going on a little bit, but not what they, not where they would put something like this in place. This, this is more hysteria. Have they taken it? Is it still the,

it's still the law of the land there in Wisconsin? It is. And that's why we asked for a declaratory judgment. Interestingly, when we filed our lawsuit, which was on April 11th, we filed against Ascension Hospital System, St. Elizabeth's Hospital, five doctors and two nurses, the ones directly involved with Grace's death. As part of the response, one of the defense attorneys wrote a partial motion to dismiss. And in the partial motion to dismiss related to our declaratory judgment request for the DNR, I'm just going to read this right out of what he wrote, because this falls into the category of you can't make this up. So he wrote, the DNR order should be dismissed because, A,

the issue is not ripe for adjudication, and, or, B, the issue is moot because Grace Shara, the subject of the order, is deceased. So walk through that. Oh, yeah, crazy. Super crazy. You know, when I saw it, I thought, if his client sees what he wrote, they're not going to pay the bill because it's too stupid. But you know, this is the type of shenanigans that go on when you have a lawsuit. You know, these lawsuits are extremely rare to file because they have put borders around being able to sue people

who kill other people in the medical profession. So it's very hard to sue. We praise God that on July 14th, the judge had a hearing to hear this motion to partially dismiss, and he didn't accept it. We had to write an amended complaint, which we have filed and we're going through that process right now, but he took the extraordinary step of scheduling the first, we have the first jury trial in the entire country with a case of death in the COVID era. So we have a three-week jury trial on November 4th of 2024. That's the first day in. Scott, I'm so sorry you're going through this. Yeah, go ahead, Caleb.

Yeah, Scott, just a real quick question. I wanted to know if you had had trouble with this hospital or with any of these doctors before these events. Have you guys had any sort of a bad relationship before this happened and this was just the absolute worst instance of it? Or was this like suddenly out of nowhere? They were just very unhelpful? What was your experience before all these events? Yeah, that's really a fantastic question, Caleb. Our experience, first of all, going to a hospital isn't something somebody desires, but we had a relationship with Grace's primary care physician, which is from the same hospital organization. And one other time, Grace went into the hospital, just she went into the hospital, just in the emergency room in that same hospital that killed her. And our experience during that time she went into the emergency room was outstanding.

You know, my wife and I were in the room with Grace. They treated her very respectfully the room with Grace. They treated her very respectfully, talked with her, all the things that it was a great space. That was all pre-COVID. We really didn't expect this to happen. And when it did, you go through a personal period of shock and all these things happen. But as I've dug into it, I realized that there is an underlying agenda, and I would call it the euthanasia agenda, that's happening in our country. And it's hidden under the guise of we need to reduce costs. Right now, before COVID, there were 62 million Americans on Medicare and Medicaid. They relaxed the rules during COVID on purpose, and it was to get people in this

euthanasia trap. Now there's over 100 million Americans on Medicare and Medicaid. So when they sell the propaganda that we need to reduce costs because Medicare and Medicaid is out of control before COVID, Medicare and Medicaid bureaucracies accounted for 39% of the federal budget. Now it's over 50% of the federal budget. So what's the cheapest way to reduce costs? Take care of the elderly and the disabled. And that's what I've uncovered in my research. Well, there's a real component to this, which is that a lot of ICU care is fruitless care and only causes suffering. That's a real thing. And they could save money if they didn't do that. The problem is in order to determine

exactly what cases fit in that category, there's going to have to be, well, you're going to have to have participation of the family. And you have to have primary care physicians that have a solid relationship with that family and go in and say, I'm sorry, Mr. Shara, this is a fruitless situation. I know your daughter, whoever. I know your wife for years, and this is now a situation that is just causing her suffering. We're not going to get out of this. You would take that direction, as opposed to somebody that you've never seen before coming in and directing care, bad care, we now know,

and then putting a do not resuscitate on somebody that you don't believe is done. That's the part that is just, you're right. I mean, they're trying to do this and there's a real component to it. There's reality there that they are unduly, unnecessarily causing suffering in ICU patients. But boy, if this just becomes a bureaucratic sort of a blanket, a lot of people are going to be killed, quite literally, just the way you're concerned, just the way what happened to your daughter. Where do you want people to go? We got to wrap this up. What do you want people to know? Where would you like people to go?

The main website you had on the screen, which is ouramazinggrace.net, that is where Grace is, you know, there's cool pictures, videos of Grace. The story is posted there. There's a link to a landing page website there where if people want to follow the story, it will link you to graceshera.com, which you can put in your name and email. And my daughter, Jessica, is sending regular updates via the people who sign up with their name and email address on that site. That site also has a link to my own podcast, Deep Programming with Grace's Dad. And the most important thing I would say, Dr. Drew, is we're doing this because of Genesis 50-20. What was meant for evil, God meant for good,

the saving of many lives. And we're trying to get this word out so that people's lives can be physically saved. You know what to do to prepare for a hospital setting. And there's a hospital rescue tab on the main website, ouramazinggrace.net. But more importantly, spiritually, the only way that we can get out of this nightmare that COVID exposed is by acknowledging that we got here by rejection of God. And the only way out of it is through repentance. Well, it sure seems like, it's funny, I had this conversation with a caller yesterday, this very issue. And it feels like it couldn't hurt, that's for sure, because we've gone off course in some major way.

And so I'm all about those sorts of messages because we need something here. So I thank you, Scott, for being here. And again, it's our amazing grace.net and, uh, hopefully we'll get updates from you in the future. I'd welcome that. Thanks for having me. God bless. And, uh, that is it for today. I've been a really interesting, right? I know it's just awful. It's COVID was such a disaster. I just, it's disaster on disaster on disaster. And it exposed a lot. Chris Ruffo at two tomorrow.

We're going a little early again. I'm sorry I didn't warn everybody about today. And tomorrow I'm hoping to. Aga Wilson with Got Your Victory next Wednesday. Mark Changese, the cognitive psychologist, next Thursday. Brandon Whitechert. Do you guys know what that is? Anybody?

I haven't seen the materials on Brandon yet, but I'll let you know and I know, and we'll give you updates at Ask Dr. Drew. And appreciate you all being here. It's been an interesting ride today. I left the Rumble Rants and restream uh a few minutes ago to listen more carefully to what scott was saying uh and i see you guys on rumble rants agreeing with scott and some stuff so that's good and uh yeah so i hope you enjoyed today and we will see you tomorrow

at two o'clock i'll see you then 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 slash help.