Ask Dr. Drew - Attorney Files BILLION Dollar Lawsuit Over COVID Cover-up: Tom Renz w/ Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 236

Episode Date: July 1, 2023

Attorney Tom Renz alleges a massive conspiracy involving Ecohealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, and Ralph Baric is covering up the creation of COVID-19 – and he’s filed a billion-dollar lawsuit to expose the truth about the virus’ origin. “How many would have been saved if what was known about SARS-COV2 was truly and accurately reported from the beginning?” says Renz. Tom Renz’s previous episode was on May 17, 2023: https://youtu.be/OBbrQ0UecEg Thomas Renz is an attorney from Ohio. Find out more at https://renz-law.com and follow him at https://twitter.com/RenzTom 「 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 • 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 • BIRCH GOLD - Don’t let your savings lose value. You can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it. Claim your free, no obligation info kit from Birch Gold at https://birchgold.com/drew • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get an extra discount with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.  「 ABOUT the SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 WITH DR. KELLY VICTORY 」 Dr. Kelly Victory MD is a board-certified trauma and emergency specialist with over 30 years of clinical experience. She served as CMO for Whole Health Management, delivering on-site healthcare services for Fortune 500 companies. She holds a BS from Duke University and her MD from the University of North Carolina. Follow her at https://earlycovidcare.org and https://twitter.com/DrKellyVictory. 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 For over 30 years, Dr. Drew has answered questions and offered guidance to millions through popular shows like Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Dr. Drew On Call (HLN), Teen Mom OG (MTV), and the iconic radio show Loveline. Now, Dr. Drew is opening his phone lines to the world by streaming LIVE from his home studio. Watch all of Dr. Drew's latest shows at https://drdrew.tv Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

And Dr. Kelly and I are very excited for today's show. We've invited back Dr. Tom Renz. He made an impact last time he was here. He is an attorney who has been three years, 24-7, eating and sleeping his concerns about the, well, many things, including what happened with this virus and where the funding has come from and how SARS-CoV-2 may have been the source of a huge coverup. You can follow Tom at Renz,

R-E-N-Z-law.com. And he is also on Twitter as Renz Tom, R-E-N-Z-T-U-M. So we're going to bring Kelly in early and we're going to get to this right now. Our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre. A psychopath started this. He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction, fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous. I'm a doctor. 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. 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. You can spend thousands of dollars trying to look a few years younger, or you can skip all of that hassle and go with what works. GenuCell Skin Care. GenuCell is the secret to better skin. In fact, you might have witnessed the astonishing effects of GenuCell

during a recent unplanned moment on our show, when just a little GenuCell XV restored my skin within minutes right before your eyes. That's how fast these products work. 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. Susan and I love GenuCell so much, we've created our own bundles so you can try our favorite anti-wrinkle treatments, correcting serums, and ultra-retinol creams. Just go to GenuCell.com slash Drew. Use the code Drew for an extra discount and free priority shipping.

Again, that is GenuCell.com slash Drew. G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash D-R-E-W. So as I was saying, Tom has been eating, breathing, living the stuff for three years. You know, I just noticed there was a tweet from someone we've had on this program before, Li Mingyan. She's a virologist and a physician who has run away from the Chinese Communist Party because she was told if she didn't shut up, she would be, quote, disappeared, unquote. And I guess there's a video this morning on Twitter. She writes, a must-watch video by Jennifer Zhang, 97, Z-E-N-G,

97 on how the Wuhan Institute of Virology works on Chinese military secret operations using hashtag COVID-19 virus, preparing the nature origin theory since February of 2019. Interesting. Shocking, whistleblowing. Remember, CCP will force them to deny the facts in this video, or they too will be disappeared.

So again, today, as we mentioned, we are here with Dr. Kelly Victory. She'll be here in a few minutes. We, of course, are watching the Rumble Rants and out on the Restream, and we have Twitter spaces going as well. Please welcome Tom Rents. Hey, thanks for having me back. that just summarizing what you've been doing for the last three years because before the before the stream started Kelly was saying you know the average

person doesn't even know about the things you've been discovering and other who have not yet heard what you have been discovering who are listening but haven't heard your specific observations it's shocking for many people so what is it that is shocking that you've uncovered well we we need three shows to get through it all but i'm gonna hit some highlights for you um you know with regards to covid i mean we can go back to the beginning we had the evidence that masks would never be useful in general terms we had the evidence about the PCR test. We had that all by fall of 2020. But the thing that we have that I think is most shocking is related to the cover-up in

regards to the vaccines. So with regards to these vaccines, you know, everybody says, well, you know, we got them out quick and they were going to be safe and effective. Well, that's not the truth. That's not the truth. And not only is it not the truth, but I would argue that our FDA knew that it wasn't the truth. And I would argue that for a very important reason. We would start with a document that I got that was submitted to the FDA in October of

2020. And this document is a presentation that was presented related to safety monitoring and surveillance regarding the COVID vaccines. Now, Doc, remember that this is prior to authorization. November of 20, or October, November of 2020, the vaccines weren't even authorized at this point, right? So prior to authorization, and I'm actually referencing this paper here so that I've got the exact right wording, I'm looking at an FDA presentation where they're talking about FDA COVID-19 vaccine safety surveillance planning, and they talk about a number of different databases that they intended to watch. The best database, a bunch of different

Medicare and Medicaid, I think 11 or so different databases that they were going to watch. One of the most important databases, and I'm going to tie this in, was the CMS database. That is the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services database. And that's the database where every time you go to a doctor and you get a procedure or anything done, uh, they get an itemized bill that talks about what happened to you and what's going on and all that sort of stuff. So that's a very important database. Now they've been monitoring these databases. And by the way, I think it's relevant to point out that to this day in 2023, despite all the allegations of safety issues with these vaccines, they still have not made this monitoring public.

They have all the reports, but it's not public information. They say, look at VAERS, but then when we look at VAERS, they say VAERS is unreliable. Well, okay, so share the reliable information you have. You said that you were going to look at this. I have your government documents telling me you're going to look at this. But I think as if that's not shocking enough, then we go to slide 18 of this presentation. And slide 18 lists the specific and it's titled FDA safety surveillance

of COVID-19 vaccines, working list of possible adverse event outcomes. And what that means is these are what they expected to occur. If you took this vaccine, they were looking for these specific outcomes. And these were things that, that to my mind, if I say, Dr. Drew, um, can you tell me what side effects I might expect to see from a drug? And if that drug was going to be likely to create myocarditis in me, you would tell me, well, Tom, it's going to, it's got a potential to create myocarditis in you because I can't

give you informed consent otherwise. Right. Well, this FDA document specifically says, and I can go through all of them. There's quite a few of them, but it includes myocarditis. It includes a Guillain-Barr syndrome. It includes a transverse myelitis, encephalitis, death, pregnancy and birth outcomes. And of curiosity is a pulmonary emboli on there just curious

pulmonary uh let's see here uh i i am 99 sure i'm looking through the list real quick but i am 90 percent sure that it is stroke the things that stroke is on there trickle in or stroke heart attacks convulsion seizures starting to worry about narcolepsy cataplexy so i i forget if it was you i was speaking to or with i've gotten so many little pieces of information from so many different sources now i'm starting to forget who i'm getting stuff from but somebody who worked in pharmaceutical or understood the pharmaceutical process the fda regulatory process told me that those sorts of presentations are very common and that that these presentations are essentially designed by the drug companies to alert the FDA that they are watching and don't worry.

These are things you don't need to worry about. And it is precisely that, shall we call it attitude, or that particular modality that resulted in the Vioxx scandal. It's exactly the presentation that Vioxx showed that it caused heart attacks in a presentation to the FDA. And the drug company said, but don't worry about it. We're watching. Don't worry about it. And that was the scandal. This very presentation you're looking at for the vaccine was the equivalent presentation, my understanding is, for Vioxx presented in the same way with the same attitude that got them into so much trouble with the Vioxx. Am I right here? Yeah, you are.

And I would say this might even be worse because remember, this presentation was put on by Steve Anderson, director of the office of biostatistics and epidemiology for cyber. So this guy was, his job was to monitor for safety outcomes, right? So they're pushing this out the door and they're pushing this vaccine. They want to develop yesterday. This guy's job was to monitor for safety is safety outcomes. So they've first thing we got to know is we've got to understand they've been and second thing is is this wasn't even an industry guy

saying that he was going to look for it this wasn't fox guard in the hen house this was a government guy who was supposed to be independently looking at it well we know a lot of the government stuff was completely adulterated but one of the things I'm struggling with right now, Tom, and Kelly, when I bring you in here, I want you to think about this too, is I'm getting confused about what the risk tolerance is for an illness. In other words, I've noticed that pediatricians have way less risk tolerance than adult medical doctors like myself and Kelly. One child dying or one case of measles and encephalitis, and everybody's got to get vaccinated. It feels like that is sort of their approach. By the same token, I don't know what their risk tolerance is for the vaccine

relative to the risk of the illness and how they assess that, and then how that risk is sort of adjudicated across the lifespan. I think I know what I'm doing with the vaccine in 75-year-olds. I know the benefits. They're clear. In a 15-year-old, I don't know what benefits we are looking for. And I've got increasingly grave concerns about some of these side effects that seem to be cropping up at a higher rate, seemingly, than the underlying condition. And again, ethically, there's a big difference between somebody getting sick because of something

we didn't do, as opposed to making somebody sick because of some intervention we recommend, particularly when the informed consent may not be complete. So I struggle with this all the time. And I don't see anybody really talking about this. So I just want to throw that out there as sort of a frame. And I want to get Kelly in here, so I want to kind of shut up myself. But before I do, one last thing. Before the mics, again, heated up, you said the courts don't like science.

And I talked to John Bowden yesterday who was saying the courts are greased on these things. What is going on with the courts? Why don't the courts like science? What's happening here? Well, remember something. So I actually, this is something that I hadn't planned on sharing, but this is really a huge thing. So, you know, if we look at what occurred with COVID, there was a huge misinformation push. You know, they told you that this was going to kill everybody when the reality was, is that this had a, you know, statistically very, very low case fatality rate in a vast majority of the population. There was a very low likelihood of death, a very low likelihood of serious injury.

And had we properly treated with early treatment, like McCullough and crew have been talking about, there would have been almost no death from this. By the way, I also have statistics suggesting that a lot of the death was mislabeled and I can get into that in a minute after I finish this, if you're interested. That is, we, we can, let's, let's save that for the end. Cause we did a whole hour and a half of that with John Bowden Bowden yesterday. So keep going.

Yeah. Well, so then you don't need that. But what I can tell you is that this has been a really, we've, we've kind of, uh, shifted instead of, instead of looking at the actual risk reward on this, which is required under the law, by the way, under, under the U S code, uh, three 60 triple B dash three, there's a requirement for an emergency use authorization drug to look at the risk benefit. Right now, you know, as a doctor, you weren't seeing 16 year old kids die from this, but I didn't know.

Well, neither did anybody else. We've had people look, there was, there's no documented evidence of kids under 18 that were healthy dying from COVID even during the main part of the pandemic. Uh, it just wasn't happening, but we, we pushed an intervention that was both unproven, no long-term tests, and that was clearly having side effects. There were issues with it, right? So when we talk about the ethics of this, what is going on there? Why would you do that? And this is something that's really a fundamental issue that we're facing on this. So, I mean, this whole thing, when we look at the risk reward is there but when we look at

the courts well the courts were given the same misinformation that you were only in a more targeted way you have uh you have uh justice sotomayor saying we have hundreds of thousands of kids on ventilators she could not have been more wrong. People thought the fatality rate was 50% for any adult who got this illness. They did that to the population. They did that to people. They should be ashamed of themselves. They did it worse to judges. I have hundreds of pages of documents that were given to me by a whistleblower from the federal court system.

So the federal court system is ran. Uh, you've got your judges that run their courts and then you have a big administrative office that helps to manage the court system. These are from the administrative offices of the courts, the federal courts and the judges in particular were targeted with misinformation. I have the documents I can show you. I have these documents that show that these, uh, these people, uh, the CDC, this crew, they went to the courts and they fed them misinformation constantly. And I believe that it's had a huge impact. They be, shouldn't they be some of the most upset at this?

Shouldn't they be, shouldn't they feel duped and angry and concerned about this ever happening again, much like the rest of us. upset at this? Shouldn't they be, shouldn't they feel duped and angry and concerned about this ever happening again, much like the rest of us. But doc, that's why I'm here, right? Because so I was in front of a judge, uh, not too long ago. And I was talking about some of this. I said, your honor, I have the following documentation from the federal government or federal documents. I can show this, I can show this, I can show this. And his response was my daughter's a doctor. What does that mean? She was lied to too.

Um, you know, I mean, this is the kind of thing we run into and you've got to understand that judges are people too. They've been lied to for several years and a lot of them have family members that are doctors, nurses, whatever. And because of that, you've got to understand that a lot of these people are, you know, they're, they haven't woke up yet, which is why this show is so important. It's why I keep doing media because until we have the policy makers who were lied to by their peers and remember the psychology of this doc, we've

got people who are, they're look, these are judges. They're looking at these as, you know, fellow federal servants, you know, federal servants with, you know, they're, these are my peers. These are my coworkers, the CDC. They wouldn't lie to me. I'm the court, right? Except for they did outright. And in a very egregious way, we know justice, chief justice John Roberts himself, God bless him. In his, his case, South Bay Pentecostal, the South Bay Pentecostal case, which was the first case where they actually allowed the churches to be shut down.

They then overruled it in the Brooklyn diocese case. But in the South Bay Pentecostal case, uh, chief justice Roberts actually cited in his opinion, a number of people that died from Ovid, he was lied to. It wasn't the number of people that died from COVID. It was a number of people that died with COVID, but the Supreme court itself was misled on this to believe that that was the number of people that COVID killed. We had no evidence of that whatsoever.

None yet. They were lied to. So how did this happen? Well, the courts were lied to. that that was the number of people that COVID killed. We had no evidence of that whatsoever. None. Yet they were lied to. So how did this happen? Well, the courts were lied to. They, just like everybody else, and they are very reticent to get into it because they've been fed a whole line. So we will hold for a second here, take care of some business. I want to bring Dr. Kelly Victory in here.

And when we get back, I want to get into the whole story that you've uncovered on the gain of function funding, the Equal Health Alliance. And before you left last time, you hinted, I said, look, I couldn't understand how we could possibly do this funding. It made no sense to me, unless it was to keep an eye on what the Chinese Communist Party was doing and the People's Liberation Army's research. Maybe we funded this thing as a counter espionage operation. And you went, stay tuned. So I will say the same thing across this break.

Stay tuned. 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's 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 paleovalley and use Dr. Drew 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 with talking about natokinase 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 it's 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 To order this unique, specially formulated supplement, go to drdrew.com slash TWC. That is drdrew.com slash TWC. Use code DREW at checkout for 10% off today. President Trump recently issued a warning from his Mar-a-Lago home. Quote, Our currency is crashing and will soon no longer be the world standard,

which will be our greatest defeat, frankly, in 200 years. There are three reasons the central banks are dumping the U.S. dollar, inflation, deficit spending, and our insurmountable national debt. The fact is, there is one asset that has withstood famine, wars, political and economic upheaval, dating back to biblical times, gold. And you can own it in a tax shelter retirement account with the help of Birchgold. That's right. Birchgold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k, maybe from a previous employer, into an IRA in gold. And the best part, you don't pay a penny out of pocket. Just visit birchgold.com slash drew for your free info kit. They'll hold your hand through the entire process. Think about this. When currencies fail, gold is a safe haven. How much

more time does the dollar have? Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with Better Business Bureau and thousands of happy customers. I do not give financial advice and previous performance is no guarantee of future performance. Visit birchgold.com to get your free info kit on gold. That is B-I-R-C-H-D-O-L-D dot com slash D-R-E-W. 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, public health, to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme

on the entire population. This is uncharted territory, Drew. We have so many great and exciting guests coming up, and today is no exception. Tom Renz here. I give you Kelly Victory. Hey, Tom. Thanks for joining us again. It's always

great to talk with you. I'm always cognizant of how little time we have on these shows, so I want to make sure we spend the rest of this and we want to get to the elephant in the room, the big topic that Drew was leading up to about the origins of the virus. But before we do that, I really want to stick to things for which we have irrefutable facts. You know, Drew and I do a show at least once a week. We do have a lot of times where we're disagreeing about, you know, the pros and cons. Drew thinks that there's still application for vaccines in a certain age group. I don't agree with that. We can have those discussions all day long. What I want to focus on right now is what are items that we know were absolutely irrefutable lies? And one of the, for example, that we've known from the beginning, we know we were told three things about these vaccines

before they were ever launched to the public. Number one, we were told that the mRNA would stay in the deltoid muscle in your arm. Number two, we were told that the mRNA would stay in the deltoid muscle in your arm. Number two, we were told that you would eliminate the mRNA very quickly from the body. And number three, we were told no way, no how could the mRNA be incorporated into the DNA. We know, we have the documents proving that Pfizer out and out lied about all three of those things. They knew that the mRNA went to every single organ system, 11% of it to the reproductive organs. We knew that they were well aware that the mRNA was not eliminated for at least 90 days. And that's all the time they had.

Now we know it's probably upwards of 10 months, but they knew it was at least 90 days. And we know that they already had the evidence that it was in fact incorporated into the DNA, at least in hepatic and liver cells within eight hours. These were not mistakes that were made. These were lies. You're an attorney. I'd like you to lay out maybe your top three or four or five things that you are going to bring in this lawsuit to a court of law as irrefutable not opinions not Tom runs as opinions these are facts that were that we know that we were lied to by the pharmaceutical companies and the FDA and CDC well you know I'm looking over here at my student my

notebook because I always keep my notes here and there you want some, you want some top facts. Let me give you a number one project Salas. Do you guys know project Salas? Uh, everybody on this planet should know project Salas project Salas is, uh, I've got a document here that I found and it was covered up as much as humanly possible in the news. It was a senior leader briefing and or I'm sorry, Project Salas was a document done by our DOD. OK, so it's a project and it was based it was basically ongoing monitoring of the COVID vaccines and their impacts.

That project, I got a weekly report. And the weekly report that I got was in, oh, I want to say November, October of 2021, actually September of 2021. And in that project, and I've got at the same time in the same timeframe, Anthony Fauci running around telling everybody, this is a crisis to the unvaxed. If you're unvaxed, you're filling up the hospitals. You guys remember all the media there was about that. Oh yeah. If you're not vaxed, you're, you know, they're, they're overflowing and they showed us the news stories of the hospitals that were overflowing with people dying because they were unvaxxed except for one thing, project Salas,

which was an AI project, uh, done through a joint artificial intelligence center, the DOD and a group called you metrics showed that at that point, at that point, and I've got new stories where Fauci is talking about the the crisis of the unvaxxed and this was a document that was on his desk at that point 60% of new hospitalizations were in fully vaxxed and 71% of breakthrough cases were in fully vaxxed it wasn't it wasn't a maybe. Anthony Fauci knew by October of 2021 that these vaccines were not only, were having absolutely no impact in terms of transmissibility, but he kept lying. So we know that they didn't have a study on transmissibility. Pfizer's admitted that they

didn't study transmissibility. But by the end of September, early October of 2021, Anthony Fauci and the entire administration knew without any question that this was not impacting transmissibility yet. They continued to push it despite the allegations of safety risks, despite the fact that they'd seen all of these side effects happening. These guys kept pushing this because, well, that's the real question, isn't it? Why, why would you keep pushing this when it's not working and you know that it's not safe? So that would be, I think that that's number one indisputable.

Cause I have their document, right? Mm-hmm. Uh, number two, I, uh, in a very cheeky way without a headline back in, uh, 2021 or roughly when the original Pfizer documents came out, get the jab, get herpes. Well, that seemed a little bit odd to me and to a lot of people. And I did it intentionally. And the reason I did it was because if you looked at the Pfizer FOIA documents, and particularly the document that had the eight pages of adverse events of special interest.

Right, right. Well, within that same document, you found that they had a number of people who had gotten the jab that they had documented that Pfizer had documented that it ended up getting herpes. Now, which type of herpes? I don't know. And it's not even really relevant. I did it because I wanted to illustrate the absurdity of this. This is having this, this vaccine was having systematic systemic problems in

people is creating problems all over. We didn't know where it was going. We didn't know why. having systematic systemic problems in people is creating problems all over. We didn't know where it was going. We didn't know why in the eight pages of adverse events of special interest indicate that we really had no idea when you take that in conjunction with the FDA document that I just talked about with Dr. Drew that said, you know, Hey, we're monitoring for all of these different side effects, these guys knew there was a very high likelihood of these vaccine causing serious, serious illness and injury, but covered it up and told you it was safe and effective and then pushed it even when they found out it didn't do help with transmission,

despite the fact that they had all this information about side effects. And again, we go back to the $64 million. Well, I think it's probably more like a $64 billion question. Why were they doing this? So again- Well, let me pipe in about the VAERS system, about the system that reports, or one of our systems, the surveillance system for reporting adverse events. To be clear, the VAERS system, with all of its flaws, it is their system. This wasn't a system that some nonprofit hacked up. This isn't a system that Bobby Kennedy and a bunch of anti-vaxxers said, oh, let's get together and put this system together. The VAERS system is their system. The CDC and NIH own that system. It is theirs.

They built it. They designed it. And yet, fast forward to COVID, when they have this overwhelming number of reports of serious adverse events, now they're saying, ah, you can't trust that system. Well, you're the ones who designed it. They are obligated to look at all of these events, Tom, and they haven't. Well, let me one-up your VAERS. Go ahead, Doc. Well, I was going to say I'm going to have you one-up the VAERS,

but I just want to say that I think the $64 million question is not why did they lie about the side effects or obfuscate the side effects. At the beginning, they had made a conscious decision to vaccinate their way out of this thing. And this vaccine was as safe as it needed to be, whatever that was. And they convinced themselves that it was sufficiently to vaccinate their way out of this thing and stop what they perceived to be a potential another million deaths. The real question is, why have they continued to push in potential another million deaths the real question is why have they continued to push in the face of accumulating as evidence to the contrary well let me and i

would say that one back go ahead go ahead well i was going to say let me tell you i don't i don't disagree i don't agree with you drew just so you know i'll say before tom answers i don't agree with you i don't think they were trying to vaccinate their way out of this. They knew damn well these vaccines didn't work. This was an attempt to get an mRNA shot in everybody's arm, if you want my opinion. But I'll let Tom take it. For money. For money. That was it? Money? For lots. No, no. I think money is a portion of it. And I think money, frankly, is a fraction of it. I think this was a control issue. This was a way of getting total control of the population, and this was a test, perhaps, at how quickly people would be willing to hand over their civil liberties.

And it was, we failed miserably. We already done that. We done that. Now we were handing over our bodies as well as where we kept our bodies. And, and that would, that's the astonishing part about this. And no one seems to be that alarmed by it, but you know, maybe the three of us, but Tom finished that point, that comment. Well, let me throw in too, cause I'm going to help you both here.

Um, so, uh, with regards to them, RNA and the Y. Well, remember something else, even if we, we take and the why, well, remember something else. Even if we take away the side, the control aspects, right? Even if we take that out, let's also not overlook the fact that mRNA as a platform has had trillions of dollars of investment over the years globally. And mRNA was going to go through a very long, very difficult testing process that nobody wanted to be the test subject on. Now, all of a sudden you see MRNA being integrated into the flu shot this season

and into all sorts of other things. So remember by doing this, they bypassed the traditional testing and the traditional mechanism years and years, and they expedited the return on that investment by a dramatic amount. The world economic forum in 2021 had a meeting where they talked about COVID as being the most profitable thing in human history. I don't know how that works for you and I, but for the World Economic Forum, they seem to like it. So there's that. But I would also, going back to what you had originally said, Dr. Drew, remember when we talk about they thought they were going to vaccinate their way out to prevent a. Drew, remember, when we talk about they thought they were going to vaccinate

their way out to prevent a million deaths, well, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they thought there were a million deaths in the first place. And I don't believe that for a second. I've got loads of evidence going back to 2020. And in fact, I wrote a white paper that was, I believe, in May or June of 2020, talking about the mechanisms by which, specifically, that they were using to cover up the deaths. They're calling them COVID deaths. And I have the government document where they said, we want you to call any death that could possibly be called a COVID death a COVID death. And if you don't, we're going to come and question you why you're not doing it. If you do, we don't care whether it's the flu or something else. I've got the document from, from the DHHS on that. I also have documents talking about, I have a presentation from a Dr. Nowak that was done in 2004, I believe.

Uh, and he was working for the CDC at the time. And in that presentation, he literally talks about using fear to sell vaccines. And if you look at that presentation, offered that presentation once. And every time that they said flu vaccine, I changed it to COVID vaccine. And when I got done doing the presentation, I told everybody, I said, this was actually done in, uh, oh three Oh four on the flu vaccine. They followed the recipe precisely. So I would argue that this was, I would argue that they knew they were lying about the data from the beginning because as an amateur, I, as a lawyer with a little bit of background in epidemiology

and biostatistics and science, you know, nothing compared to you guys, was able to sniff out the lies and the errors in their epidemiology. So don't tell me that the guys at the CDC who are professionals and they're high-end scientists couldn't do that. So I don't think that this was an accidental by any stretch of the imagination. I think that what we have to recognize is that this was intentional. And then we've got to ask ourselves, why was it intentional? Why were they doing this?

Was it just money or was there more? And that's a fair question, I think. Yeah, I have said, Tom, from the very beginning, very beginning, when I saw how wedded they were to putting the kibosh on any other therapeutics and how much they were going to push these vaccines, I said from the beginning, this is an attempt to make mRNA a household word. It is an attempt to make people believe that mRNA as a platform is safe and effective. And then, as you said, to very quickly bypass the standard testing that would be required for this type of gene therapy, call it a vaccine, and simply fast track these things into animals, into the food source, and into every other way in which they want to use it.

I think they knew from the beginning that the mRNA shots did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. They weren't really worried about COVID because it was a relatively mild disease in the vast majority of people. They amped up the fear factor by lying about who was actually getting sick and hospitalized and dying. They incentivized hospitals and doctors to code things as COVID admissions and COVID deaths. They gave them millions and millions of dollars to do it. They incentivized doctors to give these vaccinations without informed consent and on and on. This was about making mRNA a household word and fast tracking it. Now, I do want to get to this bigger issue now of the origins and the work you've done

on that. Summarize for us why you believe or what facts you have, what data you have that backs up the idea that this was part of the Department of Defense or that they were involved in all of this. We know it was gain of function research being done in Wuhan, but tie together all the, uh, all the dots for us. Right. And I'm going to oversimplify this a little bit here because it really, this is seriously in the weeds if we get into this too much, but basically what you've got to understand is that first of all, we have grant funding.

Okay. So we've got grants that were issued all over the place, uh, to do this work, gain a function work, and we got grants that went to Wuhan. Those grants were issued not only by, uh, the, everybody knows about the Fauci grants, right? But what they don't understand is that Fauci's part of Fauci's job was related to watching and keeping an eye out for bioweapon issues for the DoD.

There were a number of grants that were also from the DoD that went to the same sort of stuff. So we've got DoD grants that also went there. So you look at the funding and you can see that the funding came from multiple sources and the DoD must have been aware from the funding side but then we take it a step further right so in addition to the DOD being behind some of the funding you also have dr. Andrew Huff who's a friend and a client and dr. Andrew Huff worked for Eco Health Alliance at the time that SARS COVID 2V-2 was created in the lab.

Okay. So he was an executive vice president there and he talked about it and he actually gave me under penalty of perjury, a document and his document, and this was submitted to a court. So it's valid. His document says that Peter Daszak, who's the head of EcoHealth Alliance, had had a conversation with him related to working with the CIA on certain projects. We have a number of things there

that indicate that. Now, that by itself wouldn't necessarily substantiate that this was any sort of an intel action, right? But, but, but, but, but you have to understand what this is. So we talk about gain of function research, right? And people don't understand what that means because gain of function, well, what's gain of function? Okay. So gain of function means you're changing the, in this case, we're talking about gain of function on viruses. And we're talking about essentially changing these viruses to make them more transmissible or more deadly, right? And that the argument is that, that you do that because it'll help you predict what vaccines you should make. Well, if you're, you're still making

a more dangerous disease, which is arguably the creation of a bioweapon. And so when people talk about this being a bioweapon, what they're actually talking about is a legal term. Legally, what this is, is this is called dual purpose research. And dual purpose research means that, yes, you could conceivably be doing this to try and develop a cure to what might come down the pipe. Or at the same time, just the nature of creating a more dangerous virus means you're creating something that could also be a weapon or a weaponized, right? So that's where that conversation comes into. Well, you got to think about this, right?

Just logically, if we're going to transfer to China, China, the CCP, right? The Chinese Communist Party has for years talked about using bio weapons against the United States. So we're going to take, and we're going to send technology to China. That's going to allow them to edit viruses genetically in a way to make them more dangerous. That's literally giving them the technology necessary to create a bioweapon. We're literally teaching China to do that.

And we're doing it in a lab that had well-known ties with the CCP. So my question is, does any sane person in this country really believe that our department of defense who was funding this work or our CIA, DIA, which are part of, you know, tied in with our defense mechanism apparatus was unaware that we were transferring to an enemy of the United States, the technology they needed to use a weapon against the United States that they said they were going to use. Does anybody believe that?

Let me, let me ask a question, summarize it this way, and tell me if I'm wrong, just for the benefit of the folks listening who might not know all of these words. Gain-of-function research was being done in this country, in the United States, until 2014 when Barack Obama put a moratorium on that because it was deemed to be too dangerous. As you said, all those dual function, the idea of weaponizing pathogens, bacteria, and viruses was deemed to be too risky. Anthony Fauci was clearly involved in doing that gain-of-function research in the United States up until 2014. From what I can tell, he did not want to play by that moratorium, so he found a way to sidestep it. So they created this shell corporation, this nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance, headed up by Peter Daszak.

They funneled the funds through EcoHealth Alliance, and EcoHealth Alliance then transferred the funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology so that they could continue doing the gain of function research that Anthony Fauci and his buddies didn't want to stop. Now my question to you, if that's correct so far, is at what point did the DOD, the CIA, and other defense or intelligence agencies in the United States start funding this? Were they funding it when it was on, you know, terra firma here in the United States, or did they just start funding it after it was transferred to the Wuhan Institute? Well, so that requires, I have some factual, some evidentiary stuff that I can share with you. And then there's some speculation as well, right? So as far as EcoHealth Alliance, they were in existence prior to this. Now, were they ever a legitimate organization? I have no idea. I don't know what all they've done. It sounds like they were at one point focused on ecological research of some sort. Um, but what I do know is that we got to a point where the, you know, they

taken a lot of money to do this and I don't know as far as the corporation goes, what else they do, I don't even care. They did this in my opinion. So, uh, eco health Alliance, uh, according to what we can show, we can show that, uh, going back to 2015 2016 ish you've got the the Ralph bear Ralph Baric and all these guys they wrote the pair the paper where they talked about the chimeric viruses and this was a scientific peer-reviewed study that was put out they talked about creating these chimeric viruses and this

this paper almost certainly seems to be describing these kovat viruses that by itself is a strong indication we have all the the data and I'm you know we've got hundreds of pages of data so I can't summarize it all you know that quickly but we have hundreds of pages of data showing that they were working on coronaviruses in this lab showing that they were doing these things the funding and the lineup for SARS-CoV-2, we can show actually came into place around that 2015, 2016 mark. And part of that is also because we have Andrew Hough testifying that that's when they created it. He worked there. So I mean, you know, that that's, that's a pretty solid piece of evidence, right?

Um, so it looks like it was created there around that and the funding was there. Now what I can tell you, and this is a little more on the speculative side. And I say that because the funding and the papers and all that stuff show around 2015, 2016, that area. There was work on coronavirus and other such things well well well before that now we have we have grants and paperwork that suggests you know that the the origins of this would go back to 2012 2013 and then actually even earlier than that the 2012 2013 seems to be when they really started focusing on what would be SARS-CoV-2.

But the early precursors, I mean, there's been people, there are credible scientists out there asking whether the original SARS was lab created or not. It looks like this is stuff that's been experimented on for a lot of years going back a couple decades at least now that's a little more speculative i said paperwork wise though we can show 2015 ish 2016 i'm i'm curious about the the chinese connection because they seem to have had an uncanny interest in this virus and uh many different stories sort of all point in the same direction that the people's liberation army had scientists that were specifically working on this specifically as a weapon in various different sites now i want to go back to the espionage question i i don't see how we didn't know this we We must have known it. Is the fact that the money, yeah, and the money funneled through Equal Health Alliance get to China, I'm assuming,

because there's a sort of a, I thought there was a smoking gun in that path, but you can tell me if that's true or not. Other than the CIA coming in and talking to them, where is the espionage? What do you think they could have been doing other than try to cozy up to them to try to keep abreast of what they were up to? Well, I think that that's the foundation here, right? You know, you want to know, in with the Chinese bioweapon development program. Now, there's been a lot of allegations and there's a lot of things out there. And I'm going to tell you right now that I don't think that we know all the answers to this what has been suggested to me numerously numerous times by people in defense who are working with us that we're talking to some of whom are going to end up probably being called a trial some of whom probably will never be unmasked

um is that it would appear that we were trying to figure out what they were working on. And so we agreed, you know, we'll, we'll send our scientists over there and show you guys how to do some of this. That way we've got scientists over there so we can know what you're working on. Right. And those scientists would presumably be, you know, double agents, you know, spy stuff. Um, if that's the case, we lost the case we lost we that was a bad deal we seem to have lost that one pretty badly you know i would i would pose this though i would pose this we keep learning new things every day so for example i just saw this weekend uh dr hotez

who uh it was so famously challenged to a debate by Bobby Kennedy, uh, which he, he thoroughly declined because apparently we don't debate in science anymore. I thought that was a thing, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's just law. Um, but, uh, uh, Hotez was funded and the funding that he received was also tied into more work with bioweapons in China and vaccines in China. And it looks like a lot of this stuff related to COVID was being funded in and around China. There seems to be ties to patent work, to all sorts of things that are somehow coming into or around China or with Chinese interests in it.

Now, I'm just a thinking guy here, right? So I can't say that I know this for sure. But what I hear when I talk to the guys who do bioweapons development is that when you're working on bioweapons development or gain of function, you work on developing the cure with the disease, right? Because if there's a problem, you want to make sure that you've got a cure for the disease you're creating. And that makes sense. And whether you call that dual purpose research or you call that bio weapons and bio warfare planning, I don't really care. But in light of the fact that, you know, our guys are over there and we've got patents, I think you guys are probably aware of the Moderna patent going back to 2015 where the

DNA sequence that was used in the vaccines was essentially patented going back, I think, to 2015 well it looks like we've been working on this for a while and it looks like we've been working for on a cure for the while and I find it interesting because you have a you know this this disease of this quote-unquote novel virus this outbreak right and it's supposed to be novel except for it wasn't novel. They've been working on it for years and they knew about it and they lied about that, right? And that novel outbreak occurred. And then three days later, there's an announcement about a vaccine. You know,

I mean, hey, we got this novel. We're going to solve this, right? So five minutes later, you got a vaccine for it, right? Okay. So now we've got a vaccine and you get this whole thing that's occurring so quickly and it really looks planned. And I want to talk about the 600-pound gorilla in the room that nobody's talking about. You know, we helped these guys develop this disease in the lab. We gave them the tech. We've got the information. And by the way, Senator Holly did a great job pushing this bill. That's going to, going to declassify everything we know about Chinese

involvement in the Wuhan lab. You know what that bill didn't do? It did not declassify everything that our DOD did with the relationship to, uh, the, the development of SARS-CoV-2 in the lab. My question is, in light of the money that was made on this, and in light of the corruption that we're seeing everywhere, by the way, did you know that I have ties? I can show that Hunter Biden was invested through Rosemont Seneca into Metabiota. Metabiota was a listed partner on the project where the facilitated, uh, the creation of SARS Covey too, you know, I've got that paperwork did, did Hunter

Biden make any money off of the creation of SARS Covey too? I don't know, but here's what I do know. The 600 pound gorilla is this was an accidental release. Did it come out by accident or did someone say, you know what, let's just let this out and see what happens. We've got a cure. We're going to make trillions of dollars off of it. Was this a setup?

And I know that there's, you know, that is a, that is most certainly a conspiracy theory. Right. But it's a conspiracy theory based on a lot of facts and a very reasonable question. You know, they told us we were nuts when we said, Hey, this was lab origin. They said, no, it's not lab origin. They told us that the vaccines were safe and effective. They weren't. They told us that masks work. They didn't. They've lied about every single thing related to this yet. We're not, no one can ask the question.

Is there any chance that this was released intentionally? Is there any chance that after we gave a country the technology to develop a bioweapon, a country that says we want to use bioweapons against you, is there any chance that that country then intentionally released it? Is that worth asking or is that just too taboo to ask? No, to me it's a theory that absolutely needs to be investigated. But I've said from the beginning, we have no proof of that as yet, but I think it isn't so far-fetched for all the reasons you've laid out. With regard to the espionage, Tom, I would submit to you that it really went the other way. It wasn't us putting scientists in the lab in Wuhan so we could keep tabs on what

they were doing. The reality is the tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party go very deeply into our storied academic institutions and scientific labs here in the United States. The people who set up the virology labs at the University of Texas at Galveston, the people who set up the virology lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill where Ralph Baric is, these are people from Wuhan. It was the Chinese who were embedded here. They were embedded doing gain-of-function research here on our soil. So then when we transfer this technology and this research over to Wuhan, really because of the moratorium that was placed, then yes, we send some scientists over there. But the reality is our own academic institutions have been highly funded by the Chinese Communist Party.

And as you said, we are now over in Wuhan doing gain-of-function research with our greatest geopolitical foe, the country, by the way, also that we rely on for 80% of all of our pharmaceuticals or their active ingredients. So we get in bed with a foe, with, as you said, somebody who's willing and made it obvious that they would be willing to weaponize something and use it against us, what could possibly go wrong? So I think we've got to get to the bottom of the great conspiracy theory. How did it get out? Was it purposeful? Was it just abject incompetence? We certainly know that the lab in Wuhan had multiple previous incidents of lab leaks, lab issues. They didn't exactly have a stellar safety profile over there in Wuhan.

So I think that that's something that needs to be investigated. What is your feeling on the tolerance, people's stomach, for actually going down that road and investigating how it got out. Well, I'm glad you asked that. See, here's the problem, right? The issue that I laid out for you, Hunter Biden and his investments, right? So especially in light of the fact that we keep seeing Hunter Biden, the recordings of him saying, I'm sitting here with my dad.

Right. Uh, he's seems to be leveraging that quite often. Well, let me ask you this. Uh, if you were Joe Biden, the president of the United States and your son had invested in a company and possibly made money, and I'm not saying that this happened for sure, we do know that Rose, my Hunter Biden was a Rosemont Seneca partner, we do know that Rosemont Seneca partner. We do know that Rosemont Seneca had invested in Metabiota at the time that this virus was allegedly created in that lab.

And so we do know that there's a legitimate question to be asked when we say, did Hunter Biden make money off of the creation of SARS-CoV-2? Well, if that's the case, do you really think Joe Biden's going to allow, I mean, there's a lot of allegations right now. I don't care Democrat, Republican, a lot of allegations right now of corruption. Do you think he's going to allow an independent investigation? I probably not, but in terms of Kelly's question of having a stomach for it, I don't have a stomach for it. I want to know about our public health infrastructure, and I want to know about our funding of research. I want to know about our regulatory system and how off the rail they were and how we prevent that. Hunter Guyton may have been an unwitting dupe, or who knows.

I don't care. I don't want this ever to happen again, and I want there to be some responsibility taken by the organizations that did these things so it never can happen again. Absolutely. But here's the problem. How do we get there when we have so much corruption? And I'm not being Democrat, Republican here, right? I don't care which side you are.

I mean, whether Bobby Kennedy's calling it out or Donald Trump's calling out, I don't care. which side you are i mean whether bobby kennedy's calling it out or donald trump's calling out i don't care the issue i have is that we have been and i'm saying this from personal experience i've been fighting to get this information for three years we have been roadblocked by both parties do you know that i submitted i submitted a an ex this extensive you, hundreds of citations document. I sent it to a whole bunch of Republicans prior to the election in 2022 about the lab origins of COVID, including the witness testimony, all this stuff under oath. I was told the Republicans had a meeting prior to the election

and decided that they didn't want to bring this up before the election because it's too controversial politically. What kind of nonsense is that? Now I'll tell you what else, Doc. Going back, I have a document that you can find on TomRenz.com under the resources. And it's a 193 page document and it's filled with government documents and other sources and other information about the dangers of these vaccines. I sent that to just about every governor and every federal official in this country. And I've got records of most of them receiving it because I sent it certified. This is well over a year ago. I sent this. Not one of them would investigate anything or say a word about it publicly. They didn't care that people were dying because it was too politically difficult

because pharma has too much money. They didn't care what was going on with this. All they cared about is making sure that they didn't have pharma money opposing them in the election and making sure that they had an easy path. And this isn't a Democrat Republican issue. I get told I'm a right wing zealot all the time, and I probably am a little more right wing than most people. But this is not a right wing issue. This is an issue of honesty and integrity in our public health system and a complete lack of anything even approximating integrity in the people who are supposed to be overseeing it. I agree with you. And the reason, Drew, that we can't disarticulate, in my mind,

the minutiae of this, all of these details in the corruption and the fraud from our public health response is because you've got to expose the lies. In the words of Mark Twain, it isn't all the things that you don't know that's the problem. It's all the things you know that aren't true. And we've got a Supreme Court that thinks that they know things that aren't true. We've got senators, and I interact with them on a weekly basis, Republican senators who are still saying, but these vaccines are safe and effective

and these vaccines save millions of lives. And we didn't have any other therapeutics and we didn't know. And we've got to get people to understand, and this is not just in government, but we need the public to understand, yes, we did know. You were lied to. It was not mistakes my government made. It was lies my government told me. These were lies. And unless we get to the bottom of, Tom, what you are doing, and we expose all of this for what it's worth, I don't see how we ever don't fall prey to this again. So do we need like a Warren Commission on this? Or do you trust the government to even be the agency to adjudicate this? Because, yeah, Tom says no, because they are captured. They are

captured until somebody gets, and again, you guys mentioned some of the presidential candidates that are willing to focus on that. Listen, Vivek Ramaswamy also, they're putting their finger on that particular spot, the capture of our government by corporate America. Until that is disarticulated, how are we going anywhere? Yeah. Well, and I'll tell you what, I would offer, Doc, your convenience. I would challenge you. I'll send you over if you're interested, that the 193-page document I did, I'll send you over. If you're interested that the 193 page document I did, I'll send you over the other document on the origin. And I'll look at this.

You're at your convenience. I will give you a summary of it and kind of go through some stuff, show you where it came from. I will back everything up like I would in court. And when we're done with that and we look at the dates on which I gave this information on the dates and where I put it out, you tell me that there's anything honest going on in our government with relation to this, even, even God bless, like I said, I think Holly had every good, every, every sort of good positive intention when he pushed that bill to, to, uh, declassify

the stuff on Wuhan, but it was very clear that bill to, to, uh, declassify the stuff on Wuhan. But it was very clear that bill, he classified only what we knew about China, not our role, and I'm going to tell you our role was massive. And you want to know, I'll tell you, because I can see, I like, I know I get most censored when I talk about the DOD role in this, uh, because the DOD, they did, they absolutely had a role in this and nobody wants to talk about it. And this is what makes it a nonpartisan issue because you've got the Republicans that can never overfund the, the, the war machine, you've got the Democrats who

are totally owned by pharma and neither party actually cares about the people because we've got this corporateocracy where a bunch of billionaires run the show meanwhile we the people are dying as we're getting jabbed with poisons there's no public health system we're totally losing faith and everything you know this so this is the first time I've said this publicly my wife has cancer we're dealing with that. Do you know that when I took my wife to the doctor, the first thing that I had to do was essentially cross-examine the guy to see whether or not he was actually, you know, looking at things as a true scientist,

because I do this for a living and I know how to do this, or whether he was just following protocols blindly and given whatever pharma says. Because my wife is not a statistic and she may or may not fall within the bell curve that is behind the treatment protocols that are created. And I want to know if you're going to treat my wife as a statistic or if you're going to treat her as an individual patient with individual needs. And you know what what I'm one of a handful of people in the country that know how to do that what about the rest of us Tom yeah we would Kelly and I have been railing on this for quite some time is that physician judgment has been expunged has been

eliminated from care of patients and you're asking what you're asking for is for that doctor to use his or her judgment, which is why you see the doctor, not because of his or her knowledge base, not because of their reading of the statistic that morning, it's because of their judgment to make the right call for that particular patient, your wife that's sitting in front of that person at that time. And that was complete. I literally saw, it's just something that the public doesn't understand. You see a doctor not for our knowledge base. You see us for our judgment. I've said this

over and over again. And judgment is being systematically prevented from being used. And it was done so on a large scale with COVID where, say what you will about early treatment, we were not allowed to treat at all patients as they came in until the oxygen saturation level went below a certain point. So just observing the patients would have made a massive difference. Forget giving them anything, just observing them, watching, following, doing what we're trained to do. No, we didn't do anything. And one other really critical thing, and Tom, I'm sure that you are well aware of this, is making sure that that physician has a really skeptical view of everything that they read in the studies, that they have a very, very critical eye. Because you can't just use your judgment if your judgment, quote unquote, as a physician is based on what you're reading in the medical journals, because that is largely propaganda.

And unless you are really able to sort through it and understand what constitutes a well constructed study, whether what the conflicts of interest are of the authors and all of that. And I'm sure that's something that's well within your bailiwick, Tom. But in any event, I know we're out of time and we need to have like three shows in a row so we can get through all of the information. But Tom, I believe that what you are doing is absolutely critical. This is not just sort of a nice thing to do if we could connect the dots and hold people accountable. If we don't do this, if we are not successful in exposing the information that you have, I promise you,

we will fall prey to this again. This is not their last hurrah. They've got something else planned. I can't tell you what it's going to be, but it's coming. And with the work that you are doing, in my estimation, is absolutely critical to making sure that we don't fall prey to this again. Kelly, the World Health Organization has shown us what the framework for the next hand is. They want sovereignty over all nations and complete sovereignty over elected officials. It's insane that it's gone to that now. And in a related note, and I know, I'm all over this, this who treaty stuff, you know, I mean, that's a nightmare.

Second to none being driven by the way, primarily by our federal government. It's the U S government driving that more than anyone else. And, uh, P S at the same time, we just saw over the weekend, uh, the U I think is over the weekend, but the UN just came out recently with, uh, their framework for a new internet internet 2.0, which by the way, will include social credit scores and complete censorship to ensure that we can't talk about because they learned. See the truth about the COVID pandemic is coming out. People are waking up and they're starting to hear, thanks to you and shows like this, they knew and now they know the value of censorship. If they can shut us up and all we

can hear is the mainstream, you're going to buy that narrative because it's the only thing you hear. And it's plausible. You have to be able to get past plausibility and get to proof. But the people like us, if you can't hear us, you won't know. So at the same time, we're working on World Health Organization treaties, shutting down our rights. And by the way, there's legislation in the states. There's all these things happening. And we're also working on ensuring that we're censored so that we can't talk about it. Yeah. Well, I'm sure Kelly joins me in thanking you and asking you back again. Yeah, come back.

Maybe in the meantime, Kelly, and Kelly, you're welcome to join Tom and I to review that 180-page document. We'll get on the phone. Absolutely. Please send Kelly the document as well. And we'll all go over it and then bring you back and sort of have at it yet again. Keep the word flowing. Susan, are you in one piece?

Oh, I'm, you know, I just, yeah, I'm sweating it out over here. She is very concerned about what's going on in China. She's been very concerned. I always told you it was China. Nobody believed me, but we have been censored a lot on YouTube and it's, it's a bad feeling. It's a horrible feeling. It was so frustrating for me because I mean, I was, we were getting attacked and anything we said and then censored when Dr. Kelly would come

on our show, she was always the one that could get us censored first. And, but you know, we figured out a way to keep, you know, then Rumble came along and now we, now we can do it because YouTube is in competition with Rumble. But,, you know, Twitter has kept us up. Luckily, we walked the walk to get through it, but we're willing to really go out on a ledge now. And I want Kelly to fight the good fight because I know she's got it in her. Well, as always, I will keep fighting with Tom. I'll stand with anybody that's on the freedom side. Look forward to know.

Between you and John Bowden, I feel like there's like a symposium or something, an ethics symposium that needs to be had. But something, something in there. And if anybody's in the audience and they missed the interview with Bowden yesterday, please go look at it and check out his book. And on Twitter, you can see the link to his book because he's really working hard on this as well. It's a pretty powerful one-two punch between Tom and Bowden. And then you have just people like Lee Meng on the periphery, you know, making noise that sort of the information keeps pointing in the direction

these guys are uncovering. This coming week, we've got, got next Wednesday we've got dr. Kat Lindley Tom who is going to be talking about the wh-o treaty specifically we're really going to delve into that as you as you know that is going to be a disaster and it is being driven by our own government which is terrifying yeah it is there's a lot of a lot of legal questions related to how they're going to do that so i i look for listen i look forward to where i love the show love you guys i hope people are supporting you guys i would love to also have thanks i would also like to

have you on with other guests that we are i'm thinking about having a couple guests per show and maybe go a little bit longer. A little debating thing. Because we're really, we've got great guests coming up, but I think we can have, not debating, I am not debating with doctors, okay? Okay. It makes my skin crawl, this debate thing. I want to get like, you know, different points of view and maybe make the show a little bit

longer. So maybe we can have you back sooner. Fair enough. All right, Tom. I'm covering for you while you're on vacation in the beginning of August. Maybe Tom and I will have a love fest. We'll have a show just the two of us.

Make Drew jealous. We'll talk all about the stuff we didn't get to today beautiful all right guys thank you so much we'll see kelly next wednesday we'll see you all uh we have nothing tomorrow we're back again we gotta catch a plane that's why we have to go otherwise we'd stay longer we have to go to the airport we are back on tuesday at uh three o'clock that is july 3rd with vivek Ramaswamy. So we'll talk about that very significant pressure point we were talking about today of the capture of the government by corporate interests.

So we'll get into that and more. There's the list of upcoming guests, Mark McDonald, psychiatrist. Look forward to all our great guests and really interesting stuff coming forward. You can find it all on the YouTube or the Rumble site. And Susan will always urge me to urge you to please support the people that support us so we can keep

doing all this. DrDrew.com slash support or sponsors, sorry. And DrDrew.com slash sponsors and just find all the coupon codes. Make sure you get it in right, whether it's Drew or DrDrew to get your discount because some of them are different. Some of the discounts are substantial.

So pick over at Primal and stuff. So again, all things we stand behind. We're very delighted to have the people that are working with us that do. And we'll see you next week at, I believe it's 3 o'clock. Is that correct? Yes. Yes, 3 o'clock. And shout out to us at the airport if you see us.

Vivek Ramaswamy next week. See you then, Monday. Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky. As a reminder, the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment. This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only. I am a licensed physician, but I am not a replacement for your personal doctor, and I am not practicing medicine here. Always remember that our understanding of medicine and science is constantly evolving. Though my opinion is based on the information that is available to me today, some of the contents of this show could be outdated in

the future. Be sure to check with trusted resources in case any of the information has been updated since this was published. If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, don't call me. Call 911. If you're feeling hopeless or suicidal call the national suicide prevention lifeline at 800-273-8255 you can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at drdrew.com help