Ask Dr. Drew - Biomedical Security State: Dr. Aaron Kheriaty on Mandate Lawsuit with Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 142

Starting point is 00:00:00 Everybody, today we are welcoming back Dr. Aaron Cariardi. He is, of course, a psychiatrist who was at the UCI School of Medicine. He was one of the directors of the bioethics committee at the time. He'll give us specific details on that. And because he didn't think the vaccine policies was particularly ethical, he was eventually dismissed from his job there after years of teaching at the highest level. And he's presently director of the medical ethics program. Let's see, California Department of State Hospitals.

Starting point is 00:00:32 He has worked with the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post. He's got a new book coming out. And he also has a lawsuit, I believe, that's been sort of reissued. I want to get some details on that. Dr. Cariardi has been a guest here before. He's got a lot of interesting ideas. He's been thinking about the overreach, which is something we've been talking about a good deal on this program, Dr.

Starting point is 00:00:52 Kelly, Victory and I. His new book, as you just saw up there, it is called The New Abnormal, The Rise of the Biomedical Security State is available now. I suggest you read it. His story is hair raising and we'll get into it right after this. Of course, we're out there on Twitter spaces to take your calls as well. Our laws as it pertains to substances are draconian and bizarre. A psychopath started this.

Starting point is 00:01:17 He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction, fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous. I'm a doctor for f***'s 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.

Starting point is 00:01:33 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. BetMGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long.

Starting point is 00:02:00 From tip-off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with the sports book born in vegas that's a feeling you can only get with bet mgm and no matter your team your favorite player or your style there's something every nba fan will love about bet mgm download the app today and discover why bet mgm is your basketball home for the season raise your game to the next level this year with bet mgm a sportsbook worth a slam dunk and authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600

Starting point is 00:02:44 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Whether you own a bustling hair salon or a hot new bakery, you need business insurance that can keep up with your evolving needs. With flexible coverage options from TD Insurance, you only pay for what you need. TD, ready for you. Welcome, everyone. Of course, I'm watching you all on the restream here, checking out your comments, as well as over on the Rumble Rants. There's just a few of you over there, and Jay Hepp wants to know if Dr. McCullough really indeed lose his license. We will talk about

Starting point is 00:03:19 that. We are, of course, on Twitter spaces. I don't know that we're actually going to have time for calls today because Dr. Cariotti is such an interesting source of conversation. I do want to get right to him. As I said, he's a psychiatrist. He was the director of the program in bioethics, and he is presently doing a lot of other things because he was dismissed from those jobs. Welcome, Dr. Cariotti. Thanks. Thanks, Drew.

Starting point is 00:03:46 It's always good to be with you. Glad to be back. It is good to have you back. The book is out now, The New Abnormal, The Rise of the Biomedical Security State. I'm sure it's a detailed sort of history of what you went through. Give people just a little sketch who may not have seen your other appearances on this program. Sure. So the book was published yesterday, and it just so happens that that was the one-year anniversary of the day that the University of California placed me on unpaid suspension for alleged noncompliance with their vaccine mandate. And a month after that, following December last year, the university fired me. Prior to them placing me on leave, I had challenged the university's vaccine mandate in federal court on behalf of people like me who had natural immunity,

Starting point is 00:04:32 who had already had recovered from COVID infection. That case, by the way, Drew, is still in federal court at the appellate level. The university dismissed me before the district court judge had weighed in on the case or made a ruling. So they didn't let any grass grow under their feet. And actually, about a month ago, the CDC finally came around to catching up with the science on natural immunity and endorsed, perfectly endorsed with its new guidelines, my central argument in the case, which is that we should no longer and shouldn't have in the past discriminated between the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations for two reasons that the CDC cited. First, natural immunity or infection-induced immunity is robust and durable over time, and over 90% of Americans now have had COVID, whether they were vaccinated or

Starting point is 00:05:26 unvaccinated. And the second reason, which I cited in my lawsuit, is not news. Pfizer recently admitted this, but this has been known from the very beginning, is that the vaccines did not prevent infection and transmission. So the whole argument that you should get vaccinated for the sake of other people, even if you personally are not going to benefit, that may have been true if we had a sterilizing vaccine that stopped infection and transmission. But we knew very early on during the vaccine rollout that these available vaccines for COVID could not do that. So that's where my case is currently.

Starting point is 00:06:01 And the book does detail my fight with the University of California in chapter two. It also talks about my fight with the FDA on data transparency. So the FOIA request to get the Pfizer clinical trials data with the FDA, my battles with the CDC and so forth. But more than just being a retrospective on our pandemic policies or sort of post-mortem on our pandemic policies, what I discovered in researching this book, to understand why we adopted the policies that we did, even though they were ineffective at controlling the pandemic, and even though they did a lot of collateral damage, things like lockdowns and school closures, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, these things didn't actually achieve the public health purposes for which they were supposedly instituted. And yet they stayed in place for a long time.

Starting point is 00:06:58 The University of California still has their vaccine mandate in place in spite of the fact that it contradicts the latest CDC guidelines, which was their only defense a year ago. We're just following the CDC. I don't know what their defense is now. So the question naturally arose for me, well, if the purported public health justification is not holding up, then what really motivated these misguided policies? And I discovered that you have to look at the broader economic interests. You have to look at the broader political interests that were at work to really understand what happened. And the other thing that I discovered is that the whole infrastructure that was rolled out during COVID, what I call in the subtitle, the biomedical security state, is still in place, just waiting for the next declared public health crisis. And specifically what I mean by that term, the biomedical security state,

Starting point is 00:07:59 is an increasingly militarized public health apparatus. It's actually been in the works for about 20 years, really manifested in the last three years during the COVID pandemic. But it has a history that goes back to really the months and years following 9-11. So an increasingly militarized public health. The second element is the use of digital technologies of surveillance and control to monitor and control large populations. The QR code based vaccine passport being sort of one sign of that aspect of the biomedical security state. And these two things, militarized public health,

Starting point is 00:08:52 digital technologies of surveillance and control, are backed up by the police powers of the state. And again, even though some of the specific COVID-related policies that I criticize in the book have been rolled back, there are serious proposals in place to redeploy them to address other crises and other issues that are being redefined as public health crises. Climate change is a good example of that. Even before the pandemic, if you read the headlines carefully on climate change, you see, and again, regardless of your position on climate change or your policy views on climate change, you see, and again, regardless of your position on climate change or your policy views on climate change, climate change has been redefined from primarily an environmental issue that's about ecology to a public health issue. It's been reframed primarily in terms of its harm to human health. And there are serious proposals on the table now

Starting point is 00:09:46 to declare climate change a public health crisis. People at Ivy League universities, politicians in positions of power and authority that have proposed in the last year or two that we should use, for example, rolling lockdowns to address the climate crisis or to address the energy crisis. Folks may remember during the pandemic, during the initial lockdowns of the pandemic, when we had the George Floyd protests

Starting point is 00:10:12 and the BLM riots in many of our cities here, 1,200 public health officials came out with this public letter claiming that racism was a public health crisis. So we had a public health crisis to deal with COVID. We had an emergency to deal with this virus, but we had another emergency of racism that sort of, at least temporarily for some group of people, superseded the COVID crisis and meant that they could gather in public in mass gatherings when all of the rest of us were supposed to stay at home. So this taking of other issues out of the realm of sort of something that the public as a whole has to deal with, racism as a moral issue or racism as a political issue, reframing it as a public health issue sort of puts it under the control or the aegis of the so-called experts, right? Rather than placing this problem or this

Starting point is 00:11:15 issue in the hands of ordinary citizens. And this kind of model of a rule by experts, what some people have called a technocracy. I argue in the book, I argue in The New Abnormal, it runs contrary to the basic principles of a free and open democracy where, you know, everyone is in possession of rationality and common sense. You may not be an epidemiologist, you may not be a virologist, you may not have certain credentials that would qualify you as a public health expert. But, you know, you still have a say. You can still spot a logical contradiction. You can still see when someone on TV who's saying something and is supposedly speaking from their expertise is contradicting, let's say, what they said on TV a month ago. You know, all of us, whether you're a

Starting point is 00:12:05 scientist or not, knew that many of our COVID policies just were illogical and couldn't plausibly have any scientific justification. What could possibly be the scientific justification for having to walk into a restaurant wearing a mask while I'm standing up, but then being permitted to take the mask off as soon as I sit down. Right. For insanity. Yet somehow, you know, none of us could weigh in on those decisions without being anointed as having the requisite expertise or credentials.

Starting point is 00:12:39 And I think this idea of a technocracy is just going to continue undermining our freedoms if we don't start pushing back. Did I also see your name on a new suit regarding AB 2098 here in California? Is that just this afternoon? Yeah, that's right. That was just filed hot off the press. Just got the press release from our lawyer at the New Civil Liberties Alliance a few hours ago, actually. So this was a case, we may have discussed it last time I was on, I don't recall, but the California legislature passed a law and Governor Newsom signed it recently, basically allowing the

Starting point is 00:13:18 empowering the medical board to discipline, including potentially removing the medical license of any physician who contra uh contradicted the quote-unquote certain current scientific consensus no no they actually the word the word is standard of care the word is standard of care that they used that's their language because i because i actually called the board and had a meeting with them and you you should you should be aware of this. It was very interesting. Because standard of care was the organizing rationality. Because I've had to fight the standard of care in medicine many times, whether it was overprescribing of opiates or using ice picks for psychosurgery. I mean, standard of care has been horrific many, many times.

Starting point is 00:14:05 And I've had to stand up to it. And i've been crushed by bureaucracies for doing so and no no apologies or thank yous you know 10 years later after fighting it for years at least i don't get the lawsuits that the walmart is getting today for instance which they they did not stand up to any of this i did um and i called them and they were very accommodating. The current president of the board is really trying to have a relationship with so-called good physicians. They're, they're very focused on far outlying physicians. But what I was trying to get them to understand was you get a complaint from the board, it destroys your life for weeks. Yeah. I mean, you are, you are upside down for weeks.

Starting point is 00:14:47 And I couldn't get them to understand that that was, none of us who are not, or doing everything right, really feel like they're going to successfully prosecute us for something we're doing right. We feel like we can defend ourselves. The problem is to defend ourselves means stopping practice, hiring an attorney, thousands of hours of research and medical records and whatever else it might be. And I could not get them to understand how impossible that is for the average physician. That's what we worry about, that this is just going to be more nuisance actions. And that's exactly right, Drew. And to avoid that, I think the real impact of the law

Starting point is 00:15:27 is not just going to be those physicians who have a cloud of suspicion hanging over them, or who are potentially disciplined under this law, but it will have a chilling effect on any physician who has questions about, you know, the current quote, current standard of care, current scientific consensus on COVID. And they're just, they're just going to have to parrot the line that's coming from the California department of public health, whether or not they agree or disagree with it. And this, you know, a physician with a gag order is not a physician that you can trust. But so many physicians will self-censor, which will be just as harmful to good medical practice and to the doctor-patient relationship.

Starting point is 00:16:10 Listen, this is how complicated it gets. I had a patient today, I had a patient today who I was trying to figure out optimum timing for the bivalent vaccine. She's 80 plus years old. She has benefited, she's had COVID. She's benefited. Family members have died of COVID. We had a complicated conversation, complicated situation, you know, multiple previous boosters. And, you know, when do we time the, and the, the, one of the family members said, well, what if I was 30? And I said, well, I, I'm not allowed to have that conversation with you because I've got some concerns. You know, it's like, it's like, this is crazy. This is so nutty.

Starting point is 00:16:48 But anyway, I'm going to, we're going to get Kelly in here in just a second. I've got a couple of things I want to get out of the way before we bring Kelly in here. You, you've raised so many very interesting issues. So just so I'm clear, you're in the appellate court for your original lawsuit and you're now a plaintiff in this new ab 2098 case yes that's right and we're two things going on challenging this in federal court also on first amendment grounds that this violates the constitutional first amendment free speech rights of physicians i don't think this law is going to withstand judicial scrutiny it seems to

Starting point is 00:17:22 me and and to the other physician plaintiffs in my case, to be a clear violation of our constitutional rights. But of course, in the meantime, we still have to contend with that law. Right. And then just to work clear, you were the chairman of the bioethics committee at UC Irvine, correct? Does anybody, does the irony of raising a bioethical issue and being fired for it, does it escape the administration at UC Irvine? Do they not understand the irony of what they've done? You know, it certainly was a headline a year ago, you know, university ethics professor fired after he challenged the ethics of the university's policy. Um, and I hope that irony wasn't lost on the university

Starting point is 00:18:13 administration. Um, but you know, they clearly did not want to try to work with me to find a suitable solution to our differences of opinion. I'll mention too, Drew, just, oh, go ahead, go ahead. I was going to mention one other lawsuit I'm involved in, but that- Before you mention it, I want you to follow it with how the public health was militarized following 9-11. That history is not clear to me, but go ahead and talk about the lawsuit first. So the third lawsuit that I'm involved in was filed by the attorney generals of Missouri and Louisiana against the Biden administration for alleged collusion to basically pressure social media companies to censor online voices that were contradicting their preferred pandemic policies. And in that Missouri v. Biden case,

Starting point is 00:19:05 there are four private plaintiffs, including me and two authors of the Great Barrington Declaration. So that's another free speech issue that I'm trying to address on the federal level. But back to your question. Okay, so the militarization of public health has been going on for about 20 years.

Starting point is 00:19:23 There have been a series of tabletop pandemic exercises that started around 2001 and continued on into the most recent one was just literally a couple of weeks before the first cases of covet 19 were reported and these involved very shockingly it was shockingly uh similar to what happened and continues to happen like like bizarrely similar enough to turn any anyone into a tin tin hat tin foil hat conspiracy theorist because it was literally about a coronavirus outbreak that killed millions of people around the world it was quite... And that there was a vaccine problem that caused malcarditis. It was all these things. It was like, oh my God. That's right. It was wild. So I describe Event 201 in the book, and this is all publicly available information. You can watch this whole tabletop

Starting point is 00:20:16 simulation on YouTube. But that was the latest in a whole series of these things that's been occurring for the last 20 years. And every one of these simulations, which involves high level government officials, high level national security officials. So Averill Hines, who's now the head of all of our national security agencies, participated in event 201. The director of, former director of the CDC has participated in many of these things as well. And all of these basically end with the takeaway point is we need increasing levels of authoritarian control over the entire population. We need to be able to control the flow of information through everything from censorship

Starting point is 00:21:03 to internet shutdowns, which some countries resorted to during COVID. And we need a coerced, all of them end with a coerced mass vaccination campaign where the right of informed consent, the right of informed refusal is denied to people when it comes to the vaccine. And so all of these are pushing in the direction of increasing use of digital technologies for the surveillance of entire populations, which happened during COVID. Again, this is not conspiratorial. Vice broke the story a couple of months ago that the CDC has been extracting track and trace data from phones without the consent of the users. And that data, which is supposedly anonymous, researchers at

Starting point is 00:21:52 Princeton showed it can very easily be de-identified with only, or de-anonymized rather, that specific individuals can be tied to the specific data points in those large bulk collections. So these new levels of intrusion on our privacy, new levels of control over large scale populations, these have been gamed out actually for the last 20 years. And they were first kind of tested, you could say on a mass scale during COVID with lockdowns, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports that we saw over the last few years. But the plans for this, as I dug into the research, I realized that this kind of biosecurity model of governance started percolating shortly after 9-11 and really gained steam in the last 10 years and then kind of manifested

Starting point is 00:22:55 publicly during the pandemic. As I said, the infrastructure is all still in place. We have proof of concept testing that most people will accept these measures if they're sufficiently afraid or uh you know if the if the perceived crisis is is severe enough and um and so the book the new abnormal book is is really about where this is going to go next i talk about some of the next steps uh that we starting to see. Hold on that. Hold on that. I know Dr. Victor will be very interested in that. And I'll just make a comment before we go to break.

Starting point is 00:23:30 It's so interesting to me that bioethics was a theoretical experience or theoretical pursuit, academic pursuit for you who knew you were going to have to live it every moment of your professional life, both in a courtroom and in terms of writing books and living a certain kind of life. Susan, you want to comment on that? Yeah. Also, we're having a little tech problem with his earbuds. We'd like you to, Caleb's going to text you on that break because it's making a little, a little. Clicky noise. Yeah, no problem. I can try. I think I might have some... All right, hold on.

Starting point is 00:24:06 Stay put. Caleb will text you. We'll take a little break. I'll talk to him on the phone. And we'll be back with Dr. Cariotti and Dr. Kelly Victory after this. Great. Consumer price index yet again going up.

Starting point is 00:24:19 Stock market in turmoil. What's our government doing to quell the surge of inflation that is gutting American families? Oh, yeah, they're spending more money and adding to the burden. Don't bury your head in the sand while your savings get decimated. It's time to do something about this. Visit birchgold.com slash drew. Now I don't give investment advice, but you can visit birchgold, B-I-R-C-H, gold.com slash drew. Birchgo gold will send you a free info kit on protecting your savings with gold in a tax sheltered account great people with almost 20 years of experience converting iras

Starting point is 00:24:51 and 401ks into precious metals iras don't let your savings lose value visit birch gold dot com slash true and claim your free no obligation info kit from birch gold you can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it. Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, and thousands of satisfied customers. Check them out now. Visit birchgold.com and secure your future with gold. Do it now.

Starting point is 00:25:21 For a long time, I've been talking about the holy grail of skincare, GenuCell, and the amazing results that both Susan and I have seen. I'm a big fan of GenuCell's Silky Smooth XV. It's a moisturizer soaked right into my skin instantly, and with its immediate effects, I saw fine lines and wrinkles visibly disappear within 12 hours. Susan loves GenuCell's vitamin C serum infused with the purest vitamin C, absorbs to the deepest layer of the skin thanks to GenuCell's proprietary skincare technology. I am a snob when it comes to using products on my face. The dermatologist makes a ton of money for me. But when I was introduced to GenuCell, I was so happy because it's so affordable and it works great. I was introduced to the Ultra

Starting point is 00:26:03 Retinol Cream, which I love at night. All the eye creams are amazing. People notice my skin all the time and I'm so excited because it's actually working. And right now, GenuCell has bundled my favorite products and Susan's for you to try today for up to 60% off retail pricing. That's right, save up to 60%

Starting point is 00:26:20 on my favorite GenuCell products today. Just go to genucel.com slash Drew to see what's in our bundles and receive an extra 10% off at checkout when you enroll in their personal concierge at checkout. That again is GenuCell.com slash Drew, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.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.

Starting point is 00:26:56 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. Welcome, Dr. Kelly. Victory, I know you've been anxiously listening to what Dr. Cariotti was talking about. I'm sure you've formulated a whole interesting set of questions. Let's get at it. I know. I don't even know where to start. Thanks so much for joining us. Let's start with that. And I'm going to push back a little bit on Drew for a second here. I don't think for one minute, Drew, that the board quote doesn't get it, that when they challenge a physician or when a physician has a complaint filed against them, that they don't understand what that means. As someone who has, I've defended myself seven

Starting point is 00:27:42 times during this pandemic against complaints in various states. And you are quite right. It takes hours of your life. Oh, my God. Hours, by the way, that you will never get back. And anxiety evoking and expense for attorneys. Unbelievable. But what I want to convey to you is not that they don't get it.

Starting point is 00:28:02 I mean, it wasn't like they couldn't understand the words. They seemed unconcerned about that feature. They were just focused on we're getting bad doctors. So don't worry because you're not a bad doctor. It's like, no, that's not the issue that all us good doctors, all of us are worried about the time spent with these complaints. And you're creating an environment where this is going to escalate. I suspect that they know in that that's part of their method,

Starting point is 00:28:25 but I'd be interested in Dr. Cariotti's impression of it. Yeah. Well, look, here's the other issue that's, I think, very much related to this and related, Drew, to your conversation with the medical board. Because when he signed the law, Governor Newsom did something unusual. He actually appended a kind of commentary trying to reassure physicians that, look, this is only going to be for the fringe crazies that are, you know, the implication was, you know, you're telling your patient to swallow bleach to take care of COVID, then you're going to run into trouble with the medical board. You know, but if you have a subtle difference of opinion on a controversial topic, don't worry about it. But the problem with that is that the law is what the law says.

Starting point is 00:29:15 And so the only thing that matters at the end of the day is the language of the law. You might have people on the medical board now that don't want to apply the law too broadly or too widely. But those people are going to turn over, and the law is going to stay on the books. That's exactly what I told Christina Lawson, the president. I told the president that. I said, well, I'm reassured when she's there, but what if she's not there? It's going to be scary.

Starting point is 00:29:36 But your defense, go ahead. Exactly. Right. Well, yeah, the only thing you can rely on for your defense is the language in the law. Right? So Governor Newsom, if you want to take them at his word, the medical board, if you want to take them at their word, may not be

Starting point is 00:29:49 interested in going after physicians on questions that are definitely open to scientific debate. But there's no guarantee that that wouldn't happen in the future. And if that happens, your only defense is to be able to say, I didn't violate what is actually in the law, not what was in Governor Newsom's appendage, which has no legal no, no, no, we're only going to apply it here or there, that's not reassuring at all. Because if there's a complaint against you, the only thing that you can rely on is the language of the law. And the law is just written far too broadly and should be of concern to all physicians for that very reason. Well, one of my concerns in this discussion, and we certainly have talked a lot about AB 2098,

Starting point is 00:30:53 Drew and I have in previous shows, one of my concerns is that we always focus on what this means for physicians. It's a physician-oriented piece of legislation, but what we haven't talked about is from the patient's perspective. That's right. Patients should be terrified. I mean, there's a reason why there are laws in place, for example, that prevent doctors from self-referring to their own radiology clinic or their own laboratory, for example. There's a reason I wouldn't hire an auto mechanic or a plumber who is bound by law to not say anything against GM or to say anything against Toyota.

Starting point is 00:31:31 I mean, I would be terrified. Patients need to worry now. When I walk into that office and the doctor suggests X, Y, or Z treatment or course of action, they need to be asking themselves, is this what Dr. Victory really believes is best for me, really thinks is what the literature would lead her to conclude? Or is it just that she doesn't want to lose her damn license? I mean, this from the patient's perspective should be terrifying. Absolutely. That's the worst part of this. You know, I'm challenging it legally based on the doctor's free speech rights, but that, you know, the worst harms are not doctor's free speech rights. Right. They're there to the patient. And actually, if you look at free speech prior legal precedent and jurisprudence, one of the interesting things that's been established by the Supreme Court about the right of free speech is that it's not just a right that impacts the person who is speaking.

Starting point is 00:32:29 But just as importantly, the right of free speech is important for the person on the receiving end of information, that people have a right to hear different perspectives so that they can weigh both sides of a debate and formulate their own opinions. And when you restrict the free speech rights of certain groups of people or certain, um, speech content, it harms not just the people who can't say certain things, but it also harms the people who could benefit from hearing those things. And in this case, it's obviously patients who need to know exactly what their physician thinks. They can decline their physician's recommendation. They can go seek a second opinion if they're skeptical of their physician's advice or viewpoint. But no one across the political spectrum, I can't think of anyone who would want

Starting point is 00:33:24 to go to a doctor and ask their doctor a question and not actually hear what their physician thinks, but instead hear some template that the doctor was dictated to answer with, you know, on the part of the state. Right. Now, you quoted exactly my position. I was the first co-plaintiff with President Trump in his class action lawsuit against big tech. I was permanently banned from Twitter, YouTube, Facebook very early on. And my contention was exactly that, that this is not just about Dr. Kelly Victory's right to free speech, but more importantly, about the rights of everyone to hear what I have to say and to hear alternative opinions. That's right.

Starting point is 00:34:09 Drew and I, really the basis of these Wednesday shows with Drew was to provide a platform originally for me and then for others who have been mercilessly censored, derided, ridiculed, marginalized, because we really benefited. In the past, robust, vigorous debate was the cornerstone of medicine. We relied on it. This is the first time, at least in my career of 30 plus years, that I can remember that that not only wasn't lauded, but was actually shut down. Now, one of the things I wanted to ask you about is, you quoted the two things about the reason

Starting point is 00:34:52 that made the mandate, the vaccine mandate in your mind, illegal or unconstitutional. Number one, that it ignored natural immunity, and number two, that it did not prevent infection or transmission, the basis of the mandates. What you didn't talk about, and I don't know if you do in your book, is the ethics of it, the issue that based on the Nuremberg Code, we cannot compel or mandate someone to participate in an experiment. And as of today, November 2nd, 2022, all of the vaccines available in the United States remain experimental.

Starting point is 00:35:34 They are not FDA approved. So talk about that from a bioethics perspective. We're forcing somebody to participate in an experiment. How is that not a violation of the Nuremberg Code? Yeah. Thank you for that question, Dr. Victor. I do talk about that in The New Abnormal. In fact, the prologue to the book begins by saying, this book is about our future, but I start with a cautionary tale from the not too distant past. And the title of the prologue is Nuremberg 1947, which details the eugenics movement. People typically think of Nazi Germany with the eugenics movement. Most folks are not aware that forced sterilization and other violations of informed consent started in the United States and Great Britain in the early

Starting point is 00:36:22 20th century and was only later in the 20s and 30s exported to Germany, which copied laws in the United States, the forced sterilization laws in the United States. So I described the eugenics movement and what it led to in the United States, Britain, and eventually in Germany. And then the world reacted following World War II with the Nuremberg trials, which included the Nazi doctor trials. And one of the key things to come out of those trials and the public hearing on the gross abuses that occurred was the Nuremberg Code, which most people have heard of, a few people have read. I do encourage listeners to go do a search and read the Nuremberg Code. It's a short, two-page document. It's not long. It's

Starting point is 00:37:11 not complicated. The very first principle articulated there, the bulwark against the kind of abuses that we saw under Nazism and in the eugenics movement elsewhere, the first principle articulated is the principle of informed consent, that adults of sound mind have the right to decide what medical interventions they will accept or refuse and have the right to decide whether or not to participate in research, whether to be a subject in an experiment. And as you said, under our own federal laws definitions, these vaccines are still experimental because they're approved only for emergency use. The Pfizer vaccine community that was given provisional FDA approval is still not available in the United States. So yes, that was the key

Starting point is 00:38:09 issue in my deciding that I needed to challenge vaccine mandates. My legal case, I focused on the issue of natural immunity and this sort of empirical argument that I articulated earlier, because I think that was an issue that we could win on in the courts. But the deeper and more fundamental issue was the fact that the right of informed consent had been completely just tossed overboard during the pandemic. And I think that's an enormous mistake. And the pandemic was an opportunity to reaffirm the central doctrine in Nuremberg that people have the right to decide whether to be part of an experiment, they have the right to decide what medical interventions they want for themselves or for their children

Starting point is 00:39:00 who are not old enough yet to give consent? Well, yeah, I think that this is a, it's a critical issue to me. You know, obviously I've been fighting the mandates from the beginning, but the, you know, people look back to the Nuremberg trials. I mean, there were, you know, seven physicians hung after Nuremberg. I mean, they were, you know, this was, yeah, this was death penalty. So, yeah. Yeah. So the question is really, you know, when we get to the issue of, if you put on your psychiatrist hat, you know, how does the country, how does the world ever heal from this egregious debacle? Everything from just the horrific handling of the pandemic itself to the kinds of censorship and canceling and people like you and thousands of military people

Starting point is 00:39:54 who lost storied careers because they chose to make their own decision. How do we hold them without accountability? I would submit there is, there will never be healing. Do you think we will end up going down the road of, of a Nuremberg 2.0? We lost Dr. Cariotti. I don't know if we lost. Yeah. I think I saw him press a button.

Starting point is 00:40:19 Funny. We had a big, there you're back. We had a big power outage in my office today. I was wondering if it was something we got. I was thinking it's the NSA. I want wondering if it was i want to add a i want to add a i want to add a code uh susan thinks so too i want to add a code to what you just asked and and just just to tag it because we framed it as you as a psychiatrist we've not talked about mass formation and or mass formation psychosis as it's sometimes called and its role in all of this is is there something there that also must be done to get us all the way out and through and

Starting point is 00:40:51 seeing things clearly dr carriotti yeah so on the mass formation question we have to work at overcoming our fear we know that fear was deliberately deployed by governments using highly refined techniques of wartime propaganda to deliberately increase the level of fear in the population as a method to try to increase compliance with public health directives. This is very well documented. Did you have that documented somewhere? Please tweet it out. Lord Doddsworth in Great Britain wrote a book on this, actually. The title is escaping me at the moment. But there were at least two books, very well documented, credible books from credible sources describing kind of how this happened. And so, yeah, happy to send those references later. So

Starting point is 00:41:47 yeah, there's a lot that needs to be done in that regard to help people who are still living under a cloud of, of fear, um, to, uh, you know, to, to be able to relinquish, um, that fear and start thinking clearly again, because I can say as a psychiatrist, if you're paralyzed by anxiety, you're not going to be able to think and reason clearly. That was done to make people more pliable and more easily kind of manipulated and to get people to obey public health orders. But it should be obvious, hopefully, to folks that there's huge ethical problems with governments behaving in that way. And back to Dr. Victory's question about accountability, do we need another Nuremberg trial? trial. Well, I think there were some people who acted deliberately in bad faith and in some cases, perhaps even violated the law. And certainly if you broke the law as a public official, you should be held accountable and you should go to jail for that. There was an article published

Starting point is 00:43:00 a day or two ago in the Atlantic that's received a lot of attention this week, talking about amnesty after the pandemic. Let's just sort of stop fighting about COVID and stop blaming people and just kind of move on. And while I'm sympathetic to proposals to reconcile and to heal, I mean, certainly there are a lot of people that are wounded out there. There are people that are divided, there are broken relationships, broken family relationships, friendships that ended over disagreements about COVID policies. And so we're living in a culture, in a society that needs healing, that needs reconciliation. But if you look at how that's been done successfully at a social level, look at South Africa after apartheid, or you look

Starting point is 00:43:51 at some of the truth and reconciliation commissions after the Rwandan genocide. Those truth and reconciliation commissions have to begin with truth. You can't leapfrog over the truth stage just to get to the reconciliation stage. And can't leapfrog over the truth stage just to get to the reconciliation stage. And my concern about the proposal in The Atlantic was that the people who are responsible for those harmful policies have not owned up to their responsibility, have not acknowledged the harms, have not publicly apologized to the people who were harmed. And in cases where the harm can be at least partially rectified, that also needs to be done. So some of the harms are permanent. You know, the kids who were harmed by school closures are not going to get those developmental

Starting point is 00:44:37 years back. They're going to be dealing with those harms for decades. But the people who were fired unjustly, you know, they should be offered their jobs back with pay, as the city of New York recently was required by the courts to do for employees that they fired under the unjust vaccine mandates. So reconciliation, yes, but that has to begin with truth, with public apologies, with responsibility acknowledged, and with attempts to rectify some of the injustices where they can be amended. That's how a society heals and moves forward. We don't heal by just kind of sweeping things under the rug, which is really an effort to evade responsibility rather than assume responsibility forward. Drew and I have talked extensively about this issue of fear because I agree with you. Fear is

Starting point is 00:45:34 clearly an incredibly powerful tool for manipulating people and to driving people to comply. There's no question. And and look they have continued to try to promote it first it was monkeypox now just this week it's the triple threat of influenza RSV and it and oh my god the hospitals and you know the sky is always falling because they cannot let go of this fear because it is such a powerful and useful tool and that's what it is it is powerful and useful tool. And that's what it is. It is a tool. There was an article that just printed in this sort of obscure journal called Minerva. I haven't even gotten it to Drew yet. It just hit yesterday called Censorship and Suppression of COVID

Starting point is 00:46:22 Heterodoxy. I don't know if you've looked at it, but it's interesting. I have, yeah. One of the co-authors sent it to me yesterday, and this is an important piece. Yeah, it's sort of weird to read it because it's presented as sort of a case study. It's really a survey or an interview. They interviewed 13 different MDs or PhDs or both. So highly qualified, highly trained scientists and physicians with backgrounds in everything from epidemiology to virology and public health. They talked about the different methods. And I'm speaking to the point that this is a very

Starting point is 00:46:59 concerted effort on the part of the government, because the ways that they censored people and suppressed information came from a playbook. There's absolutely every single person had been subjected to the same sort of tactics. I certainly was. On this very program, we've had Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, Harvey Reisch, Paul Alexander, Spiro Pantazonas, and on and on. All of these people, and mine too, and people who every one of us has been subjected to the same thing. It's not just suppressing you on Twitter. It's the smear jobs in the press. That's right. It's publishing heinous things about you. It's trying to suggest that you're a whack job

Starting point is 00:47:46 or a conspiracy theorist, that you're evil. You've got to believe that this is coming from a playbook. But then my question is, of those names, I just rattled off a handful. And we are people who, present company included, who represent medical degrees from some of the most highly respected institutions in the United States. It's the Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Duke. You know, we are not a bunch of, you know, sort of offshore graduates, you know, who, who, you know, went to the Sally Struthers School of Medicine. You are people with decades. How has this happened that people are not questioning, wait a minute, how can there be not just one or two people with these theories, but dozens, perhaps, I mean, hundreds of us, and no one's questioning why we all kind of have come to the same conclusion. What's that

Starting point is 00:48:46 about? Well, a big part of the problem is just the control of the flow of information, as we talked about before, with the suppression of free speech, my other lawsuit, which alleges that the federal government was dictating to social media companies, down to the level of, you know, why haven't you kicked off this person from your platform yet? And then Facebook or Twitter coming back and saying, oh, don't worry, we'll take, we'll toss that person in, you know, in response to your directives. And arguably there's legal arguments that private social media companies can censor and de-platform people. Even that's debatable.

Starting point is 00:49:26 But inarguably, no one doubts that the federal government cannot do that and cannot suborn social media companies to do its bidding. That's a clear First Amendment violation, if ever there was one. So the control of the flow of information has projected a false sense of a scientific consensus where there is none. Just the fact that these voices have a hard time reaching people because the means of communication are cut off for many of them. I also talk in the New Admiral, I talk in the book about the way in which many of our public health institutions and the institutions of science and medicine have been captured by the very interests that the CDC, FDA, NIH were meant to regulate. For example, we know that the NIH gives massive grants that basically support 80% of biomedical research in the United States. And if you're a professor in a school of medicine, if you're a researcher in a school of medicine,

Starting point is 00:50:35 if you don't get NIH grants, you don't advance, you don't stick around. But what you have is a very small number of people at the NIH who control that funding. Anthony Fauci, of course, being one of the people in that kind of cabal. Right. But no one at the public university who relies on NIH grants is going to want to stick their neck out and criticize NIH policy or Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH, is going to want to criticize, you know, FDA or approvals or CDC recommendations because they know it may impact their funding. So you control many scientific voices by controlling the purse strings. You control the brave voices who still speak out at some risk to their career by controlling the flow of information. This is not some overheated dystopian fantasy. It's all well-known, well-documented. I try to lay it out as best I can in my book. I think there's a need for very deep-seated reform of our public health agencies

Starting point is 00:51:49 to remove these obvious conflicts of interest. I mean, starting with the fact that the NIH co-owns the patent on the Moderna vaccine. They literally, and individuals within Anthony Fauci's division, literally get money every month from the sale of that vaccine. This is not a group of people that's going to be objective when there are dissident scientists that are critiquing that vaccine-related policy. Well, there's absolutely no question that the money is a huge, huge driver. And I don't think anyone disputes that. We are just starting, I think, to get our arms around really just how deep that goes.

Starting point is 00:52:46 With those institutions, Bobby Kennedy and I, and we discussed it with Drew, he really has tried to expose some of that really deep corruption that way predated, by the way, the COVID pandemic. This has been something that's been going on for probably 50 years. But one of the things that Drew and I have also talked about quite a bit, and I'd love your take on it, is there's been a perhaps subtle, maybe not so subtle in the last two and a half years, change in the philosophy of medical education, absolutely public health education. I have a deep background in public health from places like Harvard. And there's a real change in how they are educating young physicians, what their focus is on, you know, their just reliance on equity. And so what's your, how does that play into this whole, how this whole thing was allowed to happen in your mind?

Starting point is 00:53:42 Yeah. Sad to say medical education has become more and more influenced by ideologies that have very little to do with science and medicine. It produced a kind of closed-minded thinking that is inimical to scientific inquiry. Science and censorship are absolutely incompatible. Science is about conjecture and refutation and hypothesis and empirical evidence. You put a group of real scientists or thoughtful physicians together in a room and they'll argue endlessly about the subtleties of these findings or the methods of that study or the upshot of the research in this question as a whole. That's good science is characterized by ongoing debate, open-ended conversation, always an openness to new data.

Starting point is 00:54:34 But we're training physicians to think algorithmically. We're training physicians to sort of slavishly follow recipes and to click through a pre-made template on a medical record. This is not a good way to train physicians. That's what I'm saying. That's exactly what I thought. And I'm not in there teaching right now, but it seemed to me that's exactly what was happening. That and then centralization of authority. So now all authority flows to a central place and that essential authority is often now an employer or a bureaucratic system that has no interest in the patient and it's just the worst possible medicine it's i'm while you guys were talking i was reading that

Starting point is 00:55:16 minerva article kelly that you recommended yeah it is fascinating it is fascinating reading because it's described it looked at exactly what you were describing. It looked at the people that were censored. And one of the big standouts is doctors with flawless resumes, level clinical and scientific integrity, these are the ones you want to censor? Why don't you take a beat and listen to these folks? It's really too, it's so, and it describes then how each of these folks, you yourself, responded. It was first shock and disbelief, and then sort of trying to fight back, and then further censored,

Starting point is 00:56:11 and then coming up with alternative platforms and ways to express and sort of get the information out there. Very interesting. Yeah. On the issue of centralization, a generation ago, a few decades ago, 80% of physicians were in private practice. 20% worked for large bureaucratic healthcare organizations. Now it's the opposite. That's exactly right. And that has had an effect on medicine, on the practice of medicine, on medical education. And a lot of times now we have bureaucrats

Starting point is 00:56:48 calling the shots rather than the physician at the bedside individualizing patient care to the needs of this specific patient. We get these one size fits all policies or mandates that treat every patient as equivalent, as fungible. And that is not a sound approach to medical care. It runs directly contrary to our Hippocratic tradition. And patients feel the effects of that. They may not be able to put it into words, but they know that I feel like a cog in this medical machinery now and what I've sometimes called turnstile medicine. I go into the large healthcare organization. I'm sort of shuttled through the system as though I'm an interchangeable part. And in fact, my doctor is an interchangeable part because I rarely see the same doctor twice. And they're staring at a screen and they're running through a checkbox-based algorithm and spitting out an answer at the other end that

Starting point is 00:57:56 may or may not comport with my actual situation. So I think doctors and physicians are both sensing there's something deeply, deeply wrong with the direction that medicine has gone in in the last few decades. And that was one of the factors that I think made possible our very misguided pandemic response that proceeded with very little dissent from physicians, sad to say. Well, here's where I suspect this is ultimately leading. I've said for a long time that, you know, when I was in training, you know, it was, if you did a good history, you did a good history, you'd be 80% to, you know, to having the answer of what's right. And the other 20% was based on the physical exam.

Starting point is 00:58:52 Okay. So that's how I trained. Today, fast forward 30 years, they don't even do a physical exam. They want the CAT scan, the MRI, the lab results, just hand it to them. They don't even, they don't even just order a bunch of tests. Exactly. And then document it all in check boxes. You know, an electronic medical record, frankly, is a fancy billing template is all it is because it generates, as you know, a horrific accounting of what really happened during the interaction with the patient. It's really primarily for billing. So and then on top of it, now you add in things like AB 2098, where essentially you could say to the patient, you don't need to go to see the doctor. Here's the pamphlet from the CDC and the FDA. Here's the approved set of things. Just look it up. Why do you need to even see the doctor? And this has been going again for a long time. And there are other components to it. The addition of physician extenders, saying you don't need to see the doctor, you can just see the PA, that's enough. And you can talk to the nurse, you don't actually need to see the doctor. So what I think is that this is probably a bigger picture of essentially, you know, making the whole medical industry or physicians, least are component of it obsolete we

Starting point is 01:00:07 really will be a luxury and a thing of the past other than for the top you know 1% of the population that can afford to hire you as your concierge doctor on the side you made a comment I think or I think was on a tweet that you posted about them trying to tie together the medical complex as a driver of climate change. There was something about that. I saw your tweet. Yeah, please. So I described this in more detail in the book. The tweet probably is not telling the whole story. But in the new abnormal, I describe how what I call the biomedical security state has been

Starting point is 01:00:53 redefining other issues as public health issues. And there's a couple of recent examples that are very simple and easy to understand. Over the last few years, even starting prior to the pandemic, climate change started, if you read the headlines on climate change, the way in which it's presented to the public, and bracket for a moment, you know, any differences of opinion we may have on climate change, climate policy, whatever, regardless of your views on the issue. Climate change has been redefined from primarily an ecological or an environmental issue to a public health issue. It's now presented primarily in terms of health harms to human populations.

Starting point is 01:01:32 And now we have serious proposals from Ivy League academics, from politicians who are in positions of power to use things like rolling lockdowns to deal with the climate crisis or to deal with the energy crisis. People may remember also in the first year of the pandemic, during the first lockdowns, there was a group of 1,200 public health quote-unquote experts who published a public letter declaring that racism was a public health emergency. This was during the mass gatherings, the protests following the death of George Floyd and the associated BLM riots and so forth. Again, regardless of your views on how to address the issue of racism, very interesting to note that there was this effort, this push to reframe racism from primarily a moral issue or social and political issue to a public health issue. Well, what happens when you take these issues and these debates out of that realm and you put them in the realm of public health and suddenly they become something for the technocratic experts rather than ordinary citizens to try and address. And so what I suggest in the new abnormal, and I try to

Starting point is 01:02:54 provide those and other examples to illustrate this, is that we've developed a model of governance that relies on jumping from one declared emergency to the next. And COVID demonstrated that the declaration of a public health emergency is the most effective and efficient way to engage in this sort of crisis management model of governance. We're still operating under a state of emergency for COVID at the federal level. You know, President Biden announced a month or so ago on 60 Minutes that the pandemic was over, which was true. In fact, it's been over for quite some time. But his advisors immediately panicked and said, no, no, no, you can't say that. Why were they so panicked? You know, politically, it would be useful to say

Starting point is 01:03:40 that coming up to the midterm elections, you'd think you want to reassure people that we're through the worst of it. But the reason they didn't want him to say it out loud is that if that's true, then it means there's no longer any plausible justification for the declared state of emergency at the federal level. And under a declared state of emergency, the president gains 128 additional extra constitutional powers that he will have to relinquish if there's no longer a COVID emergency. Likewise, at the state level, in my home state here in California, we're still operating under a state of emergency declared by the governor. The governor gains additional powers he wouldn't otherwise have. And so there, I think one of you mentioned earlier in the show here that they're casting about for a new public health threat to latch on to in order to continue operating under this crisis mode, this state of emergency mode.

Starting point is 01:04:33 And that is the political logic of what I call the biomedical security state. It needs this series of ongoing crisis crises in order to advance its aims and maintain these additional controls over large populations. Yeah, I think you're spot on. We're going to have to kind of head towards, yeah, I do too. And I think we're going to have to kind of head towards wrapping up and encourage everybody to read the book. We don't want to give it all up here right on the stream, but go ahead, Kelly. I was going to say another thing that I would throw into your bucket of issues that have been re-identified as public health issues

Starting point is 01:05:11 would be the gun violence. They've tried very hard to make active shoes and to take it out of, you know, the reason that we can't just keep our Second Amendment right to bear arms is because it's a public health issue,

Starting point is 01:05:25 don't you know? And so I agree with you. It's politically expedient for them to do that. Well, I will wrap us up. I am really looking forward to reading the book. I think it's fascinating, the premises you're laying out. And certainly there are things that Drew and I have been talking about for a long time. So I appreciate you putting it on paper. Thanks a bunch for being here with us. And I'm happy to see that you're still on Twitter. I don't know if I will apply to get reinstated now that Elon Musk has promised to free the bird. I don't know even what the procedure would be to do that, but perhaps I

Starting point is 01:06:07 will. Eight bucks a buck. I hope you can get back on. Yeah. I sense a change already on Twitter. My following is growing much faster now that I think they changed the shadow banning algorithm and more and more people are saying, hey, you're back. Thanks for coming back. Well, I never left. Did you, yeah. Did you ever get, did you ever get kicked off? You know, I did. I, I, I, I did get kicked off. I figured out how to, how to walk right up to the line without going over it. Um, and so I've, I've, I've managed to navigate Twitter or they've left me on there because for some other nefarious purpose, I don't know. But, but, uh, you know what I think? No, I think some of it was, there was the, there was such a massive, that first year, particularly that first six months, there

Starting point is 01:06:57 was such a massive panic and impulsivity around the panic that that was where people were severely punished for raising their hand and speaking out that that's where things got really super crazy and uh those are the people that now need to continue standing up and asking for apologies and uh people to take account of for what they have done and whom they have harmed and why like you said emily oster's article about, hey, let's just forget about it, move forward. You can't. You have to see where the mistakes were made, acknowledge them, apologize for them. And we're still trying to make sense of things, to be fair. And I just, I'm so, I don't know what the word is, but the fact that you have to walk the walk of your bioethical training now and how

Starting point is 01:07:46 difficult that must be is such an impressive feat that you're literally doing that is your life now is walking that on a daily basis and it's it's an extraordinary thing to watch thank you no i appreciate that very much thanks for being here kelly i enjoyed the conversation thank you let's do it again yeah we'll do it again and kelly thank you as always for all the all you brought to the table here and uh i apologize for our peers and the way they treated you it's just very unfair very unfortunate uh for both of you we have uh clifton duncan coming in i think, on Friday, Susan. Is that correct? Yeah, Clifton's a good guy. I know. I found him early.

Starting point is 01:08:27 I do, too. I found him early, and I said, that's the guy I got to talk to. And he has been on fire lately. I know. And so I thought, you got to bring him around. Yeah, he has. And tomorrow, I will just be answering questions. So we will get to Twitter spaces tomorrow at 3 o'clock Pacific time,

Starting point is 01:08:41 and we will answer your questions there. I promise I will do all the calls I possibly can. Okay, Kelly, go get some sleep. And Kelly, go get some sleep. I'm a road warrior lately. Yeah, across multiple states twice. I don't understand how you did that, but I'm glad to have you back in California. And thank you both.

Starting point is 01:09:00 And for everyone else, we will see you tomorrow at 3 o'clock Pacific time. Stay strong. Keep going. See you then. Thanks, everyone. see you tomorrow at three o'clock. Stay strong. Keep going. See you then. Thanks, everyone. See you guys. 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.

Starting point is 01:09:15 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.

Starting point is 01:09:46 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.

Ask Dr. Drew - Biomedical Security State: Dr. Aaron Kheriaty on Mandate Lawsuit with Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 142

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.