Ask Dr. Drew - Censored Doctors From Twitter Files Sue Pres. Biden and Dr. Fauci, Scoring Major Victory For Free Speech w/ Dr. Jay Bhattacharya – Ask Dr. Drew – Ep 273

Episode Date: October 11, 2023

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a plaintiff in a First Amendment lawsuit against the HHS, Pres. Biden, and Dr. Fauci, after the Twitter Files revealed that Dr. Jay was targeted by the administration’s efforts to censor social media posts of experts who shared dissenting opinions on lockdowns and mask mandates. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. He is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research, a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and at the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute. His research focuses on the economics of health care around the world with a particular emphasis on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations. Follow Dr. Bhattacharya at https://x.com/drjbhattacharya 「 SPONSORED BY 」 Find out more about the companies that make this show possible and get special discounts on amazing products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get an extra discount with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew • 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 • 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 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.  「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician with over 35 years of national radio, NYT bestselling books, and countless TV shows bearing his name. He's known for Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Teen Mom OG (MTV), Dr. Drew After Dark (YMH), The Masked Singer (FOX), multiple hit podcasts, and the iconic Loveline radio show. Dr. Drew Pinsky received his undergraduate degree from Amherst College and his M.D. from the University of Southern California, School of Medicine. Read more at https://drdrew.com/about Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

and welcome back we have the great good fortune today to speak to dr j badacharya uh dr badacharya some we've uh been checking in with regularly throughout this uh last extraordinary time he has a new lawsuit uh which he has uh participated he'll give us some details on that and the basic um pedigree for dr badacharya he's a professor of medicine at stanford research associate at the national bureau of Economics Research, and a senior fellow at Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. He's the Stanford Freeman Spoli Institute, and that's where the economic policy research is at. And his research has focused on economics of healthcare around the world in the past, though lately he has been preoccupied with some of the excesses of our

public health system so we'll take a little break and get the chance to welcome our friend dr j vatacharya our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre the psychopaths start this right he was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography p 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. 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 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 think everyone knows the next medical crisis could be just around the corner, whether it comes in the form of another pandemic or something much more routine, like a tick bite. You and your family need to be prepared. That's where the wellness company comes in. You know, the wellness company, we have their physicians on like Dr. McCullough frequently. The wellness company and their doctors are medical professionals you can trust. And their new medical emergency

kits are the gold standard when it comes to keeping you safe and healthy. It's really, it's a safety net. It's an insurance policy that you hope you're not going to need, but if you need it, you sure as heck are going to wish you had it if you need it. Be ready for anything. This medical emergency kit contains an assortment of life-saving medications, including ivermectin, Z-Pak. The medical emergency kit provides a guidebook to aid in the safe use of all these life-saving medications.

From anthrax to tick bites to COVID-19, the Wellness Company's Medical Emergency Kit is exactly what you need to have on hand to be prepared. Rest assured, knowing that you have emergency antibiotics, antivirals, and antiparasitics on hand to help you and your family stay safe from whatever life throws at you next. Go to drdrew.com slash TWC. That is D-R-D-R-E-W dot com forward slash TWC to get 10% off today. Just click on that link. I was saying Dr. Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford, research associate at National Bureau of Economics.

Just an extraordinary pedigree and one of the authors, if not the author, of the Great Barrington Declaration, which largely, had it been followed, might have reduced the extraordinary suffering that the excesses of our public health system put in place. Dr. Bhattacharya can be followed on X or Twitter at Dr. J Bhattacharya, which is spelled B-H-A-T-T-A-C-H-A-R-Y-A, Dr. J Bhattacharya. Please welcome Dr. Bhattacharya. Welcome back, Jay. Thank you, Drew.

Can you give us an update on the lawsuit that you've been involved with as it pertains to the i believe it's the biden versus missouri is it that one yeah it's missouri versus biden it was brought by the missouri and louisiana attorney general's office and they asked me to be a co-plaintiff on the on the case um the allegation of the case is that the federal government put together a vast censorship enterprise uh the federal judge in the case called it a ministry of truth, sort of from Orwell. And they used their power. It almost sounds like a conspiracy theory when I say it,

but it actually was documented in discovery documents and depositions and federal judges have signed off on this. So for those listening, this is not a conspiracy theory. So what the federal government did is it took a hit list of censorship that it had sort of generated by cooperating with NGOs and universities, including Stanford University, of people and ideas that it wanted censored off the internet. A lot of these ideas were ideas that were actually true,

but were critical of government policy surrounding COVID. So for instance, the idea that the vaccine does not stop you from getting COVID, that was censored. The idea that if you get COVID and recovered, that you actually have substantial immunity, well, that was censored. Sort of idea after idea that was inconvenient for government policy, they developed a hit list for censorship. And then the government went to the social media companies and said, if you don't censor these people and these ideas, well, I mean, that's a really nice company you have there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it. I mean, and by the way, literally a federal judge wrote this Al Capone reference in a decision about this case. So you have something that should never have been done if you think that

the first amendment actually has any bite on the missouri versus biden case we found we found this out and the judges have said that the federal government needs to stop it now uh in ministry of truth is just it just that is exactly what that was like in the Orwellian description of what they were doing. And what I don't understand is why people aren't, why 100% of Americans aren't upset about this. That to me is one of the most mystifying parts of this. Why everyone isn't just gobsmacked. I mean, I think, so if you listen to the other side, Drew, what they say is that the American

people are easily misled and that social media has weaponized the capacity for people to easily mislead vast numbers of Americans at scale. And that therefore what needs to happen is that the government needs to have the power to censor social media or else the lives of people will be in danger. That's the argument on the other side. But think about that for a minute. Essentially, what they're saying is that the American people are too stupid to actually understand the information they have in front of them, to seek alternate sources of information. They're so stupid that they need the government to silence all these contrary voices.

I just don't believe that's true. And I agree with you, Drew. I don't understand why the American, I just, I can't believe the American people won't, when they finally learn of this, just reject it at scale. I would hope so. Although it's weird how, to me,

that the people are not just mortified by this. But the fact of the matter is, it's not just that they think the American people are stupid. They think they're not capable of managing First Amendment privilege. It literally is. That's the part that to me is going into a very odd direction. It's like, no, no, you can't handle the truth.

You can't handle unrestrained discourse. Only we, we the enlightened, can tell you what you should be exposed to and how you should conduct yourself. I mean, in Maoist China, I doubt they were that explicit with that kind of attitude, right? I mean, it's really shocking shocking and think about did they did they what did they get right actually during the pandemic the lockdowns were going to work to stop disease from going everywhere the school closures were going to be a good idea and actually protect grandma uh that there's no immunity after covid recovery that the vaccines

are going to stop disease spread uh that there's no side effects of the vaccines i mean is there a single thing they got right, Drew? I just, so the hubris of it is just shocks the mind. I mean, and this is the power they want. These are the people that want the power to suppress you and me from being able to reach people on the public because we're too dangerous for the public to hear. It is too much for me.

Yeah, I was reading an article somewhere and it was like a, it must have been like a Newsweek-type post on the internet or something. And they were talking about the upcoming vaccine. And they said something about natural immunity so-called. And I was like, what is this so-called? How bizarre that they have to put these little twists into everything. Natural immunity is so called. It's like, what?

That's just what it is. It's infection and immunity. What the hell are we talking about here? So it's really an odd, odd time. Go ahead. I mean, we've only known about it for 2,500 years. Maybe the message hasn't reached them. In the Athenian plague, you have Thucydides writing about how they basically used people who had recovered from the plague to care for the sick. So the ancient Greeks knew about it.

I guess our CDC just hasn't figured it out, and the media certainly hasn't. Now, Aaron Cariotti is one of your co-defendants, right? Yes. And I read something. He keeps everybody kind of abreast of what's going on there. And you had a new decision that expanded to other agencies. I don't understand why that wasn't part of it to begin with. Maybe you can explain that and what the implication is of these other agencies being pulled in. Yeah, so I've learned way more about the federal court system than I ever wanted to know,

so I'll try my best to summarize. I imagine. So basically, there was a lower federal court that decided that the FBI, the State Department, the CDC, the Surgeon General's Office, and the White House, and a number of other federal agencies had basically violated the First Amendment at scale. People inside the department were pressuring social media to do really nasty things, and they were creating this hit list for censorship with private-public partnerships. The federal judge said, no, you can't do that. You're not allowed to do that. You're not allowed to contact social media in order to induce censorship

for legally protected speech. The Biden administration then appealed that to an appeals court, which then modified the ruling and limited it to some extent. And it excluded, for instance, the State Department from that order. It said that the State Department maybe didn't violate the Constitution. Then the Biden administration, then we went to the Supreme Court. We appealed to the Supreme Court. Our attorneys then went back to the district court and said, or the circuit court and said, look, you guys made a mistake. What the state department did clearly falls under your own order

regarding the censorship activities. And the recent decision just said, yes, you're right. The censorship also encompassed the state department. And so that's really what's happened. The major issue that's still at play, I think, is not whether the government can go and coerce companies to cens of hit list for censorship, identify themes that they want censored and people they want censored. That is, I think, still quite a dangerous thing for the government to be able to do. They're essentially laundering defamation by having the government imprint saying, oh yeah, it's good that we declare these people are the misinformers of the world. I think that the government ought not do that, even if it is constitutional. And I hope the courts declare it unconstitutional. But I think that the government ought not do that, even if it is constitutional.

And I hope the courts declare it unconstitutional. But I think if they don't, then I think there should be legislative action and political action to make sure that the government stops doing it. Believe me, it won't be long before the very people that are doing it will have that turned against them if this is allowed to continue. This is the problem with the guillotines. Study your history everybody when the guillotines come out everybody goes on the guillotine no one is left out that is just it's just how these things go it's almost mathematical and i i guess we just don't know

you know churchill paraphrasing um yeah uh i forget the ind Indian philosopher was the first to have said, this Asian Indian, who said essentially, you know, those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. Doomed to repeat it. Yeah, I mean, I think the thing about what's happening here is that free speech is for everybody, really. And you're absolutely right, Drew, it protects everybody, right? And okay, yeah, the people who push the lockdowns currently have the political power and they're going to use it to censor people. But that doesn't last forever. And do they really want that power

in the hands of their political enemies? I don't want it in anybody's hand. It makes absolutely no sense. I don't either. And I thought, frankly, the shocking part to me has been, I thought this was part of the American civic religion. Like this is what makes us unique in some ways in the world. We are like devoted to

free speech almost to a fault. Um, and apparently a large part of the American public doesn't believe that, or, or at least it's not punishing the politicians that are, that are censoring people. Yeah, it, it is become distorted, uh, by frankly, the, the education system, the university system, I suspect is really how the virus frankly the the education system the university system i suspect is really how the virus has gotten into the system and um i i i you know i've always bring up that there was a you probably heard of a guy named alexis to talk phil a very much frenchman that came here in 1820 and he pointed out then that although we had the most extreme prescription for free speech memorialized in the law, his point was that as an actuality, very little of it could be used because he called it the effect of the town square, that if you came up, you stood in the town square, and you said something really unpopular, you would hear about it.

You'd be put down in some way. And so he thought it was an interesting idea, an important idea, but that we had to sort of put our money where our mouth is and learn to practice it more, which I think we did. I mean, free speech, the First Amendment became, and people don't know the history of this either, it really became an issue during the First World War when people were speaking out against the draft, essentially, and they were essentially silenced by the government, and they sued for the right to be able to speak out. And there were several other cases.

I'm no expert in this. But in the 20th century, the expression, the meaning of the First Amendment has been more explicitly worked out. Yeah, it's been expanded and expanded. I mean, there's a couple of, like, incidents that I've thought about in this context. Like, one is when the printing press was invented, the powers that be, back then it tended to be,

you know, sort of church powers, that they thought that the printing press was so dangerous because it then allowed heretical ideas to spread very easily that the printing press itself needed to be controlled. The modern scientific enlightenment came out of the rejection of that idea that in fact that we should allow the printing press to print whatever people want because that's going to be better for people even if wrong ideas float around.

On the other hand, right ideas also float around and wrong ideas will lose in the marketplace of ideas. So it's kind of like we have a new printing press. We have this social media that allows people to talk to others at scale. All of a sudden, the powers that be want to control it because they're so scared what people will say to each other. They want to suppress the second enlightenment from happening. What's odd to me... Go ahead. I was going to odd to me is, go ahead.

Oh, I was going to say science requires it too. And you know this, Drew, because you've been speaking your whole life, entire career. If you weren't allowed to speak, a lot of ideas that are important to get out in the public, and I'll say personally, I've said a lot of ideas. I believe in every idea I'm saying, but I know that I'm gonna sometimes be wrong free speech protects me also because then someone can correct me and then I can I can learn I can like change my mind I mean it's free speech enables there to be scientific discussion science progress and science at all as soon as you end free speech science also stops well I believe is

Henry theIII that really put through one of the draconian laws controlling what could be, he really thought the printing pest was undermining his government and he put through some stuff. And what's odd to me is that it's the very people that point, have been my whole life pointing at those excesses of McCarthy and Henry VIII and

oh, we'll never do that again, are the ones doing it now. They're the ones actually pursuing this success. It's weird. It's so weird to have lived through all that. I don't know what to do with it. I accept to hope and pray that things are shifting and that your case will sort of move things

in the right direction. I do think it has been remarkable to see the shift. If you'd told me that it was going to be the American left that was going to embrace this kind of authoritarian power of government. I never would have believed it. Never. Never. Here we are.

I never would have believed it. I've spent most of my, my, my, my broadcasting life fighting the right. They were, you know, on me about all kinds of things all the time,

things I was right about, but, but they were on me. And then all of a sudden, boom, the other side is the one that takes the mantle and good and becomes frankly, way more destructive and violent with it than the right ever was. It's really, it's really shocking. I do think though, that there is this Missouri versus Biden case opens up the possibility of conversation. You know, it's been interesting to hear, like I've talked to friends, regular friends of mine, I call them normie friends because they're not involved in any of these fights. And they tell me they haven't heard of Missouri versus Biden in the newspapers and stuff very much. You know, the newspapers have covered it. The New York Times covered it. And its coverage of the July 4th ruling saying that this was a ministry of truth basically was that the Biden administration is no longer allowed to suppress misinformation online. Yeah, yeah.

Come on. But I think part of it is the press views the social media companies as competition. And if you- Basically, if the government is able to suppress free speech on social media, it removes a major competitor to the New York Times. Now people won't have

an alternate source to go to and say, oh my gosh, the New York Times is telling me a lie. They don't like to be criticized online. And the supposedly free press, which normally was a bulwark

for free speech, has now become something else entirely. I mean, they have become cheerleaders for this kind of suppression of speech online. I don't know if I'm getting paranoid or if I'm seeing something that's a problem. And it was RFK Jr. that sort of raised my anxiety about this. But I feel like particularly the major medical publications are not publishing the usual back and forth I'm accustomed to seeing in the medical literature. So my question is, is there anything to my paranoia? Are you seeing the same thing? And what is it and what do we do about it? I actually am seeing exactly the same thing. In fact, I just published a piece in this journal, this economic journal, where basically it documents three major cases during the pandemic where huge pieces of science, basically one demonstrating, for instance, that the lockdowns weren't particularly effective in protecting elderly populations.

One, a second of my own pieces looking at Sweden, for instance, and a bunch of pieces by this UCSF doctor named Vinay Prasad. And there's these scientific outlets called preprint servers, like MedArchive, for instance, or SSRN in economics. What these are supposed to do is allow scientists to communicate with other scientists and other people even before peer review. Normally, there's very little review of these articles because you're not supposed to do, this is not peer review, it's just, here's a paper I've written, please give me comments on this, find errors,

tell me what's wrong so I can correct it, so I can send it to a journal, and it'll be better, be able to pass peer review, right? It's a way for scientists to talk to each other. In my entire career, I've never had any trouble putting papers in these kinds of places, because it's supposed to be open and free. During the pandemic, we couldn't put counter-narrative papers into pre-print servers.

And the journals themselves have been absolutely, we couldn't put contra-narrative papers into preprint servers. And the journals themselves have been absolutely, I don't think you're wrong. I mean, they have published things that are, do you remember the Surgisphere scandal? Remember this? This was like the Lancet. Lancet, yep.

Yeah, so very early in the pandemic. Oh yeah, it's ridiculous. Yeah, insane. Yeah, so I mean, just very early in the pandemic. Oh, yeah, it's ridiculous. Yeah, insane. Yeah, so, I mean, just very quickly, the story. Like, there was a, you remember, so everyone, there was this whole brouhaha about whether hydroxychloroquine works. That was actually a theory that was brought up because it worked in SARS-1. So a lot of scientists very early on, it was like, oh, maybe it'll work in SARS-2.

President Trump latches onto it, says, sorry, we've cured COVID or something. And of course, he was that wasn't he was overstating it, but he's the president, not a scientist. Then immediately, the entire scientific community as one says, Oh, no, we don't know it works. And then two minutes later, in the Lancet, one of the top medical journals, there's a paper published that says, oh, we proved with this massive database from hospitals that hydroxychloroquine doesn't work. Now, I looked at that paper.

I've been working in this kind of analysis of claims data area, publishing what many of my papers are, analysis of claims data. I'd never heard of that claims data database that they published with. And so my BS detector went off directly. And so I'm like, okay, this can't be right. But I usually like to try to give scientists and others the benefit of the doubt. I'm like, okay, I don't know for certain it's wrong, so I'm not going to say much. But a lot of other scientists who directly knew about this called foul and said, this data set is a lie. They've made this entire data set up. And the Lancet then had to retract the whole paper,

proving the hydroxychloroquine doesn't work. They retracted that paper because it was based on a false dataset. The egg on the face of the Lancet is like almost, you know, I don't know how they look at themselves. Why are they still one of the most famous medical journals in the world? They basically passed through peer review something that was essentially political agitprop, propaganda in order to make Trump look bad rather than actual honest science. And we've seen this over and over again during the pandemic. And the Surgisphere members, there were four of them. One had like a porn site or something. It was just a crazy group of non-scientists.

It was the craziest thing. But every chance I get, I hold this up. This is an Annals. Let me see if I get that right. There we go. Annals of Internal Medicine that was published in May when I noticed for the first time, let me make sure. Yeah, May 2023. I keep it on my desk here because it was the first time I saw articles that were not going in one direction. This very, now they went backwards a little bit right afterwards, but I at least appreciate they published this. One of them, I will tell you, you'll be surprised to hear the title of this article. Oral fluvoxamine with inhaled budesonide for treatment of early onset COVID. Very positive results.

Very positive results. Very positive results. You would not have seen anything like that in 2021. You would absolutely categorically not have seen it. And in the same article, well, you know why they were, the other thing they did, I thought you were going to mention this in your review of the craziness. One of the first signs I saw there was really trouble was the Danish mask study. Do you remember that? There was all this energy. Oh my God, we're going to get it. We're going to get the data. We're going to show that masks work. It was going to be published, as I recall, as I understood at the time, New England Journal was on deck to publish it. Then all of a sudden, you hear they're not going to publish it. And then JAMA won't publish it.

And then Annals publishes it, and it was a negative study, right? And so there it is. I mean, that was, to me, I would love to know the chain of command of what exactly. I'd love, FOIA that for me, please. FOIA what went on there, because I think there, right that discussion, we would find out so much about the craziness here. And the other thing I've also been aware of was the other Danish study, it's strange how they're coming out of Denmark, about the excess adverse event with the vaccine in 10% of the batches in the early days of the vaccine distribution.

90% of the adverse events, 10% of the batches. It took that research group, which was an excellent research group, but an excellent article, sailed through peer review two years to get that published. And after it was published, crickets from the manufacturer. Again again i just want to know what what is going on what are we looking at normally that would that would spin off a whole series of other studies would it not i mean the i remember there was an editor of new england journal a few years back marcia angel who wrote this really really interesting sort of retrospective as she was leaving essentially talking about the you know pharmaceutical interests interests that control the top of medical publishing. I remember when I was a medical student, every single JAMA

magazine would have in it direct ads for pharmaceutical companies, for pharmaceutical products. There's a lot of pharmaceutical company control over the top medical journals. Whoever is the editor of the, of the, yeah, I mean, I think capture is really important.

And then, and I have to say, I pray, I have a lot of praise for the animals that it took a lot of guts to publish that Danish mass study, that fluvoxamine study. They were, they were,

they were quite good compared to the rest, although they did publish some nonsense, but that's, you know, and you know what? It's normal to publish nonsense. It's like, that's just,

that's just normal, even in normal times. Fair enough. And it's interesting. Annals was, I was losing interest in Annals before the pandemic. They were getting into weird stuff that really wasn't pertinent to clinical medicine. And now they're back. I love my Annals. And you mentioned Vinay Prasad, who I've interviewed a couple times on this program.

And I had found him, again, like many excellent thinkers, I found him long before anybody else did. He had this podcast, which was really sort of an examination of oncological research and really thought he was a great reader of medical literature. And he, I feel like they radicalized him a little bit by attacking him because he's been on the war path lately and i almost i smile now when i read his tweets but are you in communication with him at all yeah we're friends uh i mean i've been is he okay is he is this he worry about this stuff the way we do i mean he's he just seems like he's fighting a

one-man war there. He is. First of all, when he started the war, he did not have tenure at UCSF. The man is incredibly brave. He was speaking up long before. Actually, looking back, I think I actually had a paper with him or there was some discussion

writing a paper together before the pandemic with some other co-authors. So I knew something about him. But during the pandemic, I also discovered his outspokenness and also his clarity of thought and his bravery. So good.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, he knows what he knows. You know what I mean? When people really know their shit, so to speak, they know. They know what they know, and they stand by it. And Plenary Sessions was his podcast. I found it long before everything

went crazy. All right. So we have to take a little break here, over here, of course, with Jay Bhattacharya. I'm going to let him go at the top of the hour and then I will take phone calls after that. But I want to get into the vaccine after this little break and talk a little bit about concerns. I am swimming in, I would call it sort of confusion about the vaccine. I've just got a lot of questions. I keep asking the same questions over and over. Not getting much clarity and I'm talking to lots of

different kinds of people to try to get an understanding of these things. But we'll talk about that when we come back. Looking forward. Fall is right around the corner, which means dry, flaky red skin from allergy season is coming with it. But the best way to take care of your skin

is with our skincare secret, GenuCell. You don't need to worry about that puffy, tired eye look or those annoying dark spots or even dry, flaky skin because GenuCell skincare has you covered. Susan and I love our GenuCell products so much, we want you to try our personally curated skincare bundles. It's risk-free at GenuCell products so much, we want you to try our personally curated skincare bundles. It's risk-free at GenuCell.com slash Drew. GenuCell works so well, you can see the results in this unplanned live moment on our show when the Redness Repair Cream repaired my

skin in just minutes right before your eyes. Their concentrated vitamin C serum helps keep your skin plump and hydrated. Plus, with their immediate effects, you can see astonishing results in under 12 hours. Quick, effective, and easy. Go to GenuCell.com slash Drew right now to try our bundles and save over 60% today. And remember to enroll in GenuCell's world-class concierge program for additional savings and free shipping. Don't wait. It's GenuCel.com slash Drew, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash D-R-E-W.

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, bold 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 these products have transformed my life and susan's and saved their marriage discover the key to oral hygiene regardless of your current daily dental routine whether you diligently brush and floss multiple times a day or you struggle you got bleeding gums bad breath plaque buildup.

This revelation is for both of you. Surprisingly, over 350,000 Americans experience health issues that may be connected to their toothbrush or even caused by it, ranging from heart or blood sugar problems, forgetfulness, digestive difficulties, immune issues, all related to oral hygiene. Scientific studies have shown that a simple switch of your toothbrush can lead to a healthier teeth and potentially save your marriage. Yes, save your marriage. Our study.

We did a personal study. My wife, Susan, hates the sound of the sonic toothbrushes. But introducing the real white sonic toothbrush, of course, also their hydroxyapatite dirty mouth mineral toothpaste by Primal Life Organicsics these products have transformed my life and susan's and saved their marriage it's much quieter it's a very powerful toothbrush but it is quiet and it saved

our marriage so the real white sonic toothbrush from primalife organics stands out among all other electric toothbrushes I've tried. It effectively eliminates plaque, harmful bacteria, promotes gum health. Get yours and enjoy 60% off at naturaltoothbrush.com slash D-R-E-W. And we are back. We're here with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford University. How's the sort of ambient temperature at Stanford these days? Do you take grief for the Great Barrington Declaration?

Are people sort of coming around in some way? I'm trying to gauge where we're headed here as a profession and as a country. I mean, it's a little unsettled. I have to say, I don't take grief anymore, I don't think. In 2020 and 2021, it's a little unsettled. I have to say, I don't take brief anymore, I don't think. In 2020 and 2021, it was a hostile work environment. There was at one point in 2021, I couldn't walk around campus. Someone had done a poster campaign trying to terrorize me, accusing me of killing people in Florida or something, even though Florida has had lower all-cause deaths than California. The administration switched over, there's a new

president. And the new president seems a little more open to academic freedom. We'll see is I guess what I'd say. I do think that a lot of the people that got the pandemic wrong, are very prominent people here are still here at Stanford. And that, you know, they haven't publicly said that they got it wrong. But they did. I think they know it. There's a big fight now over that Missouri versus Biden case we opened with. It has a Stanford angle because the Stanford Internet Observatory is part of this network of group of people and organizations that give the federal government its marching orders for which people to censor. So there's a possibility that this group actually recommended

that the ideas that I was espousing be censored during the pandemic. And so there's this brewing fight on campus over, well, do they have an academic freedom right to document this censorship regime? Or are they violating other people's free speech by doing this? My position is the government ought not be funding that kind of effort. If some professor wants to go and analyze the internet, fine, I don't really care. But they shouldn't be given an in via this government funding to essentially telling social media companies what and who to censor. Agreed.

So let's get into the vaccine a little bit. I have many, many, many weird concerns. Let me just ask this start question. It seems like the push for the vaccine has never changed. It's been one sort of note the whole way. And in the meantime, we're sort of looking at data that suggests that the adverse significant adverse events of note rate in this vaccine may be on the order of one in 800. This is Dr. Freeman's data versus one in 10,000 or one in 100,000 that usually results in vaccines being pulled. So that's one side of my big question mark over my head. The other part of the question mark over my head is what I'm seeing clinically.

Clinically, I have seen all the way along my elderly patients benefit from the vaccine, and I've seen almost no side effects. Now, they've all still gotten COVID. And one of the things that, again, another odd thing about the vaccine discussion, we have Paxlovid. We have it. It works. Why are we so focused on this vaccine when it doesn't prevent COVID, it doesn't prevent transmission, maybe prevents hospitalization, but then so does Paxlovid?

And why are we so pushing so hard on the vaccine? Now, my elderly patients, I generally vax and boost and lately I've been starting to, and I have them take the RSV vaccine and I've seen almost no side effects. In 30, 40 and 50 year olds, I have seen a ton of side effects, very concerning side effects. And I'm not clear what benefit they've gotten because they were young. I don't understand what, and again, we have Paxlovid. We can use it. It's not been approved for that group, but we can use it. Why has there not been any adjustment when we now understand this thing has more adverse events of note than we usually tolerate, and we have other therapeutics in place,

and the younger people, risk-reward is questionable, why push on the young people the way they're pushing? And by the way, my understanding is we're only one of two countries in the world that vaccinate under 50 or push the vaccine under 50. So have at it. Yeah, I mean, a lot of the Scandinavian countries won't even let you have access if you're younger. I think this is a hard question to answer because now we're talking about, I think a lot about is both financial interests, but also ego, right?

So think about what- But has anything I said, does any, let me ask you this. Did anything I say run afoul of the facts or your understanding of things or your experience clinically of things? I mean, am I wrong in some material way? Because that's what worries me, that I'm getting it wrong somehow. Because there's so much stuff lying around. And I have my clinical impressions, which are what they are. They're just what I'm seeing. So go ahead.

Yeah. I mean, no, I agree with you. I think that the vaccine was a very good thing on net for older people. I do worry a little. There may have been some side effects in older people. But I think that whatever expected, so harm there was more than offset by the reduction in mortality risk provided to patients who are older, who had patients with COVID.

So I agree with that. I also agree with you that in younger people, and this is based on my reading of the Freeman study, which was an excellent reanalysis of the randomized evidence on these vaccines, on the mRNA vaccines, that in young people, that the rate of serious adverse events is high. And not only is it high, but it's not offset by a corresponding benefit

in terms of the reduction in mortality because young people don't face a very high risk of mortality from COVID in the first place. So for instance, I've seen some like discourse, very wrong-headed discourse, trying to compare myocarditis from the vaccine versus myocarditis from COVID in young men. The problem with that analysis is that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting COVID.

So it means that you have two draws on the myocarditis slot machine, one from the vaccine and another from COVID. It's an additive risk, not a substitutionary risk. So it's one of these things where there's this narrative around the vaccines that has pushed the idea that everyone should get it almost from the beginning of the rollout of the vaccine with this false idea that if everyone gets the vaccine, then COVID goes away. Now, that's not true. That hasn't been true. And we've known it's not true for a long time.

And yet our regulators in the United States don't seem to be able to give up that idea. But now that they've reached this stage, it's like they're saying, well, yeah, we think we should get this booster number six or whatever it is, and everyone should get it. But the only reason we're saying everyone should get it is because we want to simplify the messaging. They've reached this point where they no longer actually try to justify it as reducing transmission or stopping transmission. They'll say, look, it reduces your risk of hospitalization and death,

and therefore you should get it for everybody, even six-month-old babies. I just don't really understand it. The public can understand nuance. They can say, oh, okay, if you're older, the vaccine might be right for you. Go talk to your doctor about it. If you're younger, you probably don't need it unless you have some pre-existing condition or something that predisposes you to bad outcomes. Then still go see your doctor and ask them.

That would be the... It's a nuanced way to deal with it, and it tells patients to go get information from their own provider who cares for them. I don't understand why they didn't just do that. From the beginning, I don't understand why they didn't do that. But yes, I completely agree with you. But is it possible? I was, again, whenever I talk to you, I try to examine alternative points of view that I might be missing. Am I missing something about pediatric COVID and MIC and the, you know,

multisystem inflammatory syndrome or MIS-C rather? Am I missing? What am I missing? I can't. No, I know. And I just can't get my head around. I'm trying, trying, trying. And then the real push on pregnant women, so much push there.

I don't get it. And we did a thing yesterday talking about the menstrual irregularities associated with the vaccine. I was very dismissive of that at one point, just going, yeah, you know, women, you know, everything affects menstruation, and we shouldn't worry about it so much. But it's really bothering people, and we don't know, could it also affect fertility? Or what the women are starting to report is,

look, if you're a, for instance, an Orthodox Jew, you're not allowed to try to conceive if this is going on, and it's affecting conception that way. I don't think about these things. But it's all dismissed as, oh, come on now, just take the vaccine. Yeah, I think, I mean, for a lot of groups, a lot of these reports that were literally conspiracy theories turned out to be true. The effect on menstruation turns out to be

true. I mean, absolutely true. The myocarditis on young men, I mean, I think there's evidence on that. Anyone that denies it doesn't know how to read the medical literature at all. You know, there's a lot of concerns about the vaccine and, you know, legitimate concerns about the vaccine. I think, you know, but there's also, I think, okay, let me just try to address the sort of like the counterfactual that you're trying to put in front of me or the reasoning. So one, like think about why, think about like the fear that people were put into during the pandemic, especially the early stages of the pandemic regarding this disease. Oh, yeah. There's still a substantial portion of the population, not as much as it was in 2020

or 2021, but also some people that are very scared about the disease. And for them, the idea that a vaccine is going to allow them to be safe is quite comforting. And I think the CDC and others are sort of, they're catering to that audience. And the second piece, and this is something we haven't really discussed, but I think it's a very important part of the puzzle. There's a tremendous amount of money at stake here in the vaccines, both because, of course, the pharmaceutical companies are making a tremendous amount of money, especially Pfizer and Moderna, from the sale of these vaccines and boosters to the governments. But also because, you know, I know there are liability shields, but a lot of places required people to get the vaccine. Colleges required their students to get the vaccine. Yes.

What if a kid has myocarditis as a consequence of a vaccine they didn't want to take, that they had to take because they go to school? A lot of these non-pharmaceutical companies are scared because what if they're liable for that? There's going to be lawsuits around this, Drew. There's going to be for sure. And I think a lot of this is just like trying to cover i know i know it is good but it should be if they're trying to cover their cover themselves they're still trying to like figure out some way out of this trap that they built for themselves and it's really the american public that's suffering as a result um susan just ran in

here you don't hear there's somebody like hammering downstairs and it's coming through on everything here. It's incredible. I don't hear it. I just stop. I go downstairs. Somebody, whether it's an animal stuck in a room or something, I don't know what it is, but there's horrible banging. I didn't hear it.

I'll go look. Yes, thank you. Yeah, I wonder why those suits haven't happened already. And you know what's other interesting, back to your point about the myocarditis, the vaccine, I was looking at, I forget the guy's name I was talking to yesterday, but he had some data. He was showing data on vaccine adverse events, and he had the cardiac data. And I looked at it and it was broken down into about 10 different categories, all secondary to myocarditis, right? So atrial fib, atrial flutter, ventricular arrhythmias, all sorts of arrhythmias that are now well known to be related to the scarring left over from focal

myocarditis. So literally, well, here's the list. So it's atrial fib, irregular heartbeat, myocarditis, of course. Failure, well, that's myocarditis. Cardiac arrest, maybe myocarditis, pericarditis, of course, similar thing. Cardiac flutter, myocarditis. Pericarditis, of course, similar thing. Cardiac flutter, myocarditis. Ventricular extrasystoles, myocarditis. Cardiomegaly, myocarditis. Cardiac respiratory arrest, that's back to the sudden death category. Why they broke it down like that is odd to me.

But all those things are caused by myocarditis. All those things. I mean, I think there's no question that this has too high a side effect rate in young men to warrant a recommendation that any young men take this vaccine. I don't understand how they can look at data like this or similar data or just even just the framing at Al Data and say, look, okay, young men take this vaccine. It just doesn't make any sense. Or six-month-old babies take this vaccine. No benefit and potential harm.

So why would you require it? I don't know. Drew, have you been tracking this really interesting set of results on the contamination of the vaccine, the mRNA vaccines, with DNA plasmid? Plasmids. Plasmids. Yeah. So here's my question on plasmids. I was going to bring that up

now. So the head of and the dean of the oncology department at Brown raised this issue today. So he and his question was, and this is my question, yes, there are manufacturing controls to address plasmid contamination. Yes, there are intracytoplasmic mechanisms to cleave the plasmids. Yes, you need some sort of mechanism to get the plasmid into the nucleus. Those are all three things I understand are true. But is our previous manufacturing standards prior to the advent of LNPs appropriate to a system that is designed to fuse with the cell surface

and get its contents into the cell at high volume? In other words, is our tolerance for a certain amount of plasmid contamination inappropriate for the LNPs? Is that getting to the crux of the matter? That's what I've been thinking about. That's one issue that's incredibly important. So the manufacturing standards to which Pfizer and Moderna are subject by the FDA are based on non-lipid nanoparticle delivery

mechanisms of the plasmid. And this is not my expertise. I've been trying to educate myself also on this. But that, I think, is the crux of the question. Is this novel delivery mechanism different from the other mechanisms on which the old regulatory standards were based? And we don't have an answer to that question if I'm reading the evidence correctly. we don't have an answer to that question. If I'm reading the evidence correctly,

we don't know the answer to that question. Maybe the old regulatory standards are fine. Maybe they're not. Yeah, maybe they are. Because there are some mechanisms in the cell to deal with plasmids. I mean, we have those things. But where's the study?

Where's the FDA? Where's the research? And now I have oncologists raising concerns about it that this could be this could do something if you know you can see how it could do something that that okay so why isn't that an emergency there's a second thing that uh that I've heard for Kevin McKernan say which is really interesting actually and again I don't know the studies that that like and I think what he what he brings up is that if you have a process of manufacturing where these kinds of like plasmid fragments remain in as contamination in the sample, while the plasmid fragments are based on, on like, you know, essentially you

infect bacteria, the bacteria, you give the plasmid, then the bacteria then produce the, the, the product that you want to introduce into the body. And then you cleanse the solution of the bacteria's cell walls and all the endotoxins bacteria has and the plasmids all together. And you give the purified mRNA product to the patient, right? But if the plasmid contamination is there, maybe there's also endotoxin contamination from the bacteria that were used to manufacture the mRNA. I don't know. This is something that Kevin McKernan raises. I've seen some data on the manufacturing standards for endotoxin,

and I think that's going to end up being a nothing. I think. Because it really doesn't have the same concerns that the plasma delivery would have with the LNP, right? It's a concern and somebody needs to address it straight away and prove that it's not a problem. But I suspect that one's going to go away. But the plasma thing, I don't know how you do the studies. I don't know what you do really. Because I'm asking lots of questions now. the plasma thing i i don't know how you do the studies i don't know what you do really i because i'm asking lots of questions now like where can i find a data to push back on this concern i'd like to be able to push back on it everyone just talks about intracytoplasmic mechanisms that are known

to cleave plasmids well okay yeah there are lots of things that we find out once we deploy a drug in humans that end up not to be at all the way we thought they were. That's why you do phase three trials. That is the key point that I wanted to say here, and you hit it exactly right, Drew. The problem here is a clinical question. What does all this matter, right? Now, the trials that were run, the large 40,000-plus patient trials that were run by Pfizer and Moderna in 2020, they were run using a manufacturing process that didn't have this plasma contamination problem. And so the serious adverse events, the adverse events that, for instance, the Freiman et al. paper measured were based on this other sort of more rigorous manufacturing process

that didn't have this contamination. The vaccines that were deployed at scale were based on this other second process where the plasmid contamination actually happened. So we don't really have randomized trial evidence of the sort that Freiman et al produced on the serious adverse events for this process. Yep. Yep. And so we're left in the dark.

It could be totally different. And so this is an utter failure on the part of our regulatory agencies. Our regulatory agencies gave Pfizer and Moderna the green light to go ahead even though they knew that Pfizer and Moderna were going to use this separate distinct process that had the potential to have contamination, plasmid contamination. And so we're sitting here, we're having a discussion.

We're sitting here, we're having a discussion, trying to suss through what are the consequences of it. And we're like thinking about theoretical mechanisms by which the nucleus or the cell cytoplasm might cleave the plasmid. But I don't, that is not enough for me to say to someone, well, yeah, you should take this. I know that whatever contamination it is isn't going to do you any harm. I would love to have phase three randomized evidence that allows me to say that with confidence. And no doctor can look that patient in the eye and say that with confidence.

And that's not the fault of the doctor. That's the fault of the regulatory agency that didn't hold Pfizer and Materna to account and require them to produce the data that would have allowed doctors to answer these kinds of questions. Yeah. And so informed consent becomes something that is essentially impossible. Essentially impossible. And I've been saying that all along. Look, I don't know how you're giving informed consent for the use of Paxlovid in a 40-year-old

because the studies were all done in a 60-year-old, a 60-year-old and above. And I have some experience and I can talk about that and I can sort of monkey some informed consent. And same thing with the vaccine. I would have to bring up the adverse events I've seen and the one in 800 versus one in 10,000 circumstances for pulling a vaccine. I don't know what we do. adverse events I've seen and the one in 800 versus one in 10,000, you know, uh, circumstances for,

for, uh, pulling a vaccine. I, I, I know what we do. I, and certainly none of us are doing it in writing, which we're supposed to do, uh, which is kind of interesting in and of itself. Uh, Jay, I know you have to go at the top of the hour. We're right up against things here. Is there anything, uh, I have left out? There's been a lot of fun as always. Well, I think I'm really glad that we still have free speech so that we can have this conversation that's inconvenient to the administration and to the pharmaceutical companies. You know, I learned a lot from you over the years, Drew, and I think I'm really grateful for that. I think if there's one thing I would leave the audience with, if you can talk to your

congressman, you can talk to, write a letter to your senator, tell them that you are appalled at this control of free speech. This is not just something that affects doctors. It affects basically every single American. And it's vital that, you know, I've testified in Congress on this issue, and my own congresswoman basically poo-pooed my concerns about the free speech. You know. I live in the very liberal part of the Bay Area. And it was actually shocking to me. I thought everyone agreed. They may ought to agree. Our congresspeople ought to agree with this. Let your congresspeople, your representatives all know that censorship is not right. You don't want you to be protected

from misinformation by them. what you want is a free exchange of ideas so and for the government to treat you like an adult that you are yes agreed and uh i second that motion so to speak please write those letters now jay badacharya follow him on twitter drj badacharya uh let's see is it spelled out there somewhere? So I don't have to try to do it. I've told my B-H-A-T-T. A-C-H-A-R-Y-A. Every third letter is an A. There you go. And the other thing is my cousins think

I don't know how to pronounce my own last name. So you can't just pronounce it either. So it's all good. Okay, fair enough. All right, my friend. Oh, there it is up there on the screen. Now I'm seeing it. All right, thank you, my friend.

We'll hopefully talk to you very soon. If we can do anything to help support you with your Missouri versus Biden endeavor. I read Cariotti's stuff as he puts it out, so I get the updates there. But please let us know. Thank you, Drew. Real grateful to talk to you. All right. You as well.

One of my favorite interviews, I've said all along that he it will be the when this history books are written he'll be the poster child for the excesses of uh covet in that that you see what a substantial thoughtful reasonable person this is that's who they thought it was should be censored that's who they thought they got a censor so it's just beyond me. There was no noise outside. Maybe they brought the trash can back. Would it have been that? Oh, I hear that. You don't hear that? It's banging.

It's ridiculous. I think it's down. It's so loud. Maybe it's just the woodpeckers. No, that is not woodpeckers. Susan. I heard it now. I just don't. I went that is not woodpeckers. Susan. I heard it now. I just don't know.

I went outside. I didn't see anything. It's either in, it's one of the bedrooms around here. I guarantee you it's a door. Somebody's locked in a door? Something like that. Oh, yeah. Where's Georgina?

Well, she could be. Let me go see. She may be locked in a door. Hold on. Yeah. I mean, it's a hell of a sound she's making if that's it. All right. I want to take some calls here, if you guys don't mind.

In order to bring you up here, just raise your hand. Caleb played the cartoon there on how you do so. You just request, and then I'll bring you up. And if I do bring you up, you'll be streaming on multiple platforms. Christy had talked to me earlier about coming up, so I am inviting you to speak if you'd like to. Let's see. It's not,

you know, Caleb, the invite to speak button is not working that well. You know what I'm saying? I'm trying to see if I can, I'm going to see if I can do it from here. If she doesn't come up. Okay.

She was just not working. It disappeared. And then she is. There she is. she's coming in and what you all right all right i have a new phone how's it going there you go any uh anything you want to talk about today is dr badacharya still there no he had to go at the top of the hour so it's just us it apart ways all right is there anything you wanted to talk about well he brought up things that you have been concerned about for quite some time uh i just uh didn't know if and caleb mentioned that you had wanted to speak today

about something and so i brought you up i was out jogging and i wasn't listening to the show and i literally just ran in the door. And I've had concerns about the plasmids, of course, like everyone else. And that, you know, I know Dr. Buchholz is talking about the possibility of mutations. You know, is it going to be rare? There's a concern that I have on the plasmids that is a section of it, a large section, even if they're in pieces, is the same, of course, that is in bacteria and that human bodies can recognize that innately and the immune system can react to it. So a few of us behind the scenes, some doctors and scientists were worried, you know, is this also, you know,

what's going on if it gets in people's cells? And then if the immune system launches an attack, is it a sustained attack due to that and not only the spike? Interesting. And is there going to be some more data coming soon or we have anything to report on the horizon? As soon as I know, I will send you a message immediately. Yes. All right. All right. Well, thank you so much.

We appreciate the updates and stuff. Sorry, that's all I got. It's all good. Caleb, you said she'd wanted to come up, right, today? Yes, I saw a tweet from her. So I thought that she had something that she wanted to come in like an emergency to share so i just assumed that she always has something interesting there was a dog there was a dog locked in a bedroom she was pounding on the door really pounding like really yeah she she does not like

being locked in so ridiculous happens a lotens a lot. Was that downstairs? She follows me around everywhere, and then I shut the door. I don't know if she's in a room. Was that downstairs? No, in Douglas' room. That's why it was so loud. We were in there like maybe a half hour ago. Well, that whole time I've been texting you.

An hour ago. Like listening to this. Sorry. I had a feeling that might be it, the woodpeckers. Alex, I'm trying to get you up here. It's not connecting, and this seems to be it. We do have woodpeckers. Alex, I'm trying to get you up here. It's not connecting. We do have woodpeckers, though. I know that.

They sound like that in the morning. Not like that. All right, that didn't work. This is Truth Seeker raising her hand. He said, how many dogs has Susan murdered? She was left in a room for a really long time, a couple of weeks ago, and she was not happy. Hi, Truth Seeker. Hi, Dr. Drew. Thank you for having me up. I'm just going to do a little shameless plug here. So Dr. Fauci is actually here in the Bay Area. He was speaking in San Mateo last night and we had a peaceful rally And today he's going to be in Marin

So we're doing a second peaceful rally We're just exercising our free speech So if anyone wants to come and check that out and join us I have the information pinned to my profile And I'm sorry, I was screaming a lot last night I actually called him out So I'm losing my voice from screaming a lot last night. I actually called him and called him out. So I'm losing my voice from last night.

So it wasn't really peaceful. Well, it was peaceful, but also I did call him a liar. It's S-A-R-I-T-A-J-R 24. Truth Secret 24. S-A-R-I-T-A-J-R 24. Truth Secret 24. S-A-R-I-T-A-J-R. All right. Well, and this is against mandates, you're concerned is, right? Correct. Yes, we've been speaking out against the mandates.

I live here in the Bay Area, and we've been holding rallies for the past three years since the start of COVID. So there's a lot of us out here that are speaking up here in California. Which reminds me, speaking of California, I'm going to be, what do you call it when you, not hosting, but moderating. Thank you. Moderating a panel with RFK Jr. in San Jose. And when is that, Susan? The 26th or something of October?

October 28th. I just saw that or something of October? October 28th. I just saw that on children's health events. 28th. Okay. Aseem Malhotra. Aseem Malhotra will be there. I really haven't heard much details about how we're organizing this yet, but apparently it's,

it's going to be a really interesting group of people. And so I'll be very, very, you know, interested to hear the, everybody speak. And I'm hoping we'll have discussions that very interested to hear everybody speak. And I'm hoping we'll have discussions that I get to moderate. All right, this is... It's called Reclaiming Food and Medicine, Ending Corruption and Chronic Disease.

Live in San Jose. Oh, wait. 1028.23, that's a Saturday. And also Dr. Vandana Shiva will be there as well. She must be the food side of this. Again, I'm not a super, you know, I'm a moderate in all this stuff. So it'll be interesting to see what I think of what they're saying. Aren't there other doctors as well?

There are. Those are the main that have been announced so far. Buck, what's going on there? Hey, Dr. Drew. It's an honor to talk to you. Thank you for taking my call. Pleasure. Hey, so, you know, I'm sitting here and I'm listening. I'm listening to a good, good portion of this and I watch your show a lot and there just really doesn't seem to be

a lot of positives that are coming from this, from the injection itself. There's a lot of, a lot of concerning factors that are arising. I don't hear a lot about the positives. Well, that is the very issue. That's the crux of the matter. If you're 40 years old, how much and what positive do you expect to get from the vaccine in a day and age when everyone's had COVID,

had the vaccine, Paxlovid is available, what are you getting? Same for kids. Same. Well, it's a little different, but similar question. If you are 75, look, I recommended, I was talking to a 90-year-old yesterday, and I was encouraging her to get all the way boosted up. I'm ready to go for her. Because COVID, and even with Paxlovid, could be curtains.

It's a totally different benefit for her than you. A young male, what are you going to get out of a vaccine, except possibly being one of the 1 in 800 people that gets a serious adverse event. That's my concern. And that's constantly the thought bubble over my head. Why pushing so hard on guys like Buck? Why are you doing that? Well, that's my concern too.

And I guess my last thing that I would want to add here would be, I had one of the physicians I work with called me up today and said that they had just been vaccinated and they were, you know, rifling through their paperwork and, you know, looking for the name of the vaccine. And, you know, they're like, oh, I took spike vax. You know, is is that a little concerning in general that they named it spike vax, considering the amount of spike protein. Spike is the target. That's the Moderna vaccine. Yeah, I mean, I don't know. I think, yeah, so that is to do what now?

The spike vax is to target the spike protein itself? No, no, no. The spike vax is to give you pieces of mRNA to produce lots of spike protein. So your immune system has seen the spike protein recently and react to it. But haven't we identified that the spike protein is causing problems though?

Oh, dude, you're getting at the crux of the matter again. That is one of the questions is, why did they pick the nuclear capsid as the target for this vaccine? Why the spike protein when we know the spike at least causes an endotheliitis? So that will have to be answered in the history books because look, as a target, it's a good idea it works but in terms of

mitigating uh serious effects not sure it was the best target to pick i'm just saying so yes your point is well taken well i don't want to take up much more time yeah i really appreciate you letting me on to speak, Dr. Drew. It's been an honor. All good questions. I appreciate that. Your thinking is good. Your thinking is good in strange and confusing times. Really. Also, you can get the nanokinus.

Still get the nanokinus at drdrew.com slash TWC. And get a discount. All right, hang on here. I'm trying to get everyone up here. This is Englewood, DJ Englewood. And get a discount. There you are. It muted again. That's weird. Just hit that microphone in the lower left-hand corner with the line through it. There you are. Try again.

Oh, gone again. Mike Fish giving the thumbs down. All right, Mike. We'll get you up next. All right. Now, let's see if you can do any better, my friend. Hey, Dr. Drew. Mike. Am I on? next all right now let's see if you can do any better my friend hey dr drew mike am i on hey man you're on hey we've talked before on other episodes i really appreciate what you're doing um quick question from the medical community's perspective on an international uh scale because obviously these these vaccines are useful not only for

our country, for much of the population, or I should say some of the population, but I'm sure there has to be a consensus that isn't really politically driven. What do they, you know, on an international scale say about this, and how corrupt is is that board i guess well there there is no international board but but the international consensus is exactly what i'm presenting that elderly people have a lot to be gained the risk profile seems to be somewhat less for some reason in the elderly and they will not give it for anybody under the age of 50 they will not allow it they will not you can't get access to it in scandinavian countries for instance so why are we pushing and dr badacharya brought up the possibility that there's this weird

continued hysteria that we uh are going to somehow eliminate COVID from the world, which is never going to happen. So that notion in and of itself is just completely flawed and false. So what is it we're doing by putting young people at risk? It's just so uncanny. That's where witch hunts come from. When something is happening, hang on a second, Josh.

When something is happening and people can't explain it, and it doesn't seem right, and it scares them, they start looking for somebody to be the one doing it. But sometimes there isn't a someone. There's not a witch out there. Typically, there's not a witch. Listen to Mark Cianchese, who's a cognitive psychologist, talks about this stuff all the time. Josh, what's up? Not much. So I just want to talk about the mental health aspects of this in the sense that narcissism and medicine, we know that's where narcissists go for the most part, because they have that kind of power. They have that kind of prestige. They're looking for that.

That and also the celebrity culture, but not everyone can be a celebrity. So medicine is a place where you can have that kind of control. And I'm wondering if we're starting to see a little bit of that pull out and say, this is a medical expert, but he's also maybe narcissistic. Or this is a person top in their field, but they're not really empathic for the other. Because a lot of this stuff has to do with empathy. What are the effects of my decision you know right so i just wanted to know like where do you draw the line you know between uh someone who's healthy no no no hold on so for for a certain you know there's a reason narcissism

narcissism exists in the human population because there are survival advantages in certain situations you want narcissists that are fighter pilots you want narcissists that are extreme athletes you want narcissists that are surgeons because they are asked to take to take on responsibilities and risk that that they need to feel omnipotent in order to do effectively. Now, the question you're bringing up is, is it also attracting narcissists to these leadership positions like at heads of administrations and public health? And I would say based on observations of recent behavior, you're onto something there, that that is probably the case.

And you're right also that lack of empathy but lack of concern for the consequences of their action is really, again, there's a grandiosity embedded in narcissism that makes it difficult to be assessing the risk-reward of what you've done. So there's a lot to all this. There's a lot to it. I'm going to try to bring DJ back up. Whoops. Jeez, that is not working. Let me try. Oh, hey, my goodness. Try to bring Janice up here and try to do that. Hmm. This is interesting. Well, it seems to I seem to have

exceeded my phone's ability to let's try. No. Maybe Caleb can do it. No, it's okay. We are out of time. Well, I was trying to get Janice or DJ Englewood. I think he is up there. But both of them bounce out when I try to get them

up to the speaker's podium. So be that as it may uh we are we are about out of time at any event as as always uh i just think it's uh worth everyone's time to listen and pay attention to what dr badacharya has done is doing he in my humble opinion is the poster child um for for the excesses and the that when we i i honestly i just really feel in my gut that when the history books are written this this guy's picture will be there as somebody who was oh for sure who was not just correct but was was had the courage to stand up was correct was vilified for being correct, and then was the object of a censorship campaign specifically designed to take away his First Amendment privileges. This is historically significant. Now, Aaron Cariotti, I don't know

why I don't think that Aaron is quite the same as Jay in terms of being the poster child, but he should also be a poster child. Let me tell you Aaron's story. Aaron is one of the other co-defendant in the Missouri versus Biden. And Dr. Cariotti is a psychiatrist who is a decorated professor of psychiatry at University of California, Irvine Medical School. He was the chairman of their bioethics department for years. And when the school started mandating vaccines, he raised his hand and said, look, I've been telling you all for years that you have to walk the walk when it's difficult. You have to go up against authority sometimes when it's ethically appropriate and important. And I'm here to tell you, you do not have an ethical standing for

mandating a vaccine. So I must object. He was immediately put on leave and then he was silenced and fired. And he writes a letter. You should look for it. Let me see if I can find it very quickly. But he writes a regular sort of newsletter. If I go to all mail, give me one second here and then I'll wrap this thing up. Cariotti, there he is. The newsletter is called, oh, I'm so sorry. I feel like it comes into my email all the time. Well, now it's not here.

So in any event, it's K-H-E-R-I-A-T-Y, Kariati, Aaron, A-A-R-N. Look for it, his newsletter. I don't know why I can't come up with it, but I'm sorry that I don't. One more shot. I'm going to look right here really quick. Okay. I might find it here. No. All right. Well, thank you all for being here today. Tomorrow

we are away, but we have on Tuesday at a special time, one o'clock Pacific, Rob Schneider coming in here. So we are going to revisit a New York Times article that vilified he and I for having a conversation about some of the excesses that were going on in 2020. Kelly comes back with Dr. McCullough, and then Michael Turner on the 18th also with Dr. Victory. A lot of interesting guests on deck. I'm finding all kinds of interesting people I want to talk to. There are more people raised.

Uh-oh. And then, of course, there's a baby countdown. If you look at the screen, Susan, this is hysterical. That is the baby. Another cute baby coming. A baby's coming. So we're going to be gone the week after that, right? It's the Caleb Nation baby countdown.

Schedule will change. Oh, my God. Look at its little facey. Schedule will change. He's hanging on to the umbilical cord. Look at that. Her foot is like all the way up in her face. You might see her foot down there too.

She's like all curled around. Oh, that's her foot. Yeah, there's a foot in there. Oh yeah. So that's why I'm going to... That's not until the 25th. Yeah, but I'm going to start letting people know so they know like, well, if we have a guest that's scheduled and suddenly the baby decides to arrive early, then at least they know where we went yeah so we're just

everything we're still going to be doing shows leading up to the baby and after but the schedule just needs to be a little flexible in case she just decides to come on out the schedule will change what's her name i ain't telling yet not yet when she yet. When she gets here. When she gets here. Okay. The schedule will change based on baby and delivery dates and how much. Baby A. Yeah. We got to give Caleb a chance to adjust to all this before we go full circle. But we do have lots of great.

What I was saying before we went into baby countdown was I continue to find people that are raising their hand and going, um, I have a question. And these people are substantial. They're, they're leaders in the medical community. And as soon as they raise their hand, I want to, I want to talk to them and understand what, what's your concern? Why are you concerned? Why, what's going on here? All right. Everybody share if you care on whatever platform you're on and get the

word out and keep this this movement forward we're moving forward with this so do you want to talk about our friends at twc too before we uh thank you to twc for sponsoring the show and all the other great sponsors go to dr.com slash sponsors i really do love that emergency kit. Get your emergency kit on. I'm beginning to think, I'm beginning to develop a notion that medicine needs to be way more accessible in the digital age. There should be no reason you shouldn't travel

with a kit like that. I mean, that's just easily accessible. Check out all the other stuff they have to offer over there. And then also, thanks Primal Life for helping us keep our teeth clean and sparkly our marriage together every time i see that i know i couldn't turn off the the toothbrush today and i sat on the counter it was still running and i couldn't hear it i was like oh it's still on and well people think i'm kidding about that no i love it oh no it's really

quiet complaint because i always use a sonic i I've been convinced by Dennis to use a sonic toothbrush. This is a great one. And it doesn't get all gucky because they have this cool little. It's good. They've got a great brush, great product. And the dirty mouth toothpaste is amazing. But there's so many good sponsors. Go over to drdrew.com slash sponsors.

Support the show any way you can. And thank you for listening and telling a friend alright and if you have like I always tell you guys if you have a topic you'd like to propose or a guest like to propose contact at drdrew.com send something in there Susan looks at all that stuff and we will see it

so thank you so much we'll see you with Rob Schneider on Tuesday 1 o'clock Pacific time Boop Boop Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky. As a reminder, the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment. This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only. I am a licensed physician, but I am not a replacement

for your personal doctor, and I am not practicing medicine here. Always remember that our understanding of medicine and science is constantly evolving. Though my opinion is based on the information that is available to me today, some of the contents of this show could be outdated in the future. Be sure to check with trusted resources in case any of the information has been updated since this was published. If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, don't call me. Call 911.

If you're feeling hopeless or suicidal, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. You can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at drdrew.com slash help.