Ask Dr. Drew - "Disinformation" Charges Dropped By Medical Board For FIFTH TIME: Dr. Scott Jensen & Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 201

Episode Date: April 2, 2023

In his book “We’ve Been Played” Dr. Scott Jensen exposes the astonishing level of power that has fallen into the hands of a “triad of tyranny” – Big Pharma, Big Tech, and Big Government. A former Minnesota State Senator (2017-2021) and vice-chair of the Health and Human Services Committee, Dr. Jensen has an insider’s view of the corrupt power grabs that occurred in the fog-of-war of the COVID-19 pandemic. In apparent retaliation, the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice threatened to take away his medical license… FIVE TIMES. Read his book at https://drscottjensenbook.com Dr. Scott Jensen served in the Minnesota Senate (2017-2021) and was vice-chair of the Health and Human Services Committee. He was the Republican Governor candidate in the 2022 election. Dr. Jensen has practiced family medicine in Carver County, Minnesota for 35 years, and this is where he and his wife, Mary, a small animal veterinarian, raised their three children – Cristy, an anesthesiologist, Matt, an estate attorney, and Jackie, a family doctor. Follow Dr. Jensen at https://twitter.com/drscottjensen 「 SPONSORED BY 」 • BIRCH GOLD - Don’t let your savings lose value. You can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it. Claim your free, no obligation info kit from Birch Gold at https://birchgold.com/drew • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get 10% off with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. Hundreds of millions of people have received a COVID-19 vaccine, and serious adverse reactions are uncommon. Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician and Dr. Kelly Victory is a board-certified emergency specialist. Portions of this program will examine countervailing views on important medical issues. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.  「 ABOUT the SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 WITH DR. KELLY VICTORY 」 Dr. Kelly Victory MD is a board-certified trauma and emergency specialist with over 30 years of clinical experience. She served as CMO for Whole Health Management, delivering on-site healthcare services for Fortune 500 companies. She holds a BS from Duke University and her MD from the University of North Carolina. Follow her at https://earlycovidcare.org and https://twitter.com/DrKellyVictory. 「 GEAR PROVIDED BY 」 • BLUE MICS - Find your best sound at https://drdrew.com/blue • ELGATO - See how Elgato's lights transformed Dr. Drew's set: https://drdrew.com/sponsors/elgato/ 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 For over 30 years, Dr. Drew has answered questions and offered guidance to millions through popular shows like Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Dr. Drew On Call (HLN), Teen Mom OG (MTV), and the iconic radio show Loveline. Now, Dr. Drew is opening his phone lines to the world by streaming LIVE from his home studio. Watch all of Dr. Drew's latest shows at https://drdrew.tv Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We appreciate you joining us on a special time and a special day for Ask Dr. Drew, and of course, a privileged special guest, Dr. Scott Jensen. Dr. Jensen served in the Minnesota Senate from 2017 to 21. There, he was vice chair of the Health and Human Services Committee. He was a governor candidate in Minnesota in 2022. And Dr. Jensen has practiced family medicine in Carver County, Minnesota for over 35 years. One of his children is an anesthesiologist. His wife is a small animal veterinarian. Be interesting to reflect on how his daughter, an anesthesiologist, perceives. Oh, no, two. He has two daughters. One is an anesthesiologist. The other is a family physician. It'll be interesting to hear how they reflect on the scrutiny he has been under. And as promised in our promo, we will tell you what Dr. Jensen characterized as the triad of tyranny right after this.

Our laws as it pertains to substances are draconian and bizarre. A psychopath started this. He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction, fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous. I'm a doctor for f*** sake. Where the hell do you think I learned that? I'm just saying. You go to treatment before you kill people.

I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat if you have trouble you can't stop and you want to help stop it i can help i got a lot to say i got a lot more to say it's just interesting to me that in that intro when I was talking on that HLN program about getting treatment before people are killed, here we are again in Tennessee with the same thing,

with people with significant, significant problems not being able to be helped because of the way state laws are structured. You're not allowed. This is what people don't understand. You are not allowed to help people unless they want it. And with psychiatric illness, that can go to a very, very bad place. As I said, Dr. Kelly Victory is here with us today on a special day and a special time. And Dr. Scott Jensen will join us in just a second. As I told you, he served in the Minnesota Senate for four years. He was vice chair of the Health and Human Services Committee there.

A candidate for governor in the state of Minnesota, and a longstanding practitioner of family practice in Carver County, Minnesota. He raised his three children there. The one son had the good sense to get out of the family business of medicine. His daughter has unfortunately followed in his footsteps. One is a family doctor, and the other is an anesthesiologist. Please welcome Dr. Scott Jensen.

Thank you very much, Dr. Drew, for having me on your show. I appreciate it, and I look forward to a robust conversation with you and Dr. Kelly Victory. That's the idea. As I was saying, you couldn't talk your daughters out of medicine, huh? They had to see you going through all this, and they decided, that's for me, I got to jump into this nonsense. What's interesting, when our family gets together and we're meeting other people, people will look at my son and say, what's wrong with you? You're the attorney. And he'll look at them and say, someone needs to keep my sisters out of trouble.

And to that point, I'm just, well, and you and I, if the other side of the table were physicians, we'd look at your son and go, oh, thankfully a sane person here. But to that point, do your dog, I'm just, you, me, and Kelly Victory, we come from similar vintage in terms of when we were trained and how long we practiced. And this whole experience is so flabbergasting to us. I'm wondering if your daughters have any insight or have offered you any counsel on how they see it perhaps differently, or do they see it the same as we do, those of us that were trained in the 80s? That's a great question, Dr. Drew, because quite frankly, my two daughters do see things differently. My one daughter practices in a larger medical center where the narrative is a little

different. And she's been very helpful to me in encouraging me to make certain that I make it clear that I'm speaking for myself and I'm not representing anyone else. And she's also challenged me to make certain that I'm, if you will, doing a little bit of research regarding a source. In the past, I generally have not been exposed to a lot of resource material that I thought would have been suspect. But in these day and age, in this day and age, I think that before I quote something, I usually check it out and find out, is this center? Is it left-leaning, right-leaning, and things like that? My other daughter has been very like-minded with me and said, Dad, I just feel terrible that you've been so vilified. And she gets angry, and she's very proud of me. So I think my daughters have been a good balance of

one encouraging me to be, you know, making certain that I'm just trying to maintain the highest standards in terms of the materials I use to form my opinions. And the other daughter has been extremely supportive in saying that she gets angry on my behalf. And my wife has been an incredible support. And my son is sort of this judicial-minded analyst who says, well, dad, I can see where when you said that, if you would have said it this way, you might have been able to get a message across that would have been less distracting because you used this word instead of that word. So our family conversations are usually fairly. But that kind of guidance is so interesting because neither you nor I were ever, I mean, we're used to communicating about medical issues and never contemplated that we have to select our words based on liability. And it's just, it's uncanny to me that that's the world we live in.

But to the attacks you've been under, let me, before I get there, again, you mentioned the suspect literature. That's another part that's flabbergasting, where I have to look at literature that's going a certain direction and go, huh, that doesn't fit my clinical experience. In the past, I would go, I guess I'm just not picking up what the literature is picking up. I must be biased in some way by my clinical experience. Now I go, oh, no, now the literature is suspect because it is so heavy. There's a hand on the scale always in any direction.

Whoever's publishing it, it's just wild to me. To your point, Dr. Drew, I think that one of the things that the medical profession has really struggled with during this entire pandemic is we're getting into this mean-spirited contest about whose expert is more expert or whose journal is more reputable. I mean, there's no question there's a multitude of highly regarded medical journals that we use. We use the New England Journal of Medicine. We use the Lancet. We use JAMA. There's many of them. But if someone says, well, Dr. Jensen, you quoted Lancet, and they're not even in our country. New England Journal said something else, or vice versa, doesn't matter. And I'm sitting there just nodding, shaking my head saying, when did we become like this? One of the things I think we lost, Dr. Drew, is we lost an awareness that physicians get to be wrong. We have been wrong for decades.

We told people, don't eat eggs. Don't eat eggs. We told them, take an aspirin every day. Then we told them, don't take an aspirin every day. We've been wrong so much of the time. When did this happen that a physician speaking in good faith based on all that he or she knows at that point in time, when did it happen that we couldn't be wrong without being accused of spreading misinformation or spreading disinformation or spreading malinformation? This is a huge issue for our profession.

Yeah, or you're accused, if you get it wrong, you're accused of lying, which is even a higher, wilder reach to me. Yesterday on this program, I was just sort of asking a question out loud. Why don't we know what happened to Mark Hamlin yet? I just, that's very suspicious to me. I'd like to know. He's certainly entitled to his private health care, but we all saw this happen very, very publicly.

You would think that they'd at least want to understand it to be able to protect other players or be able to give some information perhaps to high school football players or college football players. If it was a post-COVID phenomenon, please, dear, tell us. It was a post-COVID phenomenon, so we dear, tell us it was a post-COVID phenomenon so we can prepare for it and screen for it and understand what that was. But it's complete silence. People say then, oh, he has insurance. Yeah, believe me, the insurance company

will demand the medical records. They will demand it. Or he will not be, they won't insure him, and they just won't insure him. That's it. So somebody is going to find out. It's not just about HIPAA, even though he's entitled to his HIPAA records. It's just so suspect, so weird. I'm trying to figure out what thing would be so anathema to COVID, which I'm prepared to conclude that it was some sort of post-COVID phenomenon, but what diagnosis would be so anathema that they dare not even bring it up. That's a weird thing. Well, Dr. Drew, I actually had your tweet forwarded to me this morning about 6 a.m. by one of my communication members, communication team.

And I read it. I listened to it. And so I retweeted it. But I was a little surprised because you took the gloves off and said, doggone it, I'm going to ask the hard questions. You went into a space that, frankly, for almost three months, we have seen the medical profession avoid like the plague. And it was nothing that you said that was particularly outside the guardrails.

You just said, why aren't we asking this? And I think that the fact that you were willing to do it and the fact that you're still alive to talk with me right now gives me hope that maybe we're getting past that wall that has denied us the chance to say, when I take a medical history from a patient, if I've got someone in that's got a pulmonary embolus or has had a stroke, I ask them all the questions I need to ask in order to get a framework for what that patient is going through. I have never been denied that before. During the interview I had with the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, there was one point in time where someone said something to this effect. Assumed facts are the truth. You should know that, Dr. Jensen. And I said, play that again for me, would you? Assumed facts are the truth? If we've learned one thing over the last three years, I think it's that

assumed facts are not necessarily the truth. They need to stand up to the light of day and be scrutinized, whether it's someone saying in the first couple of months that masks would not be necessary and then changing a few months later or whatever. But the bottom line is if we've learned anything, it's that science never ceases to be about observing, measuring, and hypothesizing. It's that simple. We observe, we measure, we hypothesize. That's how we got gravity. When Isaac Newton saw all of the apples fell down instead of falling up, he measured them, 100% fell down. He hypothesized. There's a force that pulls an apple to the ground. Other people confirmed his hypothesis, and we have gravity.

That's how science works. And then that got refined further. In fact, he was kind of wrong. There was nothing pulling. There was something pushing, it turns out, or the space-time continuum was pushing, whatever. The point is this stuff evolves, and it's the strangest thing in the world to me that we can't ask questions. And also, it's broken down collegiality. Whenever I get attacked by a peer in social media, I immediately reach out. So let's get on the phone. There's no way

we disagree that much. There's just no way. The only thing I have found that there seems to be some sort of fundamental disagreement on is the idea that you can't trust people with information. The public can't be trusted, which I think is kind of a disgusting position. The public should be given everything to make their determination. Certainly, having worked 35 years in a psychiatric hospital, I have seen repeatedly, the more you're even perceived to be hiding anything, the more paranoid people get, the more they silo themselves, the more they get into the assumptions, the less reasonable they are.

As opposed to if you just say, let's just put it all out on the table and see how it evolves. That's how paranoia is diminished. And that's what the public deserves. Did you ever withhold information from your patients because you thought they couldn't handle it? Well, it's funny that you talk about handling it because I think back to a time over the last three years where Dr. Fauci had been sort of dissecting and speaking to the issue of herd immunity. And I remember there was great hope that we would reach herd immunity at 60% or 70% or 80%. And it seemed like it was a changing narrative. And when Dr. Fauci was confronted about that, he made a comment that made me think of that

one movie with, I think, Jack Nicholson in it, where he basically said the American people can't handle the truth. So he needed to sort of incrementally ratchet it up because he didn't dare give the American people the real news, the real conclusion. He is absolutely wrong. And you're absolutely right, Dr. Drew. If I've learned one thing through this whole pandemic, it's that the letters MD or PhD behind one's name does not provide them any shortcut to what the truth ends up being. Some of the most thoughtful people that have analyzed and dissected what we've gone through have had no letters after their name, but they've been brilliant in terms of their ability to look at what's going on around us, integrate that with what does human nature do? What is the behavior

that we typically would reflect as humans? Because that's the part that sometimes we miss in medicine is what is human nature going to do? And you said it before, human nature will get paranoid if you give it a reason to. Stop the reasoning and you'll find a lot less paranoia. Yeah, the movie you're talking about is A Few Good Men. I think Tom Cruise was in it, too, and it was Jack Nicholson that was screaming, you can't handle the truth. And for liberals like me at the time, who now I don't know what to call anybody, but at the time, liberals took that as the crucible of the excesses of government. Like, how could they look at what government might do? Look what the military does. They won't let people at the truth.

It was, you remember what a hue and cry, that was a rallying point for people around government excess. And now the very people who were using that film and that scene in the film as something behind which they stood firmly are the same people using that same logic that Jack Nicholson was showing in the film. Too much. Exactly. That's exactly right. And even to further your point, the people that we might have expected to hold big pharma accountable weren't there holding them accountable. The people that we might have expected to push back hard against censorship weren't there. These are confounding times.

It's true. It's hard to understand. but to that point about hard to understand we're going to get more into the weeds a bit with what you've had to withstand i know kelly wants to get into it i'm curious i'll just before i let you go i'll just ask my little curiosity question here which is uh what was it like how many citations did you have to present? Did the board help you in any way to guide you? They claim they're here to protect good doctors and weed out the so-called bad doctors. Or were you just on your own and you just build your case and just overwhelm them with materials? Well, the first four investigations that I had, because I ended up having six, the fifth and sixth investigations prompted the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice to say that they wanted to meet with me. They were not content to appreciate my written responses. The allegations were dismissed. In fact, investigation number three,

they didn't even reach out to me. They just sent me a letter saying, we got this set of allegations. We dismissed it without even letting you know, because we thought that it was evidently something they felt comfortable doing. But in the fifth and sixth one, when I received documentation from them saying, okay, we're going to have a notice of conference here. You're going to explain to us what you're thinking. If we're not able to resolve the issue here, there will be an administrative hearing, which in the process of regulatory agency, that's a little bit like a district court. And there was information that said to me, well, first off, I had asked if we could have it be public, and they said no. And I said, well, can we have it Facebook live stream so people get to see it?

And they said no. But they did concede that we could have a face-to-face instead of Zoom. So I had asked for a face-to-face. When I prepared for it, they made it clear that if I chose to plead the Fifth Amendment, that was my right. But that also would weigh into their decision making as to what to do with me. So I felt like that was a little intimidating. So the fifth and sixth investigation, I could tell that things were changing. I was no longer a governor's candidate. The fifth investigation had been opened up some 16 months earlier. It lied dormant while I was campaigning. And then when I lost the election to Tim Walz in Minnesota, then it was resurrected within a couple of months. And it was clear to me that things had changed. So I did hire an attorney and he gave me an insight, Dr. Drew, that was really helpful.

He looked at me one day after he'd had a chance to really get up to speed on the process and the case. And he said, Scott, you didn't hire me to be a yes man. And his name is Dr. Mr. Greg Joseph. And Greg said to me, he said, you didn't hire me to be a yes man and I'm not going to be. Let me tell you what you're doing. You've been working your tail off, trying to craft the perfect snowball because you're in a snowball fight and you want to craft the perfect snowball that will win the snowball fight for you. You're going to find that article that really lays it all to rest. And he said, here's the thing, Scott, you shouldn't be in a snowball fight. There is no snowball fight. You have the right to exercise First Amendment rights. They have the mission to, if you will, regulate professional conduct as it relates to the practice of medicine and seeing patients.

But I had numerous investigations by people who had never been patients of mine. I was not allowed to know who they were. They simply didn't like the narrative I was speaking. So my lawyer and I were the only ones allowed into the hearing. And there were five or six staff people there, three members of the Board of Medical Practice, and then a legal representative from the Attorney General's office. And we had a good conversation for 90 minutes. But I have to tell you, it was, it was fractious at times. There was a point in time where when I was asked what I thought was worse, misinformation or

disinformation, I expressed my astonishment and said, excuse me, we've already established that disinformation is a deliberate attempt to mislead based on false or jaded data. Misinformation is simply someone's truth later on being proven to not be true. I said, I'm astonished that we're having that conversation right now. And I was. So for me, it was an intimidating experience. But I walked in and I had literally probably that, maybe a foot of articles. I unpacked all my files. I put them in, if you will, categories on the desk. I was ready to answer any question.

I was ready with numerous articles, whether you wanted to talk about herd immunity, natural immunity, immunization programs, whatever you wanted to talk about and ask me about, I was prepared to do that. But in the end, I think what really carried the day for us was toward the very end of our conversation, I looked at each one of them and I said, I did nothing wrong. And I said, I have never engaged in disinformation. And I think those words sort of settled into the room, and we were dismissed in 20 minutes of a recess. Well, goodness, we've frozen here coming from his end, I think. Caleb, anything there? You froze for a real second there, Scott.

I'll tell you what let's do. Let's take our break so I can bring Kelly Victory in here and we'll check your internet connection and be right back. Okay. I think you know how much Susan and I love our GenuCell skincare and how easy it is to try our one-of-a-kind customer packages bundled with our favorite products. Susan realized the other day that one of our kids stole some of our deep correcting serum from our stash, if you will. We had no idea that the lactic and hyaluronic acid combo is so great for adult acne, dark marks, and scars. So not only are Susan and I hooked on these products, but apparently somebody else in our family is too. Somebody's ripping it off.

I know I'm a snob about the products I use on my face. Everybody knows it. Every time I go to the dermatologist's office, they're just rows and rows of different creams. Retinols, vitamin C cream, under eye cream, night creams. Grubs. And then when I get to the counter, they're overpriced. All kinds of products that you can all find at GenuCell.com. I've fallen in love with this product at a fraction of the price. I've been using GenuCell.com. I've fallen in love with this product at a fraction of the price. I've been using GenuCell for six months now, and I'm very impressed. Great skincare is important at any age, and we love how amazing the results are. Thank you to GenuCell. Plus, now you can find your

very own bundle based on your unique skincare needs. Using cutting-edge AI skincare technology, you can get a full skin analysis instantly and create a skincare regimen tailored towards your needs. Visit GenuCell.com slash Drew to check out our favorites and enter that promo code Drew, D-R-E-W, at checkout for added savings. All orders include free shipping and a free mineral mask. Order now. Go to Genucel.com slash Drew. That is Genucel, G-E-N-U-C-E-L, Genucel.com slash Drew. Buy gold and get a free save to store it in. You heard right.

On qualifying purchases from Birch Gold Group, now through March 31st, they will ship you a free save directly to your door. Here's the deal. Fed keeps raising rates because it is the only tool they have to keep inflation under control. But it isn't working. You can't spend your way out of inflation. You've seen the impact on the stock market. You've seen the impact on your savings.

Hedge inflation by owning gold, whether physical gold and silver in your safe or through an IRA and precious metals where you can hold real gold and silver in tax-sheltered retirement accounts. Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied customers. Visit birchgold.com slash drew for your free info kit on gold and to claim eligibility for your free home safe by March 31st on qualifying purchases. Again, visit birchgold.com slash D-R-E-W. Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. This episode ends here. The rest of the show is available at drdrew.tv. There's nothing in medicine that doesn't boil down to a risk benefit calculation. It is the

mandate, public health, to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population. This is uncharted territory, Drew. Drew, I give you Dr. Scott Jensen. Hi, Scott. Thanks so much for taking time to join us here. I've got lots and lots I want to ask you about and some thoughts about how it is that we got where we are right now. But before I go any further, and you were just getting to it at the very end of the last segment, I want to make sure for our listeners that they have an idea of what it

was that you just went through. What was it that you just got found, quote, not guilty of? You know, you were intimating various claims against your medical license. But just talk, you know, briefly, take a minute, just talk about what happened, when it started, and what you were facing if you had a different outcome? Well, Kelly, it all started about three years ago in April, just about exactly three years ago. I was on national TV expressing concerns about the fact that the way we were being asked to complete death certificates, it was suggested that we consider utilizing COVID-19

as a cause of death, even if we thought as physicians it was merely a contributing condition. That's not the way we do death certificates. And I thought that as a sitting senator, I might get some sort of outreach from the Department of Health, and that did not happen. Instead, for the first time in my career, two months later, I was being investigated by the Board of Medical Practice. For the next two years and nine months, I've gone through one investigation after another. I've been accused of spreading conspiracy theories, but nobody ever told me what conspiracy theory I was spreading. I've been accused of making false statements about masks, but nobody's ever told me what the false statement was. I've been accused of making false statements about masks, but nobody's ever told me what the false statement was.

I've been told that I should have been willing to accept assumed facts as truth, and I wasn't willing to do that. So each time I pushed back and I said, no, I didn't do anything wrong here. I didn't participate in disinformation. I simply used the skeptical part of my brain that is addicted to context. I told people this is important. If someone says 10 people died of something on a given day, I think it's important for them to know that 140 people died that day in Minnesota, that 9,000 people die every day in America. Context is the only way that we can really appreciate that which we're experiencing as

humans. But in the end, I was called to the carpet by the Board of Medical Practice in Minnesota. I walked into a room with about a dozen people total, and we had a conversation that at times was fractious, but I think it was constructive. The board members did, I think, a very admirable job. This is not easy for them. These are volunteers trying to make certain that the practice of medicine and the minimum standard of care is being upheld.

So we did have a frank conversation. And in the end, I did look the board straight in the eye and said, I did nothing wrong. And I did not ever engage in disinformation, the deliberate transmission or dissemination of false information to mislead people. And after about a 20-minute recess, the Board of Medical Practice came to me and said, OK, all the charges are dismissed. We're done. Case closed. And so I was very grateful for that. But I will never forget what I went through. Never.

No. And you and I got to know each other dating back to April of 2020 when this all started. I went through much of the same, had seven different claims against my medical licenses in Colorado and in North Carolina and Ohio. All again, much like you, relating to things having nothing to do with patient care, all to do with things that I had said, either on media or social media or on a public forum regarding my concerns about the pandemic. So suffice to say, you know, and we are not the only two sitting here who are still getting drug through the mud on these things. I think it's interesting because going back to when this all started, what I call sort

of the weaponization of medicine against practitioners, goes back, I think, to the establishment of what we call clinical practice guidelines, CPGs, which none of the three of us grew up with those. Drew, you and I did not train when there were these clinical practices you know and though they were intended when they came in initially you may when they came in i was astonished they were originally called clinical pathways they were suggested pathways and then they become became thus say at the lord mandates well right so what happened is that's what i was getting at is that clinical practice guidelines And then they became thus sayeth the Lord mandates. Well, right. So what happened is that's what I was getting at is that clinical practice guidelines were intended to decrease variation in treatment and to improve patient care,

specifically for hospitalists who are fundamentally shift workers and for people like nurse practitioners and nurses and physicians assistants. But they were quickly co-opted. Those clinical practice guidelines became all of a sudden, they were misrepresented to be quote, the standard of care. And that somehow they could be then weaponized against physicians with whom a hospital or a medical board or any other group of people, patients, could use them against a physician to claim that he or she had breached the standard of care and was fundamentally malpracticing. Well, I bristle, Kelly. I got to interrupt when anybody brings up standard of care because I fought so hard in the 90s against the standard of care that every

one of my opiate addicted patients, when they showed up for a dental procedure or happened to pass through an ER for some reason, were given 90 Vicodin. And anyone who didn't do that was considered abusive to patients and was not guilty of malpractice, was guilty of a criminal offense of abusing a patient. And that was the standard of care that killed God knows how many people. So whenever somebody brings up the standard, I just bristle like my body reacts to it. That's what people have to watch out for. And by the way, when I started working in psychiatric hospital, the standard of care had just ended where psychosurgery was a Nobel Prize winning intervention and had just concluded its run of lobotomies and left behind debris in its wake.

That's really what I wanted to ask Scott. I wanted to ask, how did that play in to your experience, Scott? I think that's a terrific insight that you're raising, Kelly, because what this really tells America is this isn't just about a few hundred or a few thousand doctors being investigated. This is about what's happened to patients. If patients feel abandoned or betrayed, I remember very well these clinical pathways. And the clinical pathway, if it didn't get objected to, if it didn't get pushed back against, then quickly they would rename it and call it best practices. And all of a sudden, best practices is the holy grail. Then the pharmaceutical reps would come in to my office, and I remember the Purdue

reps. And I remember the OxyContin reps. And they would say, if you don't engage in best practices when it comes to reaching out to your patients that are suffering from pain, you're not a good doctor. So there needed to be a fifth. It wasn't enough to do the standard form. The fifth one was, what's your pain state? The standard right now, one through 10. Had to ask everybody. They could come in because they had a rash because they went swimming in an ocean. And I had to ask them, what's your pain level?

So what we saw, the pharma came in hard. They flexed their muscles. They guilted us. Patients started to think there was something wrong with them if they didn't know where their pain scale was. And people wonder why this happened. What really was happening was the world of medicine was changing where instead of it being a relationship between a patient and a physician and a real conversation and an interaction with non-verbals and verbals and all. Instead, it became plug the patient into an algorithm. And if the patient doesn't fit in an algorithm, the patient is being

obstinate, obstreperous, and you might want to dismiss them from your practice. Patients were feeling that. I'm sure that Dr. Drew, you saw it, where if they didn't fit neatly into some cubby hole, they were sort of by the doctor, they said, what the devil's wrong with you? I'm trying to get you plugged into an algorithm and you don't seem to be giving me the right answers. This was the beginning of the fall of medicine. Exactly. So the way I explain it to people who are non-clinicians is it started with this quote, clinical practice guideline. It was a guideline.

When nobody objects to the guideline, as you said rightly, Scott, then it becomes codified as quote, standard of care. So you're establishing quote, standard of care that is based on fundamentally consensus. Well, consensus does not substitute for actual science and actual evidence. You can't establish that the world is round by just voting on it, by saying, okay, we

all agree. You have to actually have the data. And so what happens with standard of care is that it removes the physician from being able to use his or her own clinical judgment, his or her own ability to tailor the treatment to the patient. And so in my viewpoint, this is where we really started not only to practice bad medicine, but now fast forward to COVID, it allowed the people in power, namely boards of medicine, hospital staffs, politicians, and everybody else to weaponize it. If you fail to agree with the cons, if you're not part of the consensus, you are a heretic.

You're a heretic. You're you are problematic. I think that's exactly right, Kelly, because I remember early on, after I had made the comment about the fact that I thought that if we were going to take someone who was dying of stage four colon cancer and had a chance to say their goodbyes to their family, and they were literally teetering on the edge of dying, and perhaps 24 hours before they passed, they were exposed to someone with COVID-19, and they never even had a symptom, but they passed. In certain situations, we were being told,

you could surmise or reasonably go ahead and conjecture that a contributing condition was COVID. So go ahead and put that down as a cause of death. I said, if you do that, you're going to have one less colon cancer death, and you're going to have one more COVID death, but you're going to have corrupted the value of that data. When we did that, we were on a slippery slope, and we were being told, get in line. And this is one of the things that happened with this board of medical practice investigation. I was told, don't you think you could have kept your mouth shut a little bit because people were trying hard and this was uncharted territory. And I said, it's for that very reason that morally and ethically, I had to stand up. Because if you go back to the days of OxyContin release and that,

one of the things that happened was the assumed fact, if that's going to be truth, the assumed fact was you're not a good doctor unless you give this patient 90 tablets of Vicodin because they're having pain. If you pushed back and said, listen, whether we give you the Vicodin, Tylenol, Ibuprofen, Aleve, doesn't matter. You're going to have some pain. And we think that you have to literally push back through it a little bit because we can't be eliminating pain. That's not what the world of medicine is. That was that slippery slope that, like you said, Kelly, in the moment of the pandemic, it was used against us. And when you had big pharma declaring the rules, you had big tech standing up for them, and you

had big government being the hammer to come down. These regulatory agencies, they had a heyday and an awful lot of the people on the regulatory had no idea that they were indeed being weaponized. No, and it was frankly, it was my conversation with you early in 2020 when we were talking about the death certificate fiasco and the fraud that was you were being asked. We were all being asked to perpetrate with regard to filling out the death certificates. That's when I launched what I have to this day on my social media profiles, which is the virus is real, the statistics are not. And I said it from the very beginning.

Little did I know how much else was going to go off the rails with this debacle, everything from masks and lockdowns and the fallacy of social distancing and then God only knows the vaccines. But so suffice to say at this point, I'm sorry, go ahead. Well, I was gonna say to your point, Kelly, and when we saw Dr. Walensky and we saw Dr. Fauci and we saw department heads of public health departments

in various states come out and acknowledge that people that had been identified as a COVID-19 diagnosis in the hospital or as a COVID-19 death on a death certificate frequently in situations, they acknowledged it fully, that it hadn't been that way. That in fact, these were people that had a different cause of death or a different diagnosis or a different reason for being in the hospital they came out and confessed it and what happened then crickets right right exactly and when i would say things like i i was banned on multiple times for saying the truth which is is that based on the CARES Act, that hospitals gained millions, millions of dollars overall, more than $10,000 for any admission for a patient

whose chief diagnosis was COVID, and $37,000 to $40,000 per patient that they could claim died of COVID. So they were darn motivated to have people like you, Scott, writing COVID on the diagnosis line on those death certificates because it meant hard, cold cash in their coffers. And they're still doing it today. Medicare today reimburses 20% more for any COVID patient who gets remdesivir in the hospital.

Is that not a conflict of interest beyond all? I mean, this is insanity and Americans need to understand that this is how we are now practicing medicine. And I think what's really incumbent on us, Kelly, is that we don't need to be mean-spirited, but we do need to be that skeptical, contextually oriented practitioner of taking care of people that we've been trained to be. And what that means is we do need to hold audits. We do need to hold people accountable. Because if we don't do those things, when the next pandemic or epidemic hits, we will

have lost the potential value of lessons that could have been learned. One of my biggest beefs about what happened from 2020 to 2023 was it was as if medicine and science had been sitting on their hands from 2002 when SARS-1 to 2020. There was a lot of research being done from 2002 to 2020. You don't remember, nor do I, because they don't exist, any terrific studies that came out and said, listen, what we've learned is with these coronaviruses, it's critically important that we all wear cotton masks, even if they're below our nose. That's what we need. There were no studies that

said that. What the studies did show was, listen, the pore size is this, the particle size is this. You might be able to mitigate some amount through filtration, but in order to really stop it, you're not going to be able to pledge to people, do this and you won't get sick. This is what happened from 2020 to 2002, 18 years of thoughtful science was literally thrown out the window because new narrative had been created, risen up to rule the day. And don't forget, please, Scott, don't forget the 2005 paper funded by Anthony Fauci

on the evidence behind using hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to successfully treat SARS-CoV-1. They knew that those two drugs, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, were highly effective against SARS-type coronaviruses. And they not only didn't promote that, as you know, they vilified and fundamentally tried to destroy anybody who talked about it. One of the things I'm interested in, we go back for a second to the clinical practice guidelines and fundamentally what I call cookbook medicine. You've got two kids who are trained far more recently than you and I and Drew did.

Are they learning how, in your estimation, and no criticism to your children, but are they teaching them critical thinking? Are they teaching them, here's the algorithm? Are they just learning cookbook medicine in your mind? Well, I don't think it's a black and white issue or one side of the line, but it certainly is, if you will,

a flavor. And there's no question. Both of my children have told me that there's a lot more pathways, a lot more order sets in the hospital. Patient comes in, this is the order set that comes into gear. We used to go through and we would thoughtfully identify what the order should be for the patient, the unique patient. Today, it's all about order sets. The electronic health record has, I think, intensified that. So the idea of just spending some time thinking and saying what fits, what doesn't, oftentimes young physicians just don't feel like they have the time. They're not rewarded for that. They're not rewarded for that.

They're actually criticized for that. And the young doctors know that if they cross the line, they're going to be potentially in trouble. And I think today, what is the statistic? Some 80% of doctors work for some hospital or corporation. When I was being trained, I had many of my preceptors and mentors and professors and role models. They were independent-minded people who just bristled at the notion that someone would

come along and tell them, you didn't do it the right way because you didn't plug this patient into this clinical guideline algorithm. And so I think where you're at right now, Kelly, is spot on. And it's a challenge for future practitioners to be sure. Well, you just hit on something I think that's really important, this issue of, I think this entire pandemic debacle could not have happened, wouldn't have happened, were it not for what you just said, that so many physicians are employees now of hospitals or of large groups and therefore felt that they, for whatever reason, were not able to speak out and speak their minds because behind closed doors, I run into people at cocktail parties and they know darn well that it was just silliness to be removing every other chair in the waiting room or forcing people to wear masks in

perpetuity and these sorts of things. So I think really the demise of medicine, I think, has been largely driven by that, the corporatization of medicine and the fact that most physicians are not like you, are not concierge doctors, or are not independent practitioners who have the ability to follow their own North Star. I agree with you guys. I want to put a little finer point on it, if you don't mind, really quick, which is that we are all from the so-called cognitive disciplines, right? One of the things I noticed during the early part of the pandemic is our surgical colleagues did not fall victim to this mass psychology at all. They are used to making decisions on their own.

When they open the surgical field, they are problem solving and they are improvising at all times. There's no pathway that can be put upon them. As much as they try, they cannot do it, but they have done it successfully with the cognitive disciplines. And the reason they're doing it, guys, it's just very clear why they're doing it.

It's so they can pull us back away from the patients, put the physician extenders up front, follow the pathways. All the liability will flow up to you, and you'll have to supervise the physician extenders, so-called. And that's going to be the way medicine is practiced in the future. But they can't do that to the surgeons. And isn't it interesting that all my surgical colleagues were thinking completely outside the box during the early part of the pandemic? Drew, that's an excellent point. It really is because I did find so much solace by talking to my surgical colleagues because they would give me almost an attitude that felt a little bit like John Wayne.

The old days. This person. Yeah, the old days. They weren't buying into it. And one other thing that perhaps would be a little bit of a unique flavor that I could contribute in this whole process of physicians, the medical profession just being squashed was during the campaign for governor in Minnesota, one of the most heartbreaking things for me to have to deal with was I would be at a rally or a fundraiser or a meeting, a town hall,

and the number of times a physician or a nurse or a PA or a nurse practitioner would sort of pull me aside quietly and apologize for not being able to stand with me and gratefully acknowledge that I was making a sacrifice, not just by running, but also through the repeated investigations. And these were, these physicians were absolutely absorbing their own slings and arrows because they knew that something was wrong, but they didn't dare step into that fray because they were hired. They would be fired. They would be limited. And again, Kelly, you raised that point so poignantly that what we have seen is the dismantling of patient-oriented, physician-driven medicine. And patients are wondering, why don't doctors care about me?

Right, right. Well, I will tell you, Drew, by the way, maybe that's why I was an early adopter of the this is not reality because I'm a trauma and disaster specialist. And I do shoot from the hip an awful lot of the algorithms and pathways and electronic medical records, and all of the things that were supposedly done to enhance efficiency and to control has actually resulted in, I promise you, significant reduction in the quality of care that patients are getting. Because when you are no longer taking the individuality of the patient, the patient's specific history, their desires, their risk tolerance, their spiritual backgrounds, their preference for many, many things, then you no longer are actually, in my mind, practicing any quality of medicine or quality of healthcare. Frankly, I'm very glad that I'm the age that I am because

I couldn't do this going forward. If I were 30 years old and looking at a 30 plus year career going forward with this level of medicine, I couldn't do it because it's not what I signed up for. It's not how I perceived myself as a physician, how I perceived myself as somebody who is a thoughtful caretaker at all. It's really, really changed. And I think another thing that's happened is I think that we've started to hide as a profession. We now, doctors don't want to acknowledge that they prescribe off-label. One of the challenges that was thrown our way was they said, well, you prescribed something off-label. And I said, I do that probably 20, 25% of the time. Typical pediatrician,

according to American Medical Association, more than 50% of many pediatricians' prescriptions are off-label. I'm not going to apologize for that. That's a reality. We use Flomax to try to help someone pass a kidney stone. We're doing that not because the company that makes Flomax got the indication for it. They got the indication to shrink the prostate. But the fact is a fair number of people have had some relief with Flomax passing a kidney stone. So we use it. Once it passes those barriers of safety and efficacy, we can use it for other things. And I've tried to tell my patients, listen, for a pharmaceutical company to make the decision

to, okay, I'm going to go and get the indication for passing kidney stones as well. It's not worth it to them. They've already got it being used. So they say, we're just going to call it. That's why I was so hard on big pharma. And I was hard on big government because government has absolutely been supporting big pharma in a way that didn't happen 25 years ago. And then you've got big tech with their big hand of censorship. And if you get out of line, they're going to shut you down. That's why I came out with that book and said, you know, we've been played this triad of tyranny of big pharma, big tech and big government. And when they collude, when they coalesce, their mission of power and control and dollars,

we've got to wake up. Right. And so I did. I wrote this book and it's called We've Been Played. And you can get it at drscottjensenbook.com, D-R-S-C-O-T-T-J-E-N-S-E-N-B-O-O-K.com. And what I'm trying to say is using patient stories, I'm trying to show people why the insurance... Uh-oh.

Oh, lost him again there. He usually comes right back, but... Yeah, well, the point that he was making there, and I was going to say to him, it's stunning to me, Drew, how many of our own colleagues don't understand there is... Scott, I was going to say to him, it's stunning to me, Drew, how many of our own colleagues don't understand there is... Scott, I was just saying how many of our own colleagues don't understand this issue of off label, that the idea of that the indications, quote unquote, for any particular drug that

are written on the box or that you find in the PDR, that only impacts how the manufacturer is able to market them, not how the three of us are able to prescribe them. That's right. The FDA has nothing to do with the practice of medicine. It does not determine the practice of medicine. It determines what companies can bring to market under what conditions. What we then do with it is entirely up to us. Correct. And most studies would say somewhere around 26%, 27% of all prescriptions written are written quote off label, meaning for an indication for which, as you rightly point out, the pharmaceutical manufacturer didn't bother to go through the process of getting that indication added.

But once something's safe, we know, safe, you know, we can prescribe it for anything we want. I got news for you. You know, I ran a large addiction recovery program. We dealt with very sick drug addicts in acute severe withdrawal. And every case was an improvisation with the use of medication that could help ameliorate the withdrawal. There's no withdrawal medication, no indicated withdrawal medication.

Even Librium, which we use for alcohol, has not been indicated. I don't think they have indication for that. But I was using Mirapax for back pain because the restless leg syndrome is actually the source of the heroin withdrawal back pain. I was using Robaxin and Bental and Motrin and Toradol. And people get through these withdrawals quite readily.

Phenobarbital for benzodiazepine withdrawal. It's not an FDA-approved indication, but works like an MF, as does gabapentin, which we use all the time, successfully. That's how we practice medicine. Right. And so I think that that part—go ahead, Scott. Well, I think patients are clamoring for physicians who are saying, listen, I'm not buying what they're selling. I am not going to take care of patients where the Holy Grail is the electronic health record,

and I've got to go through this algorithm. I'm going to listen to you. I'm going to connect this to humans, a healer and someone in need of healing. And I'm going to do it that way. And if I can't do it that way, then so many in our generation of physicians are saying, then we're getting out. And that's one of the reasons why I think I ended up being, if you will, put in the crosshairs, is people thought they could shut me up. I was a political individual. I was a family physician. I was a family physician.

I was highly visible. And I think people thought, well, we're just going to hammer on that guy until he shuts up. And the problem for them was they picked the wrong guy. I'm 68. I'm not young. I could step away tomorrow. I don't want to because I love what I do. But I'll be darned if I'm going to let people try to politically

pressure me or vilify me and make me walk away. I'm not giving up. And I think they're learning that. Well, I was going to ask you that exact question. What role do you think your political position, your background in your politics in the state of Minnesota played into you being a lightning rod for these attacks? Almost completely. I think that if I hadn't gotten into politics in 2015, when community members recruited me to run for the Senate, if I would have just stayed entirely out of that, if you will, industry, I don't think any of this would have happened because I wouldn't have had any notoriety. I would have said what I say in the office. I wouldn't have had any big platform, and I would have been safe. But I ended up being put on a pathway. I have so often thought of the

Old Testament hero Jonah, where Jonah was given some pretty tough duty in Nineveh. And he said, no thanks. I'm heading over to the Mediterranean, taking a cruise. And this whale got in the way. Well, if someone had told me at the front end, eight years ago, that my life was going to look like it looks like now, I think I would have run to the Mediterranean and said, no, thanks. But this whale sucked me up, spit me out. I had no idea what I was getting into, but here I am. Well, God love you for that. And that was really, you must be prescient because I was going to ask you about, you are a man of faith, as I know, and how much that has played into your ability to sort of not only withstand this, what you've gone through, but also how much it impacts the way that you practice medicine.

We've been more recently, in these more recent years, been led to believe that we shouldn't allow that component of ourselves and of our backgrounds play, that there's no role for that in the practice of medicine. It certainly doesn't fit into an algorithm. But I think for you knowing as I do, that that has been something that's played into your practice.

One of the things that I probably am known for is I ask questions. And sometimes they're the dumbest question in the world. In fact, I was elected president of the dental class before I went into medicine. I was in dental school. And I asked this question, where in relationship to the third molars do the wisdom teeth lie? And the professor, the anatomy professor looked at me and says, young man, the third molars are the wisdom teeth. And the whole class laughed. And three days later, they elected me president. So I've always been willing to ask the question. I don't care how dumb it is. But one of the most powerful questions in the Old Testament is when Mordecai in Esther 4.14 sent a message saying, have you considered you're in the position you're

in for such a time as this? And I think there are warriors like you, Kelly, like you, Dr. Drew, across the entire planet that have had to face that fact, that they're probably in the position they're in for such a time as this. This isn't something they chose, but it's right in front of them, and they're fighting desperately. They are warriors in a battle that has gotten far bigger than simply a COVID-19 virus. We're now literally asking as physicians, where is that line between what a regulatory agency can hold me accountable for in regards to conduct and the practice of medicine, and on the other side of the line, free speech, so that I can speak, share my opinion, and I do have the privilege that I can be wrong. It's okay. I've been wrong plenty. Right now we're grappling with where is that line?

Who gets to determine it? The regulatory agency? The legislatures? Or is it going to be the courts? But someone has to make it very clear that as physicians, we get to speak to that which we think. And as long as it isn't our professional conduct in taking care of patients, it's OK for us to be wrong. We do not lose our First Amendment rights. No, and I think I think you're right. I'm hopeful that this covid pandemic will be exactly the thing that motivated us to take our profession back because it doesn't stop with COVID. I just became aware today that the Supreme Court is hearing a case fighting against certain states that have now regulation on the book preventing practitioners, therapists, and physicians from counseling a patient against gender transitioning

so that you can be held liable in some states, apparently, not in Colorado or California where I am, but that in some states you can be held liable as a physician or a therapist if you were to counsel a patient against gender transitioning. That is a regulation that's being put in place by a bunch of regulatory bodies and would absolutely remove the ability of a physician to practice, and not only based on his or her understanding of the literature and medicine and science, but also his or her conscience. And that is being heard by the Supreme Court.

If it turns out that COVID is the thing that fundamentally causes us as physicians, physicians aren't known for being how you, you are a You are a rarity in that you're politically active. You're savvy. Like Drew and myself, you are comfortable in front of a microphone. You don't mind pushing back, asking the hard questions. But we don't represent the majority of physicians. We don't. And so hopefully this debacle will empower people to do that. Well, I want to ask a question about both you guys, if you don't mind, is that

Kelly, you sent me an article today about myocarditis and the vaccine and COVID. And let me ask this of Scott first first you mentioned early in this conversation how i maybe adulterated is too strong a word but there's something funny about the medical literature there's something that we've never had to deal with before at least in terms of how we look at it we looked at it was it a good study were the assumptions proper was there a null hypothesis was this is a properly designed experiment? Was the statistical analysis done to my satisfaction? We looked at the study, not the editorial determination of what studies get published. We just looked for the studies. And now it feels like this editorial process has put its hand on the scale. I'm getting very confused. I see data that goes way in one direction that doesn't fit my clinical experience,

and I see data that goes way in another direction that is like, that doesn't seem quite right either. How do you approach the medical literature these days, Scott? Well, it's something I've never had to do before. I've actually had to look to other countries. I look more to data from Israel, from the United Kingdom. National Health Service out at me. So I literally have had to say, I don't know that I can rely on the CDC and the FDA. To that point, I would just remind the viewing audience, the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine for years, who has since retired in that position, he said something to the effect that he thought that scientific and medical research has changed

dramatically. And the way that we're able to get access to and digest cutting edge medical science has been bastardized. And I don't think he used that word, but it's been corrupted. And he was very concerned about it. And that always makes me hearken back to when Dwight Eisenhower was leaving after eight years as president in 1961. He said, there may come a day where our public policy is, if you will, driven and shaped by the scientific and technological elite. I think we're seeing it right in front of us. We're losing our grip. And we're seeing people who lead the New England Journal of Medicine saying,

we've got a problem. We're seeing a president who leaves and says farewell to the nation and says, this may be coming. We literally are living it. Yeah. I agree. And as you know, Drew, we talk about the veracity of the science, quote unquote, as published in journals that we used to all trust. I've become far, far more circumspect, far more skeptical. And I said, if somebody died and made me queen, I would make the conflicts of interest appear above the title of the article or of the study, because it would help me determine if I even wanted to read the darn study, because they are so full, they're so fraught with conflicts. And I think, you know,

because we have, we cannot disentangle at this point, big pharma from our research journals, same thing with the mainstream media, you all you have to do is watch any particular segment on most mainstream media, and follow me, you know, this you have to do is watch any particular segment on most mainstream media and follow them. You know, this segment brought to you by Pfizer. Well, what do you think they're going to say about the vaccines when that's the case? You know, what do you think, you know, under oath? You know, we just had the CEO of Moderna, Stefan Borsell was asked, or Borla, excuse me, was asked, do you think giving a $400 million payment to the NIH might impact how they opine about your vaccines?

I mean, this is just insanity. We cannot have that kind of conflict of interest, particularly when it's impacted, when these are the people making the healthcare decisions for hundreds of millions of people. You know, and lastly, I've said from the beginning, Scott, I don't know about you, but in my entire 30-plus years practice of medicine, not once did I ever call the CDC for advice. Not once did I ever call the FDA.

I called a lot of my colleagues. I'd sideline a lot of people from different disciplines in the hallway and ask their opinion, ask them to take a look at something or ask for their experience. But never once did I call the CDC. They were intended to be, you know, really give guidance to the public, not direct and be the purveyors of truth when it came to how we practiced medicine. I get a lot of young medical students and residents asking me, what's the formula? What's the recipe? What should they do to be a good physician? And I've said numerous times, you need to remember that you've been raised in an educational model that leans heavily towards skepticism you're

not supposed to buy in right away you've got to think it through and you've got to you've got to understand that theory of relativity on your own you've got to make your way with you've got to be skeptical next you have to remember the context if I tell a patient that if they go on this heavy duty, lots of side effects chemotherapy, I can get them 33% more lifetime left, I need to tell them that right now we're looking at six months. So what I'm really telling them is I'll give you eight months, but it'll be a living hell. That's context. And I think we need to recognize that as physicians,

we have access to information and the ability to absorb it and integrate it into what we do. And patients count on us to have that access. And I think we need to be respectful, and we generally have been. But when we did grand rounds in medical school, this wasn't a kumbaya moment where we sat around holding hands. This was tenacious. This was where we said, no, the diagnosis exists and this is what we need to do. And the next person would say this. But at the end of the day, I tell young residents and physicians, we have been entrusted with a great blessing. We get invited into the sacrosanct world of our patients and we best live up to their expectations. and we haven't been doing that

no i i think you're right that really the the way this particular show came to be is specifically scott to bring back what drew and i saw had been expunged during uh the pandemic which was robust vigorous debate amongst clinicians. I don't care if people want to disagree with me, argue with me, tell me why I've misinterpreted the data, didn't understand the true risk, I really came to the wrong conclusion in a study, but robust, vigorous debate is the cornerstone of medicine.

Without it, we are destined to make errors and to make egregious errors at that. So I appreciate you, number one, everything you've been doing, everything you've been fighting through, but your willingness to come on and share your experience of that and your tenured experience practicing medicine with the people who are watching us, because I think it's invaluable. And I just don't want to see this lost in our profession is doomed if we can't have this. Well, thank you very much for having me on, Dr. Drew. Thank you for being that voice of skepticism. I have to tell you, when I saw you asking the hard questions about what happened to DeMar Hamlin yesterday, I thought, why have there been so few voices willing to ask those hard questions? We have literally, in less than 90 days ago, the entire

nation was glued to what's happening here. And we all know what questions were allowable and which ones weren't. Right. It's odd. It's odd that they have to be characterized as odd questions. They're simply clinical questions about what happened to that poor young man, what caused him to be able to stand up and then fall down, not have a pulse, re-arrest in the ER, and then have his neurological status improve ahead of his pulmonary status. And then no one willing to say it was a post-COVID phenomenon, which I was waiting for, and I assumed they'd run to that one. So what diagnosis, it's what you tell your residents. What diagnosis? Use Occam's razor.

What diagnosis would cover all that happened there? There's only one thing. Because the cardiac injury, he would have been restarted. Certainly with commotio, heart would have been restarted, and that would have been it. That's how commotio works. You don't re-arrest after commotio, nor do you re-arrest after a spontaneous arrhythmia unless there's a really serious myocarditis going on. They didn't say it. So, you know, it's just basic questions, not even hard questions, basic questions.

Hard questions is, you know, how do we know what exactly is happening? What do we do with the rest of the people trying to play football? How do we protect them? Those are hard questions. That's what we should be asking. So anyway, thank you for being with us today. We appreciate it. It's good to see you. I'm glad you still have a smile on your face. It's rather extraordinary and you're an inspiration to this moment. So keep it up. God bless. Thank you both so much. Thank you. And thank you. And Kelly, we have a schedule coming up. We have Alex Berenson on Friday at an unusual time.

And then we have, there we are, William Mackis on April 5th. We have Rod Bird Kennedy on April 10th. Asim Malhotra coming back on April 25th. He was tweeting some sort of strange tweets the other day. Oh, I'm breaking incredible news. And then I DM'd him. I said, wow, what's going on? Never heard anything. Did you see something that he announced? Well, yeah, I know quite a bit about what he's working. He's an expert witness in a case against the South African government for their use of the vaccines. He also was, along with me,

making available these FOIA documents from the CDC that indicate very clearly that the CDC was anticipating a massive number of adverse events from these vaccines prior to the vaccines being rolled out. We now know that they were anticipating so much so that they hired an outside consulting firm to manage all of the adverse events that they were anticipating would be reported. They anticipated, by the way, somewhere in the range of 1,000 adverse events being reported a day, with 40% of them being serious. Turned out that they underestimated by an order of magnitude. And within a matter of months, the adverse events being reported were upwards of 5,000 a day, but they kept that information from the public. And we now have all of that information through these FOIA documents. They're pretty damning.

Well, Kelly, as always, thank you. And well, just in from Emily, the producer, she says that we have Jimmy Dore on April 6th, who's extremely popular. All of our people over on Rumblers, they're going to be very happy about that. He's coming up soon. April 6th, Jimmy Dore. Thank you for that. You ask and you shall receive. We also have kind of a fun thing to talk about Rumble. Yes, Rumble very kindly sent us a gift. I didn't know I needed to subject Kelly to all this, but I will. Well, she's part of the show.

You're part of it. Oh, she's certainly part of it. She's what brought our numbers up. Thank you. Yeah, yeah. I didn't know if you had to go or anything, but they sent us a 100,000 subscriber award. It's an award. Cool.

It's sort of a giant paperweight. I like it. It comes out of here. Here, take it out of the box. There it is. Well, there it is. Oh, I like it. It weighs a ton. I know, it's solid.

This is also a weapon for combat. It's full of birch gold. Yeah. If you're wearing an armored... Susan, you can throw it at the drone. If you're in a suit of armor, this is a suitable weapon. Oh, tell them I need one. I will do.

Okay. And our friends at YouTube, we got the 100,000... It's a little dusty, but it's been sitting there. There we go. There you go. 100,000 subscribers. Yeah. What do we get when it hits 200,000?

We have 198, over 198, over 199,000 on Rumble. Put us over the top, ladies and gentlemen, and we'll find out. Do I get a car or a free safe with my gold? I get the second award. Sounds good. It's all good. We all share in this and we thank everyone

who supported us. Thank you, Kelly, for supporting us and being part of this. I guess we're supposed to have that on your table. We can send it to Kelly. She can put it behind her head.

Oh, yeah. She can put it by the bobblehead. I think it helps your algorithm or something, right? I would love that. Caleb, don't they say that if you have that that youtube plaque up that they catch it and then they push your show out more or something

that's it oh that would be i did not i didn't tell you that but that would be pretty amazing if they did if they had a way of figuring it out i don't know if our technology is quite there yet, but yeah. All right, Kelly, we'll let you go. That's why we haven't done it yet. Thank you so much as always. Talk to you soon. And for everyone else,

we will see you next time. Oh, and your skin looks great, Kelly. Apparently, they're like, is she using her GenuCell? Which we know she does. So it will be next up. We're Friday at 1230. We will see you then. Ta-ta.

Oh, I'm sorry, 230. 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.