Ask Dr. Drew - Dr. Byram Bridle Files $3m Lawsuit For Harassment After Warning of mRNA Dangers w/ Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr Drew – Episode 165

Episode Date: January 13, 2023

In late 2022, Dr. Byram Bridle filed a $3 million lawsuit against his university for a “targeted and vicious campaign of personal attacks and harassment” that began after he told a radio interviewer that the potential dangers of mRNA should compel the government to stop giving COVID vaccines to children until more studies could confirm their safety. Dr. Bridle says “the spike protein produced by the mRNA vaccines does not remain in the shoulder muscle upon injection, but rather gets into the blood — and can, in some cases, lead to clotting, bleeding, heart problems, neurological damage…” Part of the alleged harassment of Dr. Bridle involves anonymous online squatting under his name: both byrambridle[.]com and @byrambridle on Twitter are unaffiliated with the doctor and appear to be part of a campaign to harm his reputation. Dr. Byram Bridle is an associate Professor of Viral Immunology at the University of Guelph’s Ontario Veterinary College in Canada. 「 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 「 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

BetMGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long. From tip-off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with the sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with BetMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM. A sportsbook

worth a slam dunk. An authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please

contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Another one of our lovely Wednesday shows with Kelly Victory. She'll be with us, of course, just in a minute. Our guest today is Dr. Byron Breidel. He is an associate professor of viral immunology at the Department of Pathobiology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada. Research has focused on development of vaccines against infectious diseases, engineering immunotherapies for cancers, studying host immune responses against viruses.

And he has been in the center of all this for quite some time. And I'm very keen to hear what he has to say. It's odd to me and sort of, again, I just, the people were critical on Twitter that we're speaking to a virologist today because he's not a clinician, like a pediatrician or an adult internist. And then when we speak to pediatricians or adult internist, infectious disease doctors and cardiologists, we're criticized for not speaking to virologists. So we will get to each person, each discipline in its time and talk to the people who are expert in their fields and try to get something out of each of these conversations. I take away something every time. Let's get right to it. Our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre a psychopath started this right he was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography ptsd love addiction fentanyl

and heroin ridiculous i'm a doctor for say where the hell 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 love line 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 at the end of this conversation with our guest, Dr. Kelly and I may spend a little time talking about the tragedy with the NFL player arresting on the football field. Again, I did a lot on that yesterday, and she's had some thoughts on this today. Good news. We're hearing he's improving.

He's moving towards autonomous respiration. He may get off the ventilator soon. And this is what three days after the events of very, very excellent sign in terms of his recovery from anoxic encephalopathy, though, the recovery itself of his full brain function, they take quite some time. So it's been three days. Uh, it happened on Sunday or it happened on Monday, Monday. So it's two days, two days. I was thinking that was a Sunday. All right. Uh, and so she and I will talk about it a little bit perhaps at the end of the show. And she got a bit of grief for daring to wonder what his vaccine status was, just musing about it.

And was attacked by the very people who took the position previously that everyone's vaccine status should be known to everyone. And the vaccine status should determine everything you are able to do. So it was odd that suddenly we have to hold back on vaccine status. But before that was something that was mandated for a public domain, but just an odd sort of a quirk of really social media, frankly. So let's bring our guest in Dr. Byron Brindle. Thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it.

Let's just start with your concerns. You've been worried about these vaccines for a time. What's the source of that concern and what's the mechanism for it? Yeah. First of all, thanks a lot for having me on your show, Dr. Drew. I really appreciate it. Um, and I, uh, looking forward to the opportunity to share, um, some of my insights with your

audience. So yeah, so the vaccines we're talking about, I mean, it's the interesting thing. A lot of people just sort of refer to the vaccine or the vaccines these days. But as a vaccinologist and somebody who loves vaccines, I recognize there's a whole array of vaccines. So in my world, I like to specify. And so we're talking about the COVID-19. And honestly, I have to sort of put quotation marks vaccine, because maybe that's even a starting point right there. Because as a vaccinologist, I can tell you that these current, what we're calling COVID-19 vaccines, do not actually meet the traditional definition of a

vaccine. The traditional definition, basically a definition that you in the United States had prior to the summer of 2021. And then if you look at, for example, I'm in Canada, so if you look at the Canadian definition, it would be as far from, we define what we call an ideal vaccine, and they would be as far from an ideal vaccine as one could possibly get. And so let me just explain that for a moment. So the traditional definition of a vaccine, as posted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, up until the summer of 2021, was that these were medical products that would induce immunity. Immunity was the key term in the definition.

They would induce immunity. Immunity was the key term in the definition. They would induce immunity against the disease. And it's interesting because the US CDC still holds the same traditional definition for immunity. You can find that on their website alongside the definition of a vaccine. And immunity is to be protected from a disease and protected against transmitting the causative agent of that disease to somebody else. And that's what we think of when we think about the term vaccine, right? A vaccine is something that we take because it's going to protect ourselves from the disease, and it's going to protect those around us from getting the pathogen that causes that disease.

So when we're talking about COVID-19, what we're talking about, of course, is SARS-Coronavirus-2, which is the virus that in some people that get infected with it can cause the disease we call COVID-19. And the definition was changed actually to accommodate these novel vaccine technologies such that now the U.S. CDC defines it as a medical product that induces an immune response against a disease. And that's it. There's no longer a requirement. If I can interrupt you a little bit, I'm sort of sympathetic to that definition because the whole, you know, I'm sure you're more versed than I am in the history of vaccine therapies, but back to the cowpox and, you know, early colonial days in America, that really wasn't preventing disease. It was causing milder disease oftentimes and wasn't even necessarily preventing transmission.

And so to me, anything that does help fight the disease, I'm cool with that. I understand they did adjust it though. That was kind of interesting, but they did. But let me ask you this. I know where you're going to go with this and I'm going to jump a little bit ahead. I've been reading a little lately about, to me, in terms of these so-called ideal vaccines, Covaxin is actually our best vaccine. And the fact that that's not being distributed around the world is just weird to me, number one. And then number two, I'm really worried about the spike protein because I'm starting to see stuff from Novavax, which is very different.

It's not an MRI vaccine. It's a more traditional sort of protein, you know, virus kind of vaccine. And so kind of address that for me. What do you, you know, what's going on with those two vaccines? And then I'll let you roll back to mRNA. Sure. Well, okay. So anything to do with the spike protein. So I guess one of the things that as an academic scientist, I'll just tell you, one of my jobs is, you know, my salary

is paid for by taxpayers and the institution that I work at is funded through taxpayers. And so I consider myself a public servant. And when asked questions, I provide my expert interpretation of the science. And what I really look at is the overall weight of the science. So when it comes to COVID-19, I really wasn't doing anything differently than I have my entire career. But one of the things that got me into trouble is related directly to what you just brought up, Dr. Drew, and that is the spike protein. So I gave an interview about a year and a half ago, and I guess there were three components to that interview that, I mean, to me, they were just factual. And as somebody with, as an expert in the field, I was quite confident in the science. But three things were considered to be exceptionally controversial

at that time. And so the first thing is, it was in an interview, I was asked one question, I was asked if the Moderna vaccine could potentially, might be causing, or it might be associated with myocarditis in young males. And I postulated that that's a possibility, right? There was a potential for there to be a link to myocarditis. A year and a half later, that's fact now, well accepted as fact, and it's on all the vaccine labels. But the second thing, which really gets to the heart of your question, is the spike protein. I recognize that the mRNA technology, and this relates to these newer vaccines you're talking about as well, because the common thing about them is the spike protein. But that the mRNA technology, these vaccines were not staying in the injection site,

but rather getting distributed throughout the body. And the reason why that was of concern to me was because the spike protein is a highly bioactive molecule in the human body. And if it gets, if it were to get systemically distributed, there are a lot of potential mechanisms of harm that it could cause. And so what's shared by all the vaccines is targeting the spike protein. The theory being that if you generate neutralizing antibodies against the spike protein, the virus cannot infect our cells because it uses the spike protein to get inside our cells. And so all the vaccines have that. But these newer vaccines as well, even though they're more traditional technologies,

and one of the things that I like about them is the dose of the spike protein can be much better controlled. And so all the vaccines have that. But these newer vaccines as well, even though they're more traditional technologies, and one of the things that I like about them is the dose of the spike protein can be much better controlled. But there's still aspects of this. The lipid nanoparticle delivery technology, for example. And again, it's the lipid nanoparticle technology that has traditionally been developed to promote wide distribution of whatever the cargo is that it's carrying,

whether it be the spike protein itself, or whether it be the messenger RNA encoding the spike protein, or historically what they were used for more commonly was as a drug delivery system. So as it pertains to the lipid nanoparticle, uh, two, two things. I, we,

we have a, um, biotech, um, expert that comes on our show once in a while. And she was alerting me to two things as it pertains to what you're getting into now. And I'm sorry,

I'm jumping around a lot, but, but I know Kelly is going to be a little more, have a better flow. It's what she, I just have a bunch of odd questions I wanted to get out right away. That's fine. But this is going to be the next one.

This is the next one. She alerted me, A, to the fact that the spike proteins and the mRNA, they're produced by the mRNA vaccine, actually have not just the spike protein, but also fragments and faulty folding proteins that are produced. And we don't know, we don't have any idea where they're going or what they're doing. And she has another theory that there are several lipids in the lipid nanoparticles, and one of them is a cholesterol that has been observed to break down into phosphatidylethanolamine, and she has postulated that that might be one of the mechanisms for excess clotting. Now, my pushback on that particular theory is the time course is hard for me to understand

because people are getting clotting in all kinds of strange time courses. But I'll let you just kind of struggle with those two observations. Sure. Well, so I would agree with those observations. But in fact, what we have to understand is there's actually a plethora of potential mechanisms of harm. And I guess, and again, I said, if the spike protein gets systemically distributed,

a year and a half later, again, that was very controversial a year and a half ago, but now it's in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There's numerous citations now. Even the CEO of Moderna has openly talked about the distribution of their vaccine, that the systemic distribution and the spike protein can get to the heart and so on. And so we have papers now that have shown, you know, the spike protein getting to the heart

muscle in people, getting into circulation, albeit at what appears to be low concentrations in most people. But there are, there's other literature showing proof of principle that you can get in some people up to a hundred fold higher concentrations, getting up to concentrations that are quite concerning. We also are seeing the mRNA. This was recently published in a daughter journal of the Lancet, a very well-respected medical journal

showing that the messenger RNA from these vaccines getting into breast milk, for example. So the systemic distribution now is widely accepted. I mean, it's sort of, it's this fact now. And so the problem is this. There's the mechanisms that you just mentioned, for example, and there's other issues. So for example, lipid nanoparticles themselves, they also have what we call cationic lipids. These can be potentially harmful in cells.

The spike protein can, on its own, get into circulation. So, for example, if the mRNA is damaged on one end, you can get a version of spike protein that's secreted rather than anchored in the membrane of the cell. It's supposed to be on the surface of the cell like a flag. Or if you get degradation of that cell, it could be released. Also, we know that the spike protein gets released through exosomes, which are these little bubbles of fat that blab off of cells to communicate with other cells. And when this happens, when the spike protein, if it were to get into circulation, it can bind to the ACE2 receptor. That's the receptor that the virus uses to get into cells. And if it binds to these

two receptor can cause things like activation of platelets, and that can promote clotting of blood. The other thing is one of my most major concerns, for example, myocarditis. We usually see the incidence of myocarditis is greatest after the second dose than after the first dose. There's also several publications that have shown that side effects tend to be more severe and more common after the second dose. But also, what's interesting, also after the first dose in people that have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. So in other words, the vaccines, the side effects tend to be more prolific in those that have already mounted an immune response against sars cov2 and this is the one of the key concerns that i have is like i said the spike protein is designed in these vaccines the messenger rna vaccines to be anchored

to the surface of a cell and that's to activate an immune response and so this is the thing probably it takes about a couple weeks up to a few weeks for an immune response. And so this is the thing. It takes about a couple weeks, up to a few weeks for an antibody response to peak. But once you have those antibodies, and so I'm guessing that by the time you have people have mounted a good spike-specific antibody response, there's probably not a lot of the spike protein left because it will have degraded, it will have been cleared from the body. But those antibodies can last a long time, especially we know for sure that it's not very durable, those antibody responses after the vaccines are given, but it's quite durable after

natural infection. And this is the problem. Once somebody has mounted an antibody response, and then you give that second dose, or if somebody has naturally responded to the virus, and then gets a first dose, as soon as our cells start expressing that spike protein, they become a target for our immune response. And our immune response is actually going to start killing our own cells, right? And this is the problem with the systemic distribution of the spike protein. And to me, that's actually one of my most concerning potential mechanisms of harm. You know, and again, just I think simplistically,

I think clinically a lot, and I know we're going to go into the weeds of these biochemical mechanisms and all, but it just kind of seems to me like excessive production, something as simple as the excessive production of spike protein, the widespread excessive production could be the whole story. It could be the entire story. Because what sort of the pathological specimens suggest

that there's just too much of this stuff flying around. And as I'm sure you'll get into, the mRNA machinery may be producing more than we had anticipated, particularly with this widespread distribution. Is it at least that accurate? Yeah, absolutely. And I think that's, you know, we've seen, for example, the myocarditis, that the incidence of myocarditis is much higher with Moderna's vaccine. And related to what you were just saying, there's a higher dose of the messenger RNA that's being administered. And you're right. What people have to understand.

So for example, the newer vaccine technologies, well, so the newer vaccines that you were mentioning. Right. Old technologies, newer vaccines. It's older,

older, older platforms. Older platforms. Newer vaccines. And you see, and that's what I had mentioned in response to, bringing that up was that there's more controlled dosing. And so what people often forget is what's being administered and what's being measured in terms of a dose when these messenger RNA vaccines are given, it's the dose of messenger RNA. And all the messenger RNA is is a blueprint.

And I like to explain it to people as being equivalent to a blueprint that a home builder would use. A home builder is not limited to building one house from one blueprint, right? They can build multiple homes from the same blueprint. And it's the same thing with our cells. Our cells are able to produce multiple copies of the spike protein from a single messenger RNA. And this is where, and there's a lot of variables. So part of it's going to be like this, how much gets systemically distributed is going to vary widely from person to

person. It's going to depend how much of the initial dose might accidentally get injected into the bloodstream, for example, et cetera, et cetera. But at the end of the day, there's also, there's also this consideration, especially I get concerned, you know, with, with children in particular, because it can depend on what cells take this up. Because the number of copies of the spike protein you're going to get from the messenger RNA is going to correlate quite strongly with the metabolic activity of the cells that it gets into. So in other words, if it gets into cells that are fairly quiescent, that aren't replicating rapidly, you're probably not going to get a lot of spike protein produced. But if you get sent to highly metabolically active cells, and this is why I'm concerned with kids, right?

Because if you give the same dose to a, say, you know, 90 pound, 12 year old girl, for example, who's going through an enormous growth spurt, right? The chances are there's going to be a lot more highly metabolically active cells. And so there's this amplification step, which is very hard to predict. So every individual essentially ends up with their own unique dose. And we can't really predict what that dose is going to be. I get it. And I love this explanation because I've been saying, again, clinically, I'm not seeing the same kind of concerns that I see in these younger patients. And this would be the mechanism. And it's an easy mechanism to point at.

Of course, it makes perfect sense. All right. Before I bring Kelly in, one last quick question. You mentioned two of the three things that got you in trouble. What was the third thing that got you in trouble? Okay. Yeah. So it was the myocarditis.

Well, I guess I clustered the two together because the second one was the biodistribution. The fact that these messenger RNA vaccines do get widely distributed throughout the body. It's interesting because when I brought that up at the time, I wasn't surprised by that per se. Why I was very surprised at the time when I saw the Pfizer's biodistribution data was it actually matched all of the historical, my historical understanding of how these lipid nanoparticles work. Like I said, companies, pharmaceutical companies were so excited about using these lipid nanoparticles to deliver drugs, for example, to get into the brain, to treat Alzheimer's and brain cancers and Parkinson's disease. So what surprised me was that the public messaging that I was receiving,

everybody was receiving, was that these were like traditional vaccine technologies. I was told directly by my Canadian public health officials that this stayed at the injection site with a little bit going to the draining lymph nodes, which is where you activate the immune response. So what surprised me was not that there was the wide biodistribution. It was that the public messaging made me assume that there were some proprietary changes that had been made to the lipid nanoparticles that kept them from being widely distributed throughout the body. So that's what surprised me was that I realized, whoa, there's a real disconnect here between the science. So the science is as I understood it to be, but it doesn't match the public messaging. And then the second thing was the bioactivity,

because again, at the end of the day, you could say, what's the issue if the spike protein gets distributed throughout the body? But the problem now, Dr. Drew, is that there are about 20 different known bioactivities that could potentially cause harm with a spike protein. And that's the issue. So my concern was wide systemic distribution of a protein that can cause harm if it gets widely

distributed. So that's kind of part two and three that we're And that is, that I'm sure is precisely where Dr. Kelly Victory will pick up. We're going to take a little break and be back with her right after this. Sounds good. Want to give the gift that keeps on giving?

GenuCell Skin Care keeps everyone on your holiday list looking young and refreshed. And who doesn't need that type of luxury, especially over the holiday season? GenuCell has so many products that Susan and I love. GenuCell's X-Fee Moisturizer locks in moisturizer on top of the serums, making dry spots a thing of the past, especially great with the colder climate and all the dryness of our skin, right? And with GenuCell's Immediate Effect 2 Eye Cream, you can see the results in as little as 12 hours, guaranteed or your money back. Susan

loves GenuCell's DFS vitamin C serum, the new deep firming serum, as well as the hyaluronic with C and lactic acid, which hydrates your skin and makes fine lines a thing of the past while hopefully preventing future wrinkles from forming. I am a snob when it comes to using products on my face. The dermatologist makes a ton of money for me. But when I was introduced to GenuCell, I was so happy because it's so affordable and it works great. I was introduced to the Ultra Retinol Cream, which I love at night. All the eye creams are amazing. People notice my skin all the time and I'm so excited because it's actually working.

Take advantage of amazing holiday savings by going to GenuCell.com and you will get 60% off with a special holiday stocking stuffer when you subscribe to my favorites package at GenuCell.com slash Drew. And all orders are upgraded to free shipping for the rest of the holiday season. We will get it there quickly. Use code Drew at checkout for an extra 10% off your entire order. to free shipping for the rest of the holiday season. We will get it there quickly. Use code DREW at checkout for an extra 10% off your entire order. That is Genucel.com slash Drew, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash Drew.

My guest is Philip Patrick. He is a precious metal specialist, trains at University of Redlands. He has spent years as a wealth manager at Citigroup, and his current position is with Birch Gold Group. So gold has always been somewhat of a safe haven, particularly in times of great turmoil, much like our present moment, I imagine. Gold has always traditionally been a safe haven asset. Gold specifically has always been about wealth preservation, right? Gold has always held its buying power.

You can look at as far back as you'd like in history and biblical times, one ounce of gold would buy somebody 400 loaves of bread and today it does the same thing. So it's a store of value, but I would say in times like this, as you mentioned, it's particularly important when you're dealing with things like 40 year high inflation,

the air that's coming out of a stock market bubble. These times in particular tend to drive gold and silver up quite significantly. If things are different, the solution needs to be different as well. So I encourage everyone to get informed, and we have a lot of good information here to help your listeners. Just a reminder, I am not a financial advisor, and I do not give out financial advice nor investing advice. Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, and thousands of satisfied customers. Check them out now. Visit birchgold.com and secure your future with gold. Do it now. Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. If this episode

ends here, the rest of the show is 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 of public health to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population. This is uncharted territory, Drew. Dr. Kelly, victory. I give you our guest. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Breidel. Thanks so much for joining us. I know your life, your world has been upside down for the duration of this debacle, as has mine. I'm really happy that you could be here. I'm going to take us back, if you don't mind, to sort of the 50,000 or maybe 100,000 foot level to talk a little bit about mRNA, just for the purpose of our viewers. Although these injections, and I won't call them vaccines either, and we'll go back to that. These mRNA injections are new.

mRNA technology is not new. People, scientists have been working on this for well over a decade. We've had the good fortune to have people like Dr. Robert Malone on to talk about it and others. But I would like it if you could at least give us a brief sort of, you know, review from your perspective of why exactly there's never been an mRNA shot or vaccine launched successfully previous to these? Yeah, so yeah, that's a great question. So I guess, you know, we can start with a lipid nanoparticle technology, because that was a key, that's a key platform for delivering these messenger RNA molecules. Well, so I guess let's, let's start with those. So natural messenger RNA is incredibly unstable, incredibly fragile. So for example, my research team works with it all the time. If you, you have to use extremely, you know, sophisticated research techniques to make sure that you don't contaminate a sample with messenger RNA,

because there's all kinds of things in the environment that can degrade them. So they're extremely fragile. Once you have messenger RNA, you typically have to store it in what we call an ultra low freezer, you know, minus 80 degrees. And that's exactly what we saw at the start of the rollout, right, that these messenger RNA vaccines had to be stored at ultra low temperatures, which was an issue for the, you know, worldwide rollout. So that was one of the first problems. They're very fragile. So one of the huge advancements was creating synthetic messenger RNAs that would be much more resistant to degradation. Because at the end of the day, their purpose is to serve as a blueprint, a genetic blueprint. They encode a protein.

And once these messenger RNAs get inside a cell, they use the machinery in the cell to translate that blueprint into whatever protein it encodes. So for the COVID-19 shots, that is the spike protein from SARS coronavirus 2. So the synthetic messenger RNAs, they last a lot longer. And there's been debates actually about how long they can last in the body. And it turns out it's a lot longer than we had originally anticipated. So that's one of the breakthroughs that had to occur. The second thing is getting that messenger RNA into cells. And that's where the lipid nanoparticle technology comes in. These are small bubbles of fat and the messenger RNA molecules, these little genetic blueprints get packaged inside these fat bubbles. And these fat bubbles are designed to, when they come into contact with our cells, our cells are essentially large bubbles of fat.

So all of our cells are surrounded by a layer of fat. So when these lipid nanoparticles come into contact, they can fuse with our cell membrane and basically infuse the messenger RNA into the interior of the cell, where it can then be used to manufacture the spike protein. Now, these lipid nanoparticles, again, what I want to point out is, again, I personally was highly misled by the public messaging because I was told that these messenger RNA vaccines behave every bit like a traditional vaccine technology where they would stay at the injection site with a little bit going to the draining lymph nodes. And you always want your vaccine to go to the draining lymph nodes because the lymph nodes throughout our body, that's where our immune system actually gets activated. That's why when you get sick, for example, you'll have lymph nodes swell up. That's because your cells of the immune system are expanding to massive numbers within

those lymph nodes. So that's why your lymph nodes swell. And then those cells leave the lymph nodes and go throughout the body and look for the pathogen to clear it from the body. But these lipid nanoparticles, in my understanding understanding historically, they were never designed for that, to stay at the site. They were in fact designed to be widespread throughout the body because the original goal of this technology was to use it for gene therapy.

So that would be identifying a disease. So the idea being if there was a disease where you could define a genetic defect that was causing the disease, the idea was if you could replace that defective gene with one that functioned properly, you could potentially cure these otherwise incurable diseases. That was the original technology. And in order to achieve that, people wanted broad systemic distribution throughout the body to target potentially

defective cells and and this that's what this lipid nanoparticle technology achieved and so now what we have is well so the problem was that these lipid nanoparticles themselves are quite inflammatory and synthetic msrns can grab the attention of the immune system and the last thing you want for gene therapy is to have your gene therapy delivery system activate an immune response because what it's going to do is it's going to clear out your gene uh your gene therapy vector uh and it's going to destroy your gene therapy. So this was the problem that people were running into. So they thought, well, if people like Dr. Robert Malone, right,

thought about this and thought, well, if it's calling the attention of the immune system, that's exactly what you want a vaccine to do. So why not try and use it for the vaccine technology? And that's what we've now attempted to do. And actually, so one point of interest is this current rollout of the messenger RNA vaccines is not the first clinical use. Actually, these have been tested in veterinary medicine and have been in veterinary clinical trials for some time, just as a matter of interest. And so the technology has been under development for a long time. But there's, first of all, say, in terms of messenger RNA

vaccines for coronaviruses, yeah, coronavirus vaccines have proven to be very problematic. There's been a long history of trying to induce immune responses against coronaviruses that backfired, where actually what ended up happening is the vaccines started, actually, in many cases, promoted the disease. We call that vaccine-enhanced disease. What turned out is that animals that were these, so here's an interesting little bit of history. With the SARS coronavirus 1, when that virus, when we were dealing with that about 18, 19 years ago, there were promising vaccines. That didn't prove to be a particularly dangerous or long-lasting outbreak. But a lot of people continued to pursue the promising vaccine technology.

And it appeared promising because these vaccines induced very robust immune responses. But robust immune responses does not necessarily equal protection. And what ended up happening is animals in the research trials that got vaccinated ended up developing more severe disease when they got the infection. And that's because it was the wrong type of immune response that was induced. So that's been a problem with- Let me see if I can get in here and just try to summarize this portion of it then from what you're saying. So number one, we've got mRNA technology that relies on mRNA, which is very fragile, very unstable, so much so that they had to create a synthetic version of it, which then subsequently lasts way longer than the naturally occurring mRNA does. And then they packaged it in these lipid nanoparticles, which are purposely intended to go to every cell in the body or multiple organ systems,

as opposed to what you really want a vaccine to do, which is stay in the arm and go to the draining lymph nodes. So I've said over and over again on previous shows, the three greatest lies we were told about this is number one that the mrna would stay in the deltoid muscle where it was injected number two that we would eliminate the mrna very quickly from the body and it still says that on the cdc website today when in fact we know it lasts for months and number three and the one that you could at least weigh in on uh briefly is that we were told no way, no how could it become incorporated into the DNA. And we have preliminary evidence in vivo, excuse me, in vitro in the lab that this does in fact happen at least in liver cells. So big problems with this technology in terms of how long it lasts, where it goes, and that biodistribution study that you're talking about from Pfizer, which was known well before the

vaccines were launched, shows that not only does the mRNA go to essentially every major organ system, but worrisomely, the 11% of it ends up in the reproductive organs, specifically the ovaries and the testes. So as you point out, in younger people where those are very, very active areas of the body that are reproducing, cells are reproducing quickly as opposed to in somebody like me whose ovaries are not as active now, that's a real issue. I want to get back to the thing that you started with. And although Drew and I disagree with it, I think that it's very important and telling when the CDC or the NIH changes the definition of something that has been decades long and accepted in medicine, something like a word like vaccine. And not only did they change the definition to suit their needs during this pandemic, but another thing they changed the definition of was herd immunity. Herd immunity until November, 2020 meant one thing. And it'd been a, again, decades old definition saying herd immunity is comprised of

two things. Those people who are immunized, vaccinated against the disease, in addition to those people who have had and recovered from the disease. The CDC changed the definition to leave out the latter part, meaning they eliminated herd immunity being comprised of people who also had had and recovered from it, essentially denying the importance of natural immunity. Let's talk about that a little bit. Talk about natural immunity with regard to COVID. Sure. Yeah. So honestly, Kelly, this is preposterous. Like I have to tell you, as an immunologist who's been teaching immunology at the university level, graduate level, and to medical professionals for many years, if I follow the current guidelines that are out there from our health agency, I don't even know how to teach immunology anymore, honestly. Or if I continue on with the teaching as I have for all these years, I'll be accused of providing some kind of misinformation. The fact that natural immunity was not recognized to me is one of the most preposterous things from the last several years. They're forgetting. The key term in herd

immunity is immunity. And just so your listeners fully understand the whole concept between behind herd immunity is that essentially you don't need 100% of the individuals in a population to be immune in order to stop the transmission of a pathogen. You need a majority of the population to have immunity. But the key is immunity. And immunity has a very strict definition. It means indeed that you're protected from the disease and you can't transmit the causative agent to other people. And if you do not have immunity, first of all, so first of all, if you do not have that immunity, you can never achieve herd immunity. So these current COVID-19 shots that we have, they don't come close to conferring what I

would call sterilizing or near sterilizing immunity. We see no differences in the viral load of people who have been, quotes, vaccinated versus those who have not. People get sick with COVID-19, whether they've received these shots or not. They transmit the virus, whether they've received them or not. So with these current shots, one thing I guarantee is, first of all,

it's 100% impossible. And I wrote this in an article two years ago, what it would require, what these vaccines would have to be, they'd have to look like, sort of the minimum quality of the vaccine in order to achieve herd immunity. And I predicted this outcome, should immunity not actually be conferred by these shots? And it isn't.

But the whole key is this, that, immunity. And there's two ways to achieve immunity. There's recovery from natural infection, or there's vaccination. And I want to point out a couple of important points here. Just really what we've been doing over the past two years, we haven't cared about immunity at all. We've said we don't care about immunity. What we care about is certification of somebody having seen at least two needles go into somebody's shoulder. That's really what we're talking about. We're talking about a certification that needles went into somebody's arm. Needles going into somebody's arm does not equal immunity. And let me give you an example. Whenever you have a genetically diverse outbred population like people, you have, time you apply a medical treatment you always you almost always end up with

responses that follow a bell-shaped curve okay and so when it comes to vaccines what that means is the majority of people are going to respond moderately well to that vaccine then you're going to have a small portion of the population that we call the high responders. They're going to respond very robustly to that vaccine. But this is the important thing. We're also going to have a subset of the population that are the low and or non-responders. So when you put these needles in people's arms, guaranteed, there are some people that are complete non-responders. They do not mount an immune response at all.

It's going to have achieved zero net beneficial effect in terms of an immune response. And this is what's frustrating because you can have somebody who's recovered from natural infection, gets an immunity test done, right? Shows that they have broad-based, robust antibody responses against the virus. But we gave that no weight. That's demonstration of a certain degree of immunity. But we took a paperwork that certified needles going to people's arms. So in other words, you can have two people standing side by side. One's been naturally infected and recovered, and they could have an antibody test showing that they have a degree of immunity. And then you have another individual who has a piece of paper that says two needles went in this

person's arm, and they're a non-responder, and they have now mounted no immune response whatsoever against the virus, right? That person with that certificate was not segregated. The people who had the naturally acquired immunity were. And the other thing I want to point out, Kelly, there is no question now. I have done my own research. I'm now up to, when I do expert reports for courts now, I think I'm up to 130 peer-reviewed scientific papers that show that naturally acquired immunity against SARS coronavirus 2 is superior in every way, shape, and form to what these COVID-19 shots can achieve. We're talking much longer duration of immunity. We're talking broader immunity that's more

difficult for the new variants to escape from. And we're talking qualitatively superior immunity. And this is something, Dr. Breidel, that we've known from the duration of time. Natural immunity has always been considered to be superior to vaccine-induced immunity. We've always known that natural immunity is broad, robust, and enduring. I want to pile on something that just came out, I believe, yesterday, which was a study out of Ohio that showed— I know, Kelly, you were going to probably get to this, but I'm going to shortcut it by saying one of the findings in that study was that the efficacy of the booster was only 30%. When this, again, the CDC says the vaccine must be at least 50% to be considered viable. It was the first study on humans of the booster and at 30% efficacy.

In the same study, and i'm sure you'll get to this kelly they showed the more the more boosters you got the higher the probability of infection with covet guys and that's exactly where i was going negative efficacy it is not these are not only effective in preventing you from getting covered and preventing you from getting COVID and preventing you from transmitting it, the only two things that would possibly justify a mandate, by the way. But not only does it not stop you from transmitting it, it actually increases. There's negative efficacy. You have an increased risk of getting COVID the more vaccinated you are. Is that the IgG4 mechanism or do we think there's another mechanism? That's the interesting thing, Drew, is there's so much research that needs to be done.

I believe there's probably multiple mechanisms of action. These things are quite complex. I believe there's multiple mechanisms. The problem is when it comes to research, you can't get funding to do the research unless there's an acknowledged problem to provide the funding for. And until we get to the point where there's broad-based acknowledgement of the problems that these, let's just say, these vaccines, we need to get to a consensus that these vaccines are not completely safe and not completely effective. And if we can at least identify that and get some general agreement on that then the funds will start to flow for research to ask the kind of questions that that you're

proposing but yes the ig igg4 see drew that gets to something that i just mentioned about the uh one of the benefits of the um naturally acquired immunity as i mentioned qualitatively qualitatively they're superior. One of the, I don't know why, we have perseverated for the past three years on trying to maximize antibody responses. And there's a couple of things that really bugged me about this. A, we're trying to maximize, we keep, so the clinical studies, for example, that were used to justify using these shots in children, these were what we call immunobridging studies. They didn't even look at effectiveness and preventing infection or severe disease or anything like that. What they did is they used the immune response as a surrogate indicator that these things were working, with the assumption being that if they could get higher concentrations, if they could administer these shots, children, and get higher concentrations

of antibodies, then surely that must equate with better, you know, with effectiveness and protection against COVID-19. And we've been perseverating on maximizing these concentrations of antibodies. What people need to understand is a natural immune response against a virus actually entails quite low magnitude antibody responses. The dominant natural response are actually T cell responses. Antibodies can only grab onto viruses for the short time span that they're outside of cells, right? They like to infect cells.

They replicate, that cell dies. The virus gets out for a very short time span that they're outside of cells, right? They like to infect cells, they replicate, that cell dies, the virus gets out for a very short time and then infects the adjacent cell. When that virus is outside of the cell, an antibody can bind to it and neutralize it. So you don't need a lot of antibodies and it's all about the type of antibodies. Most of our antibodies are actually designed to target what we call extracellular pathogens, nasty bugs that always live outside of our cells. So for example, most bacteria live outside of our cells. So if you have a bacterial infection like strep throat, for example, you're going to mount a very robust antibody response. But against viruses, it's relatively low magnitude, but it's the right

types. What you're talking about, Drew, when you talk about IgG4, just for your audience, there's different what we call isotypes of antibodies. And IgG is one isotype of five possible isotypes. And there's different subtypes of the IgG. Well, there's certain subtypes, and IgG4 is not one of them, that you want against a virus because they're better at neutralizing viruses. If you get the wrong antibody produced, it can actually promote infection of cells that otherwise would be resistant to infection. Absolutely, there's a bunch of mechanisms, and I'm sure the mechanisms go well beyond that as well. But I just wanted to share with you is it's true. I do have a concern, a genuine concern based on publicly available health data that indeed that these shots are actually demonstrating negative efficacy now. So I saw this in the public health data where I live in Ontario, Canada. I recently served as an expert for a court case in New Zealand. And I was looking at the public health

data in New Zealand, for example. And what's interesting there is in New Zealand, they have 90% of the population has received one or more shots. But this is interesting. When it comes to COVID-19 cases, 95% of the cases of COVID-19 have been in that population that got a shot. So 95% of the cases have been occurring in 90% of the population that got a shot. That means that the cases of COVID-19 are disproportionately overrepresented among those that got the shot. So in contrast, of the 10% of the population that did not get a shot, they're accounting for 5% of the cases, right? Or on average, only half the people who didn't get a shot are getting have got COVID-19. And what's important when you recognize that is that's with data that has built into it a heavy bias towards making these shots look better, because always what every country is doing is they start counting the cases from the very first case that was identified. And what most members of the public forget is that for a huge period of time from when the first case was identified until the vaccines were actually rolled

out and in substantial numbers, right? There was a huge amount of time where none of, nobody in the population was vaccinated. So every case was being attributed to the unvaccinated. Correct. And I would say from the very big. Go ahead. the population was vaccinated so every case was being attributed to the unvaccinated correct go ahead yeah there were a couple things that i did i just wanted to hit on really quickly um before before they get away on us because um drew brought up a good point right which is and i don't disagree with him that if you have a medical product and whether you want to call it a vaccine or not, but that can truly dampen the severity of disease. I totally agree. And I teach my students that, right? If you can't prevent a disease, but you can prevent death from a disease,

that's obviously a positive outcome. But what I didn't get an opportunity to say, and that I would like to say, Kelly, is I would encourage people to look at, for example, Pfizer's own clinical data. So we're talking about the clinical data where they are using their vaccine, their original formulation, which was designed to target the original variant, right, the Wuhan variant of SARS-CoV-2. And they published in the New England Journal of Medicine a six-month update to their clinical trials. When you go there, what you have to do is not only do you have to pull up the paper, but at the bottom of the website, there's a tiny, tiny little link to what we call supplementary

data. Most scientists never even look at supplementary data. When you pull up that supplementary data. When you pull up that supplementary data and you have to read the entire paper very carefully, what you do is you can get the sum total of the data. And what I want to share with your audience, Kelly, is this. It's very important. So Pfizer's own data and that published study showed that there was no statistical benefit in terms of their vaccine reducing either hospitalizations or deaths. In fact, when you look at the vaccinated arm versus the placebo treated group, there was actually one more death.

There were nine deaths in the vaccinated group due to covid-19. And there were eight deaths due to covid-19 in the placebo group. Now, what's interesting is and what a lot this is, this also is very concerning is they stopped the agreement was that that control group, you can't have an experiment unless you have a control group, you always have to have at least one treatment group and one control group so that you can compare one variable, which is the vaccine. Four months into that trial, they ended the placebo group. They did what's called a crossover study, right, where all the people in the placebo arm received the vaccine. And so that means we only have, on average, two months worth of safety data on these vaccines from that trial. But this is the interesting thing.

When they vaccinated everybody in the placebo group, five more people in that placebo group died after receiving the vaccine. So that means that they ended up with 14 versus 8, I think it was, in terms of numbers, deaths. Now, I'm not going to say it was higher in the vaccinated group, because who knows? If those people remained unvaccinated, they may have died anyway from COVID-19. We don't know. But the whole point, Kelly, is Pfizer's own data,

in the context of using their vaccine against the original variant for which that vaccine was designed clearly showed no statistically significant reduction in hospitalizations or deaths. And that is the scientific basis combined with the definition of a vaccine, right? That is why I personally can't really refer to these COVID-19 shots as true vaccines. Right, so it also blows apart the narrative because we now know and they acknowledge the vaccines do not stop you from contracting COVID. They do not stop you from transmitting COVID to others. And there isn't a single study showing that they decrease your chance of hospitalization or death.

Okay. So all three. Okay. So there's zero rationale for- Sorry. I've seen lots of public health data that suggests that, but let me put it this way, as an expert and knowing what to look for, the public health data that suggests that uh but let me put it this way as as an expert and knowing what to look for um the the public health data that suggests these benefits is highly flawed the methodologies they're using are highly flawed so yes i what i would say there are no really legitimate scientific studies why are we so much better off is it natural immunity is the omicron variants why are things better than in the back in the colder, darker days? Yeah, a combination of things.

Yeah, absolutely. CDC's own data showed way back in February of, well, now last year, that up to about 70 percent of children had evidence of natural immunity at that time. I'm sure that I would be surprised if there isn't anybody left on the planet that hasn't had COVID-19. So absolutely, they naturally acquired immunity, which has proven to be superior.

There's a very interesting article recently came out, again, in a very well-respected medical journal where they directly compared the cases of COVID-19 occurring in those that had received either the full Pfizer vaccine schedule or the full Moderna vaccine schedule, or who had never received any of the shots, but had proof of having been infected.

And in all cases, the cases of COVID-19 were half in the group that had the naturally acquired immunity over time. So absolutely, that plays a key role, naturally acquired immunity. Like Kelly said, the immune system has always worked. And remarkably, it's continued to work throughout the last three years, even though for some reason, our public health officials haven't wanted to acknowledge that. And in fact, the important thing is I can tell you as a vaccinologist, I develop vaccines all the time. We naturally acquired immunity is the gold standard. We, we, we do have, we do have Dr. Bridal.

We do have a control in Africa that we are ignoring. There are, there is a control down there. We could be comparing ourselves against. These are very different populations, very different countries. I know it's very treacherous to make those kinds of comparisons, but you do have something that might be a reasonable control in Africa.

Yes. It's part of the reason I have maintained that they are so hell-bent about getting all of us vaccinated is because I, right now, I constitute the control group, having had COVID and not being vaccinated. And they are trying to eliminate us. They are trying to keep promoting vaccination because if you could eliminate the control group, those people who have had COVID but never got vaccinated for COVID, then if you can eliminate

that, it makes it very difficult to prove that these adverse events that are occurring are a result of the vaccine itself. Before we're running out of time, there's one other really critical thing I wanted to ask you about because I get asked about it a lot and it's quite terrifying to me. Given the toxicity that we know, and I think everyone acknowledges of the spike proteins, Talk about where you stand on the sanctity or lack thereof of our blood supply. Because the Red Cross, the American Red Cross, at least, is not keeping track of whether or not blood that is donated comes from vaccinated people or unvaccinated people. And I would love to hear your thoughts on whether you think, you know, that the blood

supply has been tainted with potentially toxic spike protein or mRNA. Okay. Yeah. So, so yeah, this is the kind of question I'm perfectly happy to answer it, but these are the kind of questions that certainly get me in trouble with, you know, many members of the public. But again, I will tell you, cause I have a very thorough understanding of the scientific literature. So I'm not going to say whether or not it's particularly problematic at this point and whether or not there's, you know, clear risk of harms. But in terms of your question of, is there spike protein contaminated or blood supply? 100%. Absolutely, yes. And the literature is

very clear on this now. Like I mentioned, people have shown spike protein in the heart, and it gets to the heart through the blood. The biodistribution study shows it gets through all the tissues, and it gets through the blood. Even people who are trying to downplay the biodistribution admitted that it went through the blood, if nothing else, to get to the liver, where they argued that it got expelled from the liver or expelled from the body. We have a demonstration of it getting into breast milk and it would get there through the blood.

So there's no question that the spike protein, and then we have studies showing the spike protein directly measured in the blood, albeit in many people. So there's one study that was only 13 people, but it showed it in 11 of 13. So that tells me that the majority of the people that get these shots do get spike protein circulating through the blood. Now what's debatable is the concentration. A lot of people try and argue, well, it's very low concentrations, right? So low that surely it can't be harmful. to which i would say what is the demonstrated safe

concentration we don't have a demonstrated safe concentration and then also i point out we have case studies that have shown in individuals who were evaluated after suffering severe side effects when their blood was assessed they had very high concentrations of the spike protein was suggesting that those who suffer severe, that there may be a correlation between the concentration of spike protein and severe side effects from the vaccine. So we have proof of principle that it can reach high concentrations. Then we had the argument that it gets cleared very quickly.

Well, we have no stand down periods for these, right? And so people can go to a vaccine clinic and get the shot and then go straight to the blood donor clinic and donate these vaccines. The biodistribution study itself showed that these vaccines are circulating at least up to 48 hours. They stopped it at 48 hours and didn't look any further, even though, especially in females, the concentrations were still escalating. Now we know from subsequent studies that you can measure these, for example, the breast milk study, they showed it in the breast milk up to five days later. We now have studies showing that the spike protein can be present in lymph nodes

up to six months later. We'd have clear demonstration that the spike protein can be in circulation still and detected up to six weeks after injection. So, and this is the thing, Kelly, what we really, so this is the point. Yes. My short answer is yes, you're absolutely correct. It's, it's tainted with products. What the consequence of that is, we really don't know because again, we haven't done the research. Nobody's really openly admitting that this is a potential problem, but the risk is there.

And so we do need to assess it. And I would say what we need to do is we need to do, it's a very easy study to do. You just take people who are getting the shots and draw blood samples at different time points. And we should be simultaneously be looking for the lipid nanoparticles because lipid nanoparticles on their own can cause harm. We need to be looking for the messenger RNA because the messenger RNA can cause harm. And we need to be looking for the spike protein. And we need to see at what point does it disappear from circulation? And if it does, if there is a common time point at which you can no longer detect these things, guess what?

That becomes a new washout period, right? For anybody receiving the shot, let's say after three months, we can't detect any of those things anymore. Then I would say after somebody gets a shot, we recommend they wait three months and then can donate blood. But this needs to be investigated. Although then we get the interesting problem

because like I said, we know the spike protein can circulate for at least six weeks. So if it takes two or three months, well, that's the duration of minimal immunity that these vaccines confer. And many people are recommending that people take these shots every few months. So it might be theoretically possible that somebody who's getting these shots serially at short timeframes may never, maybe should never be donating.

I personally will tell you, I would not want to be infused with blood that contains any concentration of these products until I know what a safe concentration is. And these sorts of things, Dr. Brito, don't make you anti-vaccine. They make you pro-science, pro-safety, and pro-data. These are the sorts of things that should have been hammered out long before we had a global distribution of these vaccines. We simply, these are questions that need to be answered. I know we are running down the clock. I want to bring up the one last question. Anybody who's listening to you, somebody might want to argue with you or with me in our interpretation of a particular study, whether or not we've interpreted the data correctly or over-underestimated the risk, whatever. But the idea that you, like me, have been censored,

ridiculed, derided, had hit jobs against you, cannot go unnoticed. And I really appreciate this platform that Drew has made available to me and to guests that I brought on, talk at least briefly about what's going on with you. You have a storied career in healthcare. You're incredibly well-educated and yet people have come after you and managed to really try to impugn your character and your clinical and professional judgment. Talk about where you are with your current case. Yeah, thanks, Kelly. So, yeah, I also really appreciate that Drew allows us to talk about this stuff openly. Because that's all I'm about is openly talking about the science.

And we used to be able to do that. And that's what is a characteristic. That was just called science. It should be a characteristic of good science, yes, is being able to openly discuss things and have dissent. I serve on grant review panels and have been an award-winning grant reviewer for many years for our national granting agency, for example.

I mean, that's the whole purpose of a grant review panel. You sit around and you debate the science and sometimes you disagree and you hammer, and eventually you try and come to a consensus on things, or at least as best you can, or identify where the weight of the science rests. And that's what has shocked me. I actually was invited to a parliamentary press conference

about a year and a half ago in Canada at our federal parliament. It was the first, so it was a parliamentary press conference about the censorship of physicians and scientists in Canada. And it was the first parliamentary press conference in our country's history that was censored. And it was about censorship. It's ridiculous. And so a lot of what happened, like I said, I was actually, I was giving guidance on what we needed to look for in terms of the quality and nature of these vaccines and what they needed to accomplish in order to be successful. And then, like I said, I gave an interview where I brought up these three apparently controversial things. But this is the point, Kelly, that I want

to point out. None of those things are considered controversial anymore. People are openly talking about myocarditis and have for a long time. There's no question that it's linked to the vaccines and then the biodistribution and the bioactivity, the spike protein. And to me, the true sign of an expert is that you can see patterns in the data. You can look at raw data. You can look at data that's not particularly highly refined. And if you're really an expert, you can see the patterns and you can you not only can you follow the science then but you can see where it's leading to and you know and so the reality is a year and a half ago that was super controversial none of the p i mean i there was a a very well coordinated smear campaign that was initiated within 24 hours of that interview happening um there was a fake website that went up, fake Twitter account,

all kinds of things that destroy my career. My career is permanently damaged. And I was just speaking the truth to a member of the public who asked me a question. And I was just presenting the science as I understood it as an expert, right? It turns out i had foresight which real experts do um nobody has ever apologized to me about that um and my career is just permanently harmed but i guess you know i guess the point is i'm i'm i'm not doing anything differently now i didn't do anything differently a year and a half ago than i did five years ago eight years ago ten years ago when the media was interviewing me and asking me scientific questions. And you're right. I'm constantly called an anti-vaxxer, yet I'm a vaccinal. I love vaccines.

I make vaccines. I promote vaccines. Well, God bless you for your courage. We appreciate you being here and sharing your expertise with us. I promise you, you will go down on the right side of history. And that's what we all need to rely on. So without people like you, we would be in the dark. And so I appreciate you being here.

Thanks. Thank you, Dr. Bridal. Thank you. And we may check back in with you at some point down the road as more of this stuff comes to light. Because as you've said, there's more research to be done. And we would happily review that to you, God willing, if we get to it. Well, yeah yeah there's uh lots of stuff i'd love to chat with you about this drew absolutely all right thank you sir

uh and for kelly oh by the way oh susan we've had several people on the restream and the rumbles say that they lost a significant other or loved one child after after the vaccine. And I just want to say our hearts and prayers go to you and your families. And I can't, there's no words for this. There's no words. And we can't, maybe we ought to do a show just one time where people get to share their stories. But we're, you know, there's a lot of people hurting. A lot of people have gotten hurt. A lot of people are hurting. And we know it. That's why Kelly and I are doing these shows. We want to reduce those risks. And as it pertains to reducing risk, you and I have talked very quickly about the NFL

player that went down. Before we do, I just want to point out one quick thing that Dr. Breidel brought up. It's interesting how his expertise is in data and science we as clinicians as experts in clinical medicine do exactly the same thing we see the patterns we rely on our judgment and then we can predict kind of where things are going and then the science catches up with us typically it's our impressions that usually come first no i i posted the other day and I stand by this. I said, if by conspiracy theorists, you mean I'm able to see patterns, recognize anomalies, question when we are doing something

that we've never done before and dare to question the quote experts, then yes, I'm a conspiracy theorist. This is something that we've always done, Drew. This is what makes a good clinician and a good scientist. So the fact that we are being ridiculed for doing that now is really very dangerous. Odd and dangerous. Yeah, dangerous.

Odd, but you're right. It's actually dangerous. And then as it pertains to the tragedy with Damar Hamlin, there's lots of possible causes there. It was strange to me to see everybody run to Commodio. I mean, that's certainly a very high probability, a real possibility, but very rare in football. Like unheard of, usually from a baseball or a hockey puck. Well, to be clear, commotia cordia, it means, you know, is the production of a cardiac dysrhythmia, you know, meaning the heart begins beating erratically or not at all as a result of a direct blow to the chest. It is incredibly rare in general, but it is why when many of us who trained in CPR, you train when somebody has a cardiac arrest,

their heart stops, is to do what we call a precordial thump, which is to take a closed fist, the size of a baseball, a projectile, and very firmly thump somebody in the middle of the chest with the idea that you could disrupt the abnormal rhythm and get it back into a functional rhythm. The idea that it would occur during football from a relatively tangential blow and with all of the safety equipment, the reason people wear shoulder pads and breastplates and all of that is to diffuse those blows so that there isn't a direct blow. And it's why that type of injury is extraordinarily rare. As I said, it's really almost reportable to happen without a projectile.

So I don't see that. What's concerning to me about what happened was- Go ahead. Go ahead. Keep going. It's possible. It is possible that it was a direct blow. It is possible that Damar Hamlin had an underlying or has an underlying congenital heart condition that hadn't been diagnosed.

Also very unlikely given the amount of scrutiny and the extensive testing that goes on in the NFL prior to that. It's much more common to see something like that happen in a high school basketball player who hasn't had extensive cardiac workup. By the time somebody makes it to the NFL, they have had, but certainly possible. Maybe he's got an underlying congenital issue.

There are other options. What's concerning to me is that I'm expected to consider those options, as rare as they may be, but I am not allowed in the court of public opinion to consider the elephant in the room, which is could this in fact be a vaccine-related thing, given the massive increase we have seen in sudden deaths of athletes since these vaccines were rolled out. And you and I have been discussing this for the last three months, or COVID, or COVID plus vaccine. We were seeing these things and no one is asking the question, what's causing all this? And that is a tragedy.

And some kid almost, you know, Hamlin almost died because I think I'm hearing that things are going well and thank God he's probably going to do okay. Just get, so the setup is for it to do well, but, but my God, I mean, it could have been a pulmonary embolus. It could have been both Parkinson white with a, you know, with a track, you know, accessory track. It could have been a myocarditis. It could have been a million things.

And we'll have to find out. I just weird to me that everyone ran to Camo Show, but okay. And that for you, I guess you got shit on Twitter. You got crapped on for asking about the vaccine today. And I've been asking about his COVID status, too. Let's hear what the COVID status is. Maybe he had COVID three weeks ago. There's been people maybe saying that he had a vaccine on the 26th of December,

but we haven't verified that fact. Why don't they just tell us when it was so that we know? It's not our business yet. But there is a public health issue here. Kelly, go ahead and state it. Right. There is a public health issue. And that's why what I asked, and I truly believe, while I am the first person to respect people's personal health history, this is a public health issue. If you are sitting at the food court at the mall and people start vomiting and having diarrhea, you have a right to ask where they got their food because that's a public health issue. There's an

ongoing potential threat to other people. Likewise, when we see somebody drop down, have a cardiac arrest on national television in the midst of a controversy about the efficacy and safety of these shots, we have a right to know, was this person vaccinated and could this be vaccine related? Or COVID. Or COVID. But let's go back for a second, Drew, to this. Many people have criticized me for saying that there isn't actually an increase in sudden deaths in athletes. It's just that we're more aware of it now. I refute that.

There was a huge study, 38-year study done by the International Olympic Committee going from 1980 to 2004. I'm sorry, 2004. It went back 38 years, it was like a day. And they looked at the average number of sudden cardiac deaths in athletes. And it came out to be an average of just under 29 per year. So say 29 athletes per year suffered from sudden cardiac death. We now are over 1600 since January of 2021 when the vaccines were rolled out. 1600 just in that. So that is more than that 38 years combined. Something is going on and we are required as clinicians, we are required as physicians and

public health people to look into that and to ask that question, what is it? Which is why when people criticize me for asking the question, I would say, I should be ashamed of myself. I should be ashamed if I don't ask those questions. You should be ashamed if you don't ask those questions and you call yourself a clinician or a public health expert because that's your job yep i i completely agree all right let's let it lie till we get more information uh and uh oh here we are here's your i guess one of your tweets we're on the age of a new year it's high time we were getting common sense embrace autonomy assume personal responsibility engage in critical thinking accept risk and return to the old normal. Facts, not fear.

There you go. Kelly Victory, everybody. There she is, the real Kelly Victory. What are you holding, a fish? What are you holding, a trout? What are you holding there? Yes. What is that?

Yeah, it's just my, I was fly fishing. I was fly fishing. Of course you were. Of course you were. All right, listen, great to see you. I'm glad we're all back. Let's hope in 2023 we can really answer these questions and help prevent future difficulties

and get COVID right and get vaccine therapy right. Get it right. That's all we're looking for. We're not looking for a villain. We're not looking to be right. All we want to get right is for our patients. Not that you and I should be right, but that we get it right for a villain. We're not looking to be right. All we want to get right is for our patients. Not that you and I should be right, but that we get it right for our patients. And for the love of God, can we return to civility and discourse?

Why we can't have these discussions without people making ad hominem attacks and cussing is absolute insanity. Let's get it right. Let's have robust, vigorous debate and be respectful in the meantime. And go ahead and put that upcoming list on the screen, if you would, Caleb. We've got some good guests coming up. Next week, Paul Alexander is coming back. I'm going to speak to Dr. Li Meng Yan, who was a Chinese scientist, and get some ideas from her.

Brian Cole's coming back. My Navy SEAL staff member, Remy Adelike, is coming in tomorrow to give me his thoughts on how we all did tonight's show, 8 o'clock. On Fox. Yeah, on Fox, Network Fox. Special Forces. Go check it out. You'll see me get my ass handed to me.

Is that your DVRs? Yeah, shit happens. It's actually a good show. I'm going to talk from Paul Alexander and ask him. I want to hear more about what happened in that room where they decided to make six feet the social distancing norm. Oh, yeah. What exactly went down? I was so shocked

when he told us last time. I was like, oh my God. Now I want to hear what, I want to, I want to, he paint the scene for me and who were the players were, where that came from

and really hear more about that. But again, thank you, Kelly. And tonight, please everybody do tune in to Fox eight o'clock for the special forces show. You will not be disappointed.

Trust me, you will not be disappointed. I don't think they'll ever be able to do television like this again. You want to play the preview, Drew? Oh, sure. We'll put a preview up. I'll say goodbye to Kelly. I mean, it's not fly fishing. It wasn't fly fishing.

It's not fly. It's not trout. It's not trucha. All right. Bye, guys. Here we go. Here's a little preview of what's coming. You're on fire. Hold. Hold. Go, go, go. I don't care how rich or famous they are. They've entered our world and they will play by our rules. You will pick up a number and that is now you. Yes, sir.

This is not an adventure race, this is a military selection. Let's go! You will suffer individually and you'll suffer together. Ow! That's the only way through. Why are you here? This for me is just about taking back my power. I just want to feel like I'm just like worth something.

I've become a little soft. Do I still have that fire? Find another way! If they don't react properly, they could die. I don't care what anybody says. That is scary. This isn't TikTok or Instagram. You can't call your agent. No one's coming to save you. Not mine, but I'm going to send it back.

If you don't quit it, you quit. Drop the attitude now. Fight! Go! You will learn from your pain, because pain retains. Come on, we can do it. I was worried about what I could get out of it, and now it's all about what I can get. It's not about pass or fail on these tasks. Alright, I'm coming back. It is all about what you've got in your head.

You'll be a changed person, for head. You'll be a changed person. For damn sure, you will be a better person. I know Susan is tearing up because she does every time we play that. I'm actually having a party tonight for you. I'm having friends over to watch it with us so we can all cry together. Well, you'll see. You'll get a load of it. With happiness that you made it out alive.

Yes. I can tell my full story tomorrow. Well, soon. I can tell my full story soon. So we'll see. Well, it's kind of obvious. At least I can talk about what you see tonight. All right, everybody.

Thank you for being here. So share if you care, everybody. We'll get Remy in here tomorrow to talk about his experience and his story. And then I really urge you to listen to the interview I do with Dr. Li Meng Yan. Because I heard her on Twitter Spaces. She's not famous. She's Chinese. She has an extraordinary story to tell. And I just thought I'd want to hear more about it.

Inside Scoop. an extraordinary story to tell and i just thought i want to hear more about it so inside and susan has been very concerned aware concerned about what went on as far as this research and i thought this might be a really good we don't use the word conspiracist or or paranoid okay you need to those aren't good words for us i and i and i know caleb has to get some child care. I could tell by when he ran the credits at the top of the hour, essentially. I've ran those credits twice, Drew, by now. All right. Thank you.

Thank you, everybody. And we will see you tomorrow at 3 o'clock Pacific time. Thank you, Caleb, for all you do. Thanks, Caleb. And everybody stay dry out here in the West. Thank you. Bye. 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.