Ask Dr. Drew - Dr. David Wiseman [Ex J&J Scientist] Warns of mRNA Spike Protein w/ Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 157

Episode Date: December 31, 2022

Dr. David Wiseman warned the FDA about the uncertain amount of spike protein induced by mRNA COVID vaccines, but his counsel was mostly ignored – despite his years-long work as a top drug developer and scientist for pharma giant Johnson & Johnson and his Ph.D. in experimental pathology. Dr. Wiseman criticized the CDC's pandemic response and the unreliability of the NEJM Boulware Study (an integral part of revoking the EUA for the H-Word-That-Cannot-Be-Named) but was dismissed by health authorities. "Trust the experts," they say, "just not THOSE experts."  [BROADCAST ON 12/14/2022] Dr. David Wiseman is a PhD Research Bioscientist with a background in pharmacy, pharmacology, immunology and experimental pathology. He was one of the top 66 research scientists at Johnson & Johnson where he headed up a research and development program overseeing preclinical and international clinical research, pharmacovigilance as well as submissions to FDA for products to prevent post-surgical adhesions. Since 1996 he has run his own R&D consulting business, helping companies develop drugs, devices and biologics. He co-founded the world’s first clinic for the integrated treatment of pelvic and abdominal pain and related disorders and pioneered the use of a device for those conditions. Find more about Dr. Wiseman at http://synechion.com 「 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 「 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. Welcome, everyone. Today, our guest is Dr. David Weissman, PhD research bioscientist, pharmacy, pharmacology, immunology, experimental pathology. He's been working in the field since 1996, runs his own research and development organization for drug, device, and biological consulting. He has focused on COVID-19 for the last three years, and his data analyses have, well, they've been sort of reconsidering some of the canon that's out there. And we want to talk to him.

He's got some grave concerns, and we want to hear him out. So Dr. Kelly, of course, is here as always. And we are out on the restream. We are also at Rumble with the Rants. I see you guys piling in there. And of course, we are on Twitter spaces where you can listen along. I don't think I'll be taking calls today, but I'll let you know certainly if there is that opportunity.

We will be in here, Susan, tomorrow, I believe, taking calls. Yes. So we will. No, we have Ram and Bruce. Well, there may be some calls on that as well. So check it out. We will bring Dr. Kelly and Dr. Weissman in right after this. Our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre.

A psychopath started this. He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction, fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous. I'm a doctor for f***'s sake. Where the hell do you think I learned that? I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people. I am a clinician.

I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat. If you have trouble, you can't stop and you want to help stop it, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. Welcome, everyone. As always, we'll have Dr. Kelly Victor in here in just a couple of minutes. But first, again, Dr. Weissman is a PhD research bioscientist.

We wanted to hear his thoughts. He's got a few slides for us today as well, which I suspect we will start to get into, dig into when Kelly comes in. So I'm going to bring her in a bit early. But let's welcome Dr. Weissman to the program. Thank you. Thank you for having me. Thank you for being here. You bet. Is there any place, before we get on with this, a place you'd like to send people or follow you on Twitter or find your website if they want more information? Yeah, I have a website. I think you guys have it, synechion, S-Y-N-E-C-H-I-O-N.com.

I'm also on Trial Site News. I'm, I guess, a contributor, and you can find me there with a list of all my work, trialsitenews.com. Very good. And we have Soneky on up there right now. So if they have trouble spelling it, it is on the screen. S-Y-N-E-C-H-I-O-N. So when did you start becoming concerned about some of the COVID-19 research? What sort of got you

involved in reconsidering things? Well, I was not really thinking too much about COVID in March of 2020. And then a family member said I should watch a certain video with a doctor. I'm not sure I'm allowed to say his name, what the rules on doctors' names are. It's only the medicines are what you can't say. You can say names, you can't say medicines. If the name begins with the letter Z, is that okay? Can I? Yes. I can say, I can say Dr. Zelenko. So a family member asked me to watch a video with Dr. Zelenko about the work he was doing. And, and, uh, I, I did it sort of more out of, you know, courtesy to my family member. But then I was listening to it, and it started to make sense.

And I said, wow, this guy's got a story with a certain drug beginning with a letter that comes after the letter G in the alphabet. And he added zinc to the – is that okay? Is that too much there? Yes, yes. And with zinc. And I said, wow, there's a story here. I think he's really got something. So I dived into it and I said, wow, there is really a story of zinc dysregulation, and that got me in.

And then I started looking at clinical trials that I could design using zinc and some other drugs other than that particular one, such as quercetin and other things, to see if we could get something going. And long story short, I ended up looking at a paper that got published in the New England Journal of Medicine on that drug whose name we can't pronounce. And it was the Bulwess study. And it I was surprised because I was expecting that it wouldn't work.

And yet there were signals in the paper that suggested something's going on. And, again, the long story short, I got hold of the raw data for that paper. And and literally drew within two minutes of opening the Excel file. I figured out what had gone wrong. The authors, the workers had failed to account for the time it took to ship the drug overnight, they thought, to the people in the study. And anyone who's ever ordered anything online knows that overnight shipping does not always mean overnight shipping. So I said, listen, you've got to give me the shipping data here.

And after about three months and dozens of emails, I received the data. I plugged it in, and I found if you gave that drug within three days of exposure, there was about a 40-something percent reduction, statistically significant reduction in COVID. And this was one of the two papers that basically, well, the really one paper that closed down hydroxychloroquine in, oh, sorry, in terms of the emergency use authorization. This was highly significant. So I wrote it up with my co-authors and we sent it to the New England Journal of Medicine. This is a significant error in the study, either retraction worthy or correction worthy. And yet here is evidence that that paper was significantly wrong. The whole

world had relied on that paper. And the New England Journal of Medicine's reason for rejecting it within 18 hours was not on any scientific merit. It was merely because they felt it lacked the focus and interest of the readers. And that was about January the 3rd, 2021, a day which saw one of the highest number of deaths in the world overall of COVID, about 8,000 deaths. I think there were about 3,000 or 4,000 deaths in the United States. What do you surmise happened here? I mean, there's many, many sort of historical little vignettes we could run through where sort of the behavior of science suddenly became bizarre and tainted in some way that was hard to understand. I'm just thinking about even the Danish mask study. When there was so much excitement about that study, we're finally going to understand if masks are going to work.

Turned out to be negative. Nobody would publish it except for Annals of Internal Medicine. That to me was an astonishing moment. It was supposed to be in the New England Journal if I understand how that was being laid out at the time. But what do you think happened to us? Well, I think in that particular study, I think actually was actually, in most respects, it was actually a very good study and well-designed. It was done very quickly under the pandemic conditions.

And I think they actually did a fairly good job. I don't think that they deliberately conspired in any way to rig the data, as some people might suggest. I do not think that's the case. I think it was an honest mistake that happened. And honest mistakes do happen in science. But once that paper got, you know, put up right at the pinnacle of whatever was going on in COVID, you remember what was going on with President Trump and so on and so forth. It was a huge thing. And so once someone's out there and they've sort of set their position for themselves, it's very hard for someone to retract from that position just from a sort of personal reputation, if that's the right word, or a

personal appearance kind of fashion. And so I think a lot of people dug themselves into holes that they couldn't get out of. And that's, that's just one. I mean, we can come up with other answers. I mean, I can't,

it's baffling to me. It's still kind of baffling. I, there's so many questions that I would love to know, for instance, the relative risk of vaccine versus COVID in terms of deleterious outcomes of all types, just like in a 25-year-old, just take a single age cohort. 25-year-olds, I still can't figure out what the risk reward is yet. And that seems like a dire,

a critically important question. I wonder if somebody's asking it and looking into it. I've actually asked that question. I've asked that question. So at the October 26, 2021 meeting of the FDA's advisory panel, this was to consider the five to 11- old Pfizer vaccination, FDA did actually do a calculation along the lines that you're describing. And I think that, to my knowledge, that was the first time I saw one. I went through it. And in fact, there was a lot of criticism from the committee, you know, you should have included this, you should have included natural immunity, and so on. You've overestimated this, you've underestimated that, and so on. So I went through it, and I added in, you know, other risks that beyond myocarditis that FDA, actually FDA had fairly represented, they knew it was

underreported in VAERS, so they used a higher number, much to the chagrin of CDC, interestingly. But I went in, and I've done it now several times for different age groups. I haven't done it for 25 year olds, but I've done it for, you know, five to 11 and 11, 12 to 15 in different ways. And I've included other kinds of adverse events like neurological events and severe adverse events. So what it turns out to be in the FDA's initial analysis, they had approximately a, I think it was a five to one benefit over risk approximately, if my numbers are correct. When I calculated, I reversed that to about 20 to one or even greater in the opposite direction. And obviously there's- How'd they get that so wrong? How'd they get that so wrong? I think I've got a paper on that somewhere.

One of the things they did was they didn't include the effect of natural immunity, for example. They didn't include the effect of other severe adverse events that were being reported in VAERS. Whether or not there was causality, they have to assume that there was causality for the purpose of that particular exercise. And one of the big things that I think they calculated wrongly, based on the Pfizer data, how many cases would be averted based on the actual numbers within the study, they overestimated that by about 2.1 fold, if I remember correctly. They corrected it later in another version they published in February, March time, but not at that time. So there are calculations that are available. The problem with that, Drew, is that, and this again speaks to the transparency issue, FDA now went ahead, they published this riskbenefit calculation with a formula with a model in a peer-reviewed journal and as you will know oftentimes it says

you know for more information for a copy of this this and this please write to the author so I wrote to the author who had stated in the paper that they could give us a copy of this model the the Excel spreadsheet rather than receive that I was then transferred to a FOI, Freedom of Information person within the FDA. He says, no, you have to file an FOI request to do that. I mean, I think that's completely ridiculous. So the models are out there. If someone files an FOI for me, let's get the model and see how FDA actually did it. But here's the problem, Drew. It doesn't matter anymore because

FDA are now no longer even going there. They're just using an extrapolative approach. Their approach to authorizing the bivalent, and we'll talk about whether they're really bivalent a little later, but their approach to authorizing in the beginning of September the bivalent Omicron BA5 and Wuhan was not to consider any type of risk-benefit analysis. It was merely an extrapolative approach. So they had no data. You cannot perform a risk-benefit analysis if you have no data. So they're just going to extrapolate from what they think they know from other types

of studies. All right. I want to get Kelly in here as fast as possible today. I know you've got some slides for us. We're going to kind of head through. So let's take a quick break and we'll bring Kelly in with Dr. David Weissman. I want to give the gift that keeps on giving. GenuCell skincare 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. That is Genucel.com slash Drew, G-E-N-U-C-E-L dot com slash Drew. Economic turmoil has a lot of people wondering what our government will do next. Will it be more wasteful spending, higher taxes? How do you protect your hard-earned savings? The answer could be gold. Gold is the world's oldest, most proven form of currency. It's there when inflation soars and when other assets go sideways. And that's why Birch Gold is thrilled to introduce a new product

that reimagines gold as currency, the Goldback. This month, you'll get a free Goldback for every $5,000 purchased when you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a precious metals IRA with Birch Gold by December 22nd, Susan's birthday, incidentally. Birch Gold will help you own gold and silver in a tax-sheltered account. Visit birchgold.com slash drew to claim your free info kit on gold and then talk to one of their precious metals specialists. Reminder, I do not give financial advice. This is not financial advice, but you can go to Birch Gold, and with every purchase

you make before December 22nd, you'll get a free gold back. This is a stocking stuffer just in time for Christmas. Once again, visit birchgold.com slash droob. Protect your savings with gold today. 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 of public health to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population. This is uncharted territory, Drew. And let's welcome Dr. Kelly Victory. Whoops, there we are. It is important, so we should repeat it. Dr. Weissman, thanks very much for joining us. I've been so looking forward to this conversation. One thing that was left out in Drew's introduction is that you have, in addition to your extensive scientific background, you served as one of the lead senior scientists at Johnson & Johnson for years so of all of the experts that

we've had on these shows you perhaps have the most in-depth experience with a pharmaceutical manufacturer as well as with the FDA and I want to bring that to bear in this conversation so what I'd like to do is I would say for a few years i was i was i was i was i think i was the youngest person to hold to be one of the 66 top research scientists at the time um so i wouldn't say i held it for years because then i left and started my own company but we've been deeply involved with all the fba stuff but thank you for um thank you for that no and you have it well so what i'd like to do is take the liberty of of taking us back up regardless of what you know a particular study that somebody

knows or how well versed they are in the actual science i think at this point in the in the you know december 2022 i think we can all acknowledge that this has not gone well. This entire pandemic response hasn't gone well. The vaccine rollout hasn't gone well. The effectiveness, the safety, there are a lot of problems. So what I want to do is take us back up to 50,000 feet and look at, let's start with where this thing went off the rails from the perspective of the FDA, your previous experience with it, vaccine manufacturer, pharmaceuticals, all of that. And I know you don't have that kind of interaction or experience with the CDC, but the CDC is the sister organization to the FDA. So I think that they are somewhat joined. The FDA, for people who don't know, has been

in existence for well over a century. It was put in place by an act of Congress back in the late 1890s. They initially were tasked with assuring the accuracy of labeling. And then sometime in the 1930s, I believe it was, they were tasked with assuring the safety of drugs and therapeutics. And then sometime in the early 60s, efficacy was added to their mandate. So suffice to say, the FDA is the organization that is tasked with assuring the accuracy,

safety, and efficacy of any drugs or therapeutics that are put out to the American people. And the CDC, if you go to their website, their, quote, pledge to the American people is to, quote, base every public health decision on the highest quality scientific data that is done openly and honestly so given those two things what the FDA's mandate is and what the the mission statement is of the CDC from your perspective where did this thing breach where did the erosion of the standards of the FDA and the CDC start? Okay, so that's a really, that's a central question. So I think the first thing that people need to understand is the word safe and effective. And I'm sure everyone's heard it

splashed around everywhere. So we need to understand what that means, and then what it doesn't mean, and what it is thought to mean at current. And then we'll be able to answer your question. So in a normal situation, a medical product of a new drug, let's say, is going to come on the market. the information that the drug manufacturer provides and the studies that the FDA have asked them to do, that the drug is both safe and effective, as you've mentioned in the historical introduction there. Because under certain conditions, the FDA can lower those standards, okay? And people don't realize that that's the case.

But the standard that is employed for the emergency use authorization, which is a, as the name exactly implies, is not that the drug or the new product has to be safe and effective. It has to be, the word is maybe effective. That's a technical term that's used in the various documentation. So the company is not required to go the whole hog, and the FDA is not required to insist on a much larger range of studies that would show effectiveness, but merely they have to believe, based on a number of things, that the drug may be effective. So whenever you hear the word safe and effective, that's absolutely not correct.

But best all FDA have done is determine to their standard that the drug may be effective. Now, in terms of safety, that definition is a little harder to sort of get your head around. But rather than use the word safe, the documents say that FDA have to something like assure themselves or satisfy themselves that they believe that the potential and known benefits outweigh the potential and known risks. So that's a slightly different version of saying safe.

It's not the same thing. So that's OK in a pandemic situation. But obviously, that has to be backed up with real data and any drug, even in a normal situation. There's always new data coming out. And FDA is always obliged, the company's always obliged to update their safety profile based on the best known information currently. So I think one of the main problems is that there was a rush to get this out of there. FDA took a lot of shortcuts. We'll show a couple of slides in a moment where they took some shortcuts, and they didn't backfill those things. And to Drew's

question earlier, why did this happen? I think people made potentially honest mistakes in some cases, some cases, I think, more reckless than that. But it's very hard for people to dig themselves out of those sorts of holes. So I think that we had a perfect storm of things that happened. Plus, you know, we can't ignore the politics. You know, the two of the FDA senior people resigned about a year ago, Drs. Gruber and Krause. They felt there was too much interference from the CDC or the White House, I believe.

So there was a perfect storm with lots of things happening. So I think that was the beginning of the story, and then let's see how it rolls out from there. Well, thank you for that. The reason I think that this issue of safe and effective isn't just you know verbiage isn't just terminology or you know uh because you cannot that risk benefit calculation that i was talking about in my intro uh which everything in medicine boils down to you can't make a riskfit calculation if you don't understand the safety and the efficacy

components those are the two uh the two factors in in safe and effective so if you knew for example that a therapy or a drug or an intervention was 100 safe then you might say well i don't really know you might may or may not be effective, but what do I have to risk? If it's 100% risk or safe, there's not one chance in hell that I could be harmed, yeah, then I will try it if there's any chance it's effective. If on the other hand, you knew that it was 100% effective, absolutely would stop the bad thing from happening, you might be willing to take more of a safety risk. But if you don't know either ends of that calculation,

and it sounds like with these, we really didn't, they didn't know the efficacy of the vaccine and they didn't run the appropriate tests, the appropriate studies, the appropriate, you know, they didn't look at what they needed to look at to prove safety, then you're really in a bind if you're totally incapable of making an accurate risk-benefit analysis. Well, and I think it's important to add into the component that, you know, there was such a huge,

and you know the funding that went into this, huge public relations, you know, peer pressure campaign to convince people, oh, you do it for the benefit of your community because we'll stop transmission. And we know that the studies were never designed to detect whether or not the vaccine reduced transmission. Right. Sorry. So, as you say, so let's, so absolutely. So let's get now a little bit,

you know, we get maybe down to 30,000, Pete, and start talking about these specific things that we are referencing as vaccines. And first of all, I think I could say, you know, with surety that none of the three of us are anti-vaccine on anything but. I personally have spoken and written prolifically in my career about the importance of vaccination. I'm more vaccinated than the average individual because of where I've chosen to travel and what I've done for a living. But I think that the idea that we are calling them vaccines

when they in fact are more appropriately should be termed gene therapy. And I want to talk about why that's important. Again, this is not just terminology because it really gets to the heart of what the FDA's protocols are in managing vaccines versus managing something that had it been called a gene therapy. So talk us through that from the FDA. How do those two classes of therapeutics differ in terms of the way the FDA would normally approach them?

Okay, so there's many different classifications of medical products and and and in in some of the writings of Moderna in their SEC filing of to one of the fines in 2020 in documents that the Pfizer that BioNTech had written they were fully expecting that these products would be regulated as gene therapy products and an FDA has a definition of what that means they don't have to stick to it. But the definition, you know, broadly includes the delivery of nucleic acids, which is, you know, RNA stands for ribonucleic acid. So RNA is definitely a nucleic acid. I don't think anyone is going to challenge that. So they fully expected these things to be regulated as gene therapy products. There is a guidance document the FDA has that spells out what that regulation means as a guidance. And that means potentially

that the FDA is concerned of a number of gene kinds of anomalies that could occur as a result of the delivery of this product. And that could lead to things such as cancers, autoimmune disease, neurologic and hematologic disease. And for that reason, a part of that guidance insists that the companies would need to do at least a five to 15 year follow up, depending on the case by case basis. Now, in the get-out-of-jail-free card of that guidance document, and this has been in existence for a long time, well before COVID, the get-out-of-jail-free card is that the guidance document does not apply to gene therapy products that offer vaccines for infectious diseases. So on the one hand, it falls under the biological definition, but for some reason, many years ago, FDA decided to exclude

vaccines from that consideration. Here's the problem though, Kelly. We have many examples in medical products where a product might sort of fall under two different categories. You don't have to make a decision that it has to go only under one or only under the other. You can regulate the product as if it was both kinds of categories in certain ways by bringing in the different sections of the FDA that are responsible for those different types of submissions. That's the first thing. The second thing is, Kelly, this is such a new product. We have no, as Dr. Ball or Albert Ball, the president of Pfizer said in an interview earlier this year,

he said, you know, no mRNA product had come onto the market prior to this. This was totally counterintuitive to even to think about this when they first started developing this. But here's the rub. FDA actually have, under Peter Marks, a whole section within them of gene therapy and tissue therapy professionals or scientists and so on who review these sorts of submissions. And their work includes work on influenza gene therapy vaccines. So you can't have your cake and eat it, Kelly. You can't say, well, we're excluding it from gene therapy, when in fact, the FDA themselves are doing research on influenza gene therapies. And as you probably know, it was announced just a few weeks ago that Pfizer had begun clinical studies for a combination flu vaccine, mRNA version of flu vaccine, and the COVID vaccine in one product. So there's such a lot of crossover here.

There's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have been publicly consulted. And that's the problem. They have not been publicly consulted. We don't know whether they've been privately consulted. But the main difference is in the length of the follow-up and the types of studies that are done. And if you look at the regulatory documents, time and time and time again, Pfizer will say this type of study is not needed

because generally it's not needed for vaccines. This type of study, et cetera, et cetera. And FDA haven't followed through. Even if it was true that it's not necessary for normal kinds of vaccines, these are without question gene therapies, absolutely no question. And people need to understand that.

Well, and let's talk about just even with vaccine, out question gene therapies, absolutely no question. And people need to understand that. Well, and let's talk about just even with vaccines, David, you know, there's a reason why the average vaccine takes eight to 10 years to come to market if it ever comes to market at all, because these sorts of studies take a long time. These, you know, whether you want to call them the COVID shots, were never tested on huge groups of people. They were never tested on pregnant or lactating women.

They were never tested on children. They were never tested on people with underlying autoimmune diseases. They were never tested on people who'd had and recovered from COVID. Those things take a long time. Furthermore, I have summarized in my more rudimentary understanding of gene therapies, the three, what I call the three greatest falsehoods. We were told about these mRNA shots, which is number one, we were told that they would stay in the deltoid muscle where they were injected. Number two, we were told that you would eliminate the mRNA very quickly from your body. Still as of today, it's on the CDC website that

you will eliminate it in a quote matter of days. And number three, we were told that no way, no how could it actually make it into the actual DNA that it could not be incorporated and would not change your. We know that all three of those things are not true. You mentioned Dr. Marks. Let's start talking at a little more granular level, and you can get into the weeds a bit on this. I just rattled off what I call the top three lies or inaccuracies we were told about mRNA. Let's get into that a little bit. What, from your perspective, what are the things that they know, knew then,

maybe didn't know then, but sure as heck know now, what have you discovered in these FOIA requests and things that were not made public without kicking and screaming? What do we know now about this mRNA okay I mean some of the things actually are hidden in plain sight Kelly they're not they're not not everything had to be discerned from a FOIA request but but the first the first thing to understand is that we were told this is mRNA okay in the in the

FDA's documents before a FOIA they use the term nucleoside modified RNA. Okay, so that's the usual terminology that everyone's seen on the screen there. But the FDA use a different term called MOD, M-O-D, RNA, modified RNA. And what that means is several things. First of all, in the genetic code, there are four letters that make up the words of the genetic code in rna terms they are um gca and u okay it doesn't matter what they mean but the u the let the u thing the u chemical has been changed to its uridine has been changed to something called pseudo-uridine okay and and it's been put there for a reason it's been put there to increase the stability and reduce the attack by the immune system on this foreign RNA. So the pseudouridine is put there.

Dr. Sahin, in one of his papers, the founder of BioNTech in 2014, wrote a big review article where he said, you know, repeated use of this thing and the pseudouridine could be toxic in various ways. So that's the first thing about the mRNA. It's been modified. Second of all, people don't realize you've been told this is the instructions that copy the instructions that the virus uses to make its own spike protein. Instead, our body is now coerced into producing this. That gene sequence in the vaccine contains two human gene sequences, okay? Human gene sequences, and they've been put there for certain reasons. And I'm not sure if I have one of the slides there, but there's a WHO, World Health Organization guidelines that say manufacturers have to account for every part of the of the gene sequence what is what is it there what is what is the sequence what are the particular sub sequences and what

what are they doing there and what what what is their purpose so we don't know any of that in fact we don't even know officially what the sequence is and that's that's a that's a big hole so so that's that's the that's the first thing um the The second thing to note is that, is in terms of where does this stuff go? Any drug, as you well know, any drug that goes onto the market, one of the fundamental questions that has to be known is when you give the drug by mouth, by injection, whatever,

the manufacturer has to be able to tell the FDA and the public exactly where does that drug go in the body? How long does it take to get there? How long does it stay there? And how long does it take to get out of the body? Or if it's metabolized, if it's broken down into some breakdown products? Okay. We don't know what that is for the spike protein. And as you said, that one of the things on the CDC website, it said it was only going to be around for a short amount of time. This question was asked by a panel member, Dr. Portnoy to Pfizer on June the 15th, I think it was this year. And he asked him to, you know, say, where, where does this stuff go? How long is it, you know, how long does it long does the production of the spike protein persist for?

And the answer that was given by the Pfizer gentleman was that this is very nice to know. We don't really fully understand the mechanism of action of these vaccines, and it's an academic question, okay? these vaccines and it's an academic question okay i mean that is absolutely an astounding admission on the part of pfizer of something that is so fundamental if you don't know where this is going in your body how long is it going for and when does it eliminate you shouldn't you shouldn't be using it and we know that this does go in many places now we know from four requests that the lipid land of particles go in all over the body, they accumulate in a number of places, including the ovary, okay. And, and, and, and

there's expression of the gene for a long time. We know that now, from other studies that have been published up to 60 days, the Rolton paper, think about a year ago, roughly early early this year, perhaps up to 60 days. And we're finding evidence that this spike protein remains around for a long, long time. We know another paper just came out recently that there's other modifications that happen inside the cell to the mRNA that allow it to stay around for much longer.

So there's so much we don't know about this. This is the sort of stuff that would take 10 years to do. And the Pfizer head of R&D, vaccine R&D, who recently retired, Dr. Janssen, not to be confused with the Janssen division of Johnson & Johnson, she was quoted in an interview recently in Nature magazine of saying, we built the airplane,

we flew the airplane while we were building it. Okay. We condensed 10 years of work into nine months. You know, that, that was bragging. Are you proud of that? You look what you've missed. You've missed all these studies. You haven't reported.

Where does it go? How long does it go there for? These are such fundamental studies. And to just dismiss them as being academic, I think is beyond a level of arrogance, quite frankly. I have a question. So this thing's been given, we're going to look at the slides in just a second, but this vaccine's been given billions of times. Would that be a reasonable estimate?

Yes. At least a billion. And you had said that you thought the, at least in the younger population, the adverse event versus benefit was around 20 to 1, right? Did I get that right? It could be more than, yeah. Could be more. Yes. Now, so this thing was developed under extraordinary conditions, right?

And we all get that. And they took extraordinary risk. And they maybe took too much risk and maybe too much went on. My question is sort of, again, it's sort of a philosophical question. It's still up around 30,000 feet with Dr. Kelly. Why forge on with the same intensity? Why roll on with this thing? Now, on one hand, people are starting to blame some of the excess mortality and some of the weird, you know, psychological and vascular problems we're seeing. It's starting to get blamed on COVID, right? People are saying, no, it's not the vaccine,

it's COVID. And that, again, because the relative risk stuff is still in question, I don't think that's been answered yet. But certainly, wouldn't you expect that if it had been given billions of times, we would see even more problems than we're seeing? I mean, why are we seeing this? On one hand, it's good news. We're seeing relatively few. Let's say the excess mortality is caused by the vaccine. It would cause some prudence.

Let's be careful. Let's roll this back. Let's not forge on the way they've been forging on. My question really is, why do they forge on with such a hubris? Well, I think, you know, you said it in my opinion, we're not seeing X, Y, Z. Well, the thing is, a number of us are seeing signals. And again, I just want to be really careful here. As a scientist, we, you know, we have to distinguish a signal that says okay there's something here versus proving

it actually you know is the cause of something but but having a signal in a an experimental product which is what this is is important and we and we're obliged intellectually and morally and everything else to say there's a signal, we have to stop and take a deep breath and look at it. So that's the first thing. But whenever people have brought up these so-called signals, that they haven't been able to publish them, they've been deplatformed.

Look at that little note that comes up at the bottom of the screen if I mention a certain word. Why is that? What is going on? What is, indeed, I would like to ask you that question. Here, look, there we go. Well, and as I said, as I said, this is... Right there, it says it's safe and effective.

No, no, it's not correct, the CDC. The FDA have not determined this is safe and effective. They've determined this may be effective. That is an incorrect statement. So right there, right there, that's a problem. You are being forced to put that language on the bottom of your screen when it is incorrect. FDA have not determined this to be safe and effective. All they have done is determined that it meets the standard of may be effective. That's it. And so anyone who comes out has a problem. The reason I was quoting from the CDC's own website with regard to their words, not mine, their pledge to the American people, number one, is to base all public health decisions on the highest quality research conducted openly and and made uh made transparent this is on that's their pledge and clearly they haven't done this so although drew you may be right that early on uh there was panic about it even if i was willing to be to give them that early on there was panic

and early on they didn't know they were safe and effective treatments. So early on we thought everybody was going to die. So early on we could do... Okay, now fast forward. It's now December of 2022. It is absolutely unconscionable. It's inexcusable that the organization that states that their pledge to the American people is to base their decisions on the highest quality research is refusing to look at what David is calling the signals. You're correct. We can't say with surety that any particular increase in mortality or increase in a particular class of medical issues is directly a result of the vaccines. We can get into, as you know, Ryan Cole has indicated he could tell the difference between spike protein in tissue, spike protein that occurred from the virus versus spike protein that occurred from the vaccine. So I'm not so sure that we can't actually prove

if it was the vaccine or the virus. But what you and I have said, Drew, over and over again, is the CDC and the FDA are obligated, based on their public health mandate, to be not just investigating, but really inputting all of their resources towards looking at these things. And that is what's going down. Yeah. Well, as opposed to all their resources towards rolling on with this thing. Okay. So let me give you a couple of examples. First of all, you know, I've caught and I've documented this. You know, one of the things that I've been doing for the last year or so is attending virtually these various FDA and CDC meetings and writing written comments to them.

So there's a list of those on my trial site page and my Synecdon page of what they are. Anyone can access them. So, for example, I feel that the committees have been manipulated in some cases. They haven't been given the whole story. Dr. Paul Offit has sort of said something sort of similar. But I remember back in January, February, when they were considering, what was it, boosters for 12-year-olds or something like that, and they had a review of the data, and the data had an artificial cutoff of December the 12th or something, and only data before that was considered.

They didn't consider what was going on in Omicron, which they knew full well about, where the efficacy was tanking. And they set this arbitrary cutoff to not show those data to the panel members. And there was a couple of other incidents of that also. So as to the conducting science at the highest level, that's one example. Secondly, the signal detection,

there's various methods of detecting signals mathematically. Again, they're signals, they're not, you know, proofs, but they're signals, is that they were supposed to have done something called a PRR analysis. It doesn't matter what that means. But they didn't do it. And an FOI request was made, and they said they didn't do it. And then they said they did, they didn't, I'm not sure where they are at this point but i did it along with uh co-co-collaborated dr getzko we did it back in in september october of last year and we were showing signals for a number of things heart attacks blood clots uh all sorts of things okay using their methodology and using an improved methodology fda have now published of between FDA, CDC and NIH,

hidden in plain sight, there are several papers, Day, Harpaz, Lloyd, other papers are coming out where they put some signal analysis of various kind of one H-U-A-N-G. They have a website, you can go and do a calculation on the website. And there's signals that are clearly there. Okay. And why aren't they being followed up on the react 19 group who I just spoke with just before I came on had a meeting today with with with Dr. Peter Marks, who still says, Well, you know, we still like to talk to you, but we can't see any signals. We don't know what they're looking at. They won't share the analyses with us. Okay, because everyone else is seeing signals why aren't you okay and and and that has been the tremendous frustration we're

writing these things I'm writing them to so they say CDC FDA they don't want to talk to us they don't want to we get three minutes if we're lucky one of these meetings and that's it right and you know Drew used the word hubris and that is precisely the correct word in my mind. The follow-up question that was asked by Dr. Portnoy, if I'm correct in that FDA panel that you were talking about, was he asked specifically, has anyone looked at, you're giving this mRNA shot with the intention of giving people's body the blueprint or the direction manual to start creating spike proteins. Have you looked at exactly which tissues in the body will start to produce those spike

proteins for how long they will do it and what amount, how much spike protein? And the woman who answered the question, the same that we built the plane while we were flying at that, she reacted. She was so dismissive in her answer. She essentially said, well, a lot, it's making a lot. And no, we never looked, we can't tell you exactly how much, but it's a lot. And acted as if, and then walked off the stage. It's this dismissiveness rather than saying, that's an excellent question and something that we are obligated to look at. And here is our plan. Instead, it's quite the opposite in my mind, David. They are not only not looking at the signals, they are trying very hard to dismiss them.

And I find that really, really problematic. We mentioned also there are fragments of protein, there are improperly folded protein, and maybe, David, we should get into this story about the different kinds of spike protein. Okay. So that's where I was going to take it. Just to get up on the screen there.

Yes, I'm pulling it up. So just to preface this, so I think a message that everyone needs to understand is that your body is being coerced, hijacked. That's the purpose of these. I'll keep that one on the screen, will you? I want to, you've got to look at this slide. Your body is being hijacked by these vaccines to produce vaccine to produce proteins it doesn't normally produce and that has consequences and we don't know exactly

where in the body but it's multiple places the lipid nanoparticles are designed to go everywhere your body is not designed to produce proteins that it is not normally producing and that can render them susceptible to attack to you know by an autoimmune processes, other kinds of processes. And that's, that's the key thing. And it's doing it in an uncontrolled, undefined way, because as quantifies it, it's an academic question. By the way, Moderna asked us answered a similar type of question, slightly more respectfully, they still didn't give a very good answer. But it was it didn't it didn't have the same timbre as the Pfizer answer.

But anyway, this slide here, you know, we were talking about the erosion of FDA, you know, standards. This puts a lump in my throat every time I see it. This was an efficacy analysis to support the 5 to 11-year-old Pfizer application in October 2021. And this is FDA's review of the data. The important part on this slide is that little red box on the bottom. The red is mine, but the black writing is original to the slide. And it says analysis not verified by the FDA. This was the fundamental efficacy analysis that was used to justify a 90 something percent efficacy in five

to 11 year old children. And a fundamental job of FDA before it starts going into any weeds whatsoever is just to make sure the numbers add up properly. And some reason that the red circles have just gotten dislocated on your screen there. But but the the numbers of COVID cases were three in the vaccine group and 16 in the placebo group. This is a fundamental job of FDA. They just have to make sure the numbers add up properly. And it wasn't just this slide. They did it on a whole set of Janssen analyses and on some Moderna analyses and then even in molnupiravir in a different context, in a COVID context. This is a fundamental problem. If FDA aren't even checking that the numbers add up correctly, you know, we can theorize about protein folding. That's way more complicated.

You only have to be wrong by a little bit to make those numbers three and 16, which are hidden by the red circles right now, to make them wrong, and it would change your calculation entirely. So this is a really, really important slide people need to see, and there's more like it. If you go to the one about the spike protein, Caleb, keep going, keep going. Okay, this one. Okay, so this is really important. We're now talking about the bivalent vaccine. Bivalent means two. B-I- means two. Okay. And the idea here was that these new updated vaccines would have a little bit of the original Wuhan strain from the original version of the vaccine, and they would have a Omicron strain mixed in with it, which is the BA4 slash 5 strain. And so according to the story,

we should expect to see two types of spike proteins. So we've got the blue one on the left, we'll call that the Wuhan one. And we've got the completely brown one on the right, which is the Omicron one. Now, in reality, these spike proteins are made up of three components. It's like three legs of a stool. The stool has three legs and they're all identical. When each leg gets produced by the result of the mRNA, the three legs self-assemble and they form this three-in-one spike protein. What Moderna revealed at the CDC meeting in September was that since they load the mRNAs for the two kinds, the Omicron and the Wuhan, in the same

lipid nanoparticle, the same little fat bubble that is used to deliver this all around the body, any given cell could receive the two kinds of mRNAs at one time, and they could produce legs of each kind. They can produce the Wuhan leg or a Omicron leg. And when there are three of them, regardless of what type they are, they can assemble. So you can actually get potentially four kinds of stools produced. You can get the all Wuhan type, all Omicron type, or you can have two Omicron and one Wuhan, or one and two and the other way around. That means there are four different kinds of spike proteins that are produced. And so to call this a bivalent vaccine is potentially incorrect.

They're doing it, they say, because this actually leads to a better immunological effect. There's a better, these new molecules do something that is not expected by having the old way of doing it. Anytime you change a single atom in a drug, you change its chemistry, you change its pharmacology, its drug action, you potentially change its toxicology. And so to grandfather these things in, extrapolating from earlier data is completely ridiculous. You have new pharmacology here. So I can tell you, Kelly, I have a question.

How did they document a better effect? That means somehow they must have been able to have a cohort that had the two pure strains without the two mixed strains and compare it against the pure and mixed strains. I doubt they did that. I doubt they could even do it, let alone did it. And so on what basis do they claim better immunological effect?

To me, that's a smoking gun, man. That is outrageous. I think what they might have done was they would have done animal studies, number one, and number two at they can look at different antibody binding profiles as well and and from those things they it certainly was not in a human clinical study that's for sure that is for sure there's no human clinical studies for this it's only mice or or test tubes okay okay but but nonetheless they they they've made the claim this is their these words in the yellow box there this actually leads to more open confirmation that should be with an oh I'm sorry miss felt

that and they're saying they're saying that this is new pharmacology okay so I'm saying new pharmacology means new toxicology as of about two hours ago the react 19 group met with the FDA they met with Peter marks and they asked him are you aware that this could happen? And basically, he said, yes. And are you aware that this could lead to new toxicology? He sort of tried to back down, apparently, and say, well, well, just because there's a different antigenic response, it doesn't mean that the safety profile is different. Well, I have a really hard time in knowing how he knows that. So FDA, if you're listening, and I hope you are,

you need to explain exactly what you said to Brie Dressen and Joel Walskog about two hours ago this afternoon, and show what studies did you do to show that there's no effect on the safety of these things. He couldn't even tell you whether there's two, three, or four of these things. I'd have to defer to someone. Why don't you know this? You've just authorized these bivalent vaccines for millions of children or millions of people all the way down to six months, and you don't know the answer to this question? That should be on the top of your head. Okay, and then what happens in Pfizer? What I was going to say here, David, and I think what's so important for people to understand is that saying what you're saying doesn't make you anti-vaccine. What it makes you is pro-safety and pro-data.

These, they don't know because they didn't do the studies. There was not a single human study done on the bivalent vaccines, which I now think we should be calling quadrivalent, based on just what you are saying right here. Kelly, Kelly, Kelly. So Drew asked a question just before we came on the show, and he was talking about enantiomers and so on. I had to think about that. And I've got an answer for you, Drew, if you're still there I think they're here and interested okay so so yeah so the question the question that drew are asked was you know you have this thing called stereo isomers okay I'm not going to try and explain what that means but but drew knows what it okay so there are images mirror

images mirror mirror images thank you that's a good good way of saying so so I'm gonna put this out there. Someone needs to get back to us and try and figure this out. But there is a potential source of that. And that is as follows. In the spike protein that occurs in the virus, you've got the three-legged spike protein. One of those legs pops up the receptor binding domain okay so not all three pop up their receptor binding domain only one of them does if that's the case then i suppose you could have a situation even in let's say the two to one version the blue brown thing that i just showed you a moment ago you can have a situation that where you've got two versions of that where the receptor binding

domain is on the blue one or on the brown one i'd like to i'd like to get some clarity on that but so i think you and you know from drug research that that this that's how this goes like one one and that one chimeric response can be completely different, particularly when it comes to the immune system. The bottom line is this. If you are interested in being a subject in a drug experiment or a medical experiment of any sort, God love you. But you should know that that's what you're doing. Anybody who's getting these vaccines is a subject in an ongoing experiment. That's my point is I have no problems if that's what you want to do, but it should be made clear

in the idea that they keep saying these are safe and effective when in fact you are a subject in an ongoing experiment, the results of which are nowhere near known at this point, because we don't know about what the potential oncologic, the carcinogenic impact of these may be. And one of the things that concerns me very much is the potential for autoimmune issues related to these, because as we've been pointing out, when every different cell in your body starts producing these spike proteins, and we know that those are what's toxic, we know that those are what starts off the production of antibodies, those antibodies are then going to attack any cell in your body that is creating this toxic protein.

It will attack the heart muscle, lung tissue, kidney tissue, the insides of blood vessels, and on and on and on. So we don't have a lot of time left, but I do want to get David to some of these signals that you are seeing specifically with regard to not only the myocarditis, but the cancer issues, and give you some time to talk about what we're seeing with all-cause mortality and what these numbers that are potentially, again, not conclusively, but potentially related to these vaccines. Okay. So I think in the second slide, it's a blue and yellow slide, Caleb, if you can find that one. Yes, I'm going to jump around. So the big the big problem with all the data that you've seen is, is that, you

know, attributing COVID deaths, did the person die because of COVID, or they happen to have COVID, and so on. And so one of the sort of it go right, right at the beginning, right at the beginning, like second or third slide? Well, hang on, stay there, stay there, stay there. So there so so um so one of the ways around that is to look at all cause mortality i just want to show you this slide this is a cdc slide and it's extremely poor quality not because of my computer because that's how the slide came and you can see very faint uh blue line which is pointed to by the red and my my red, is that this is the efficacy. And by

seven months, the efficacy against Omicron goes to less than zero. In the tiny little words on the right side, the CDC have said that by three months, the effect of the thing is indistinguishable from zero. But the problem is that once it gets to negative efficacy territory, that means a person has a greater risk of getting COVID than if they didn't have the vaccine. Why is that? Is this evidence of immunological harm? And that's the problem. And these negative efficacy estimates are coming up from lots of places, not just CDC. We saw it even very early on a year and a half ago from Danish data and many other places. OK. And so there's evidence of immunological harm that has to be addressed. So on the next slide, if you could show that, please. This is a very one.

I think one of the finest analyses that anyone's done in the whole pandemic done by Dr. Herve Seligman in Luxembourg. He updates this all the time. And on the left, on the lower panel, what he's doing, he's looking at correlations between percentage vaccination in 23 European countries with all cause mortality. And the yellow area indicates that there is a negative correlation, meaning that there is a detriment associated with the more vaccination that happens. This is the interesting part. You actually get, so there's a, I think from

zero to about six weeks is the yellow portion. I can't move, I can move my thing here. Yeah, there's a little yellow portion for about six weeks. So there's a detriment of up to about six weeks, followed by a blue portion, which suggests actually an overall benefit. But that's quickly, after about 20 weeks, changes to a detriment again. That lasts for another 20 or so weeks. And then it becomes very noisy because of the lack of data. I'm not going to try and explain that statistically. But this has been a consistent pattern in Herve's data. He was one of the first people to do this. But other people have done other types of all-cause mortality analyses, Ed Dowd looking at insurance and sort of financial type of data.

Other people have done these sorts of things. And we're seeing this as a concern. We see a similar thing with booster doses, time from booster intervals. And there you see that yellow period at the top, which extends for a very long time which which which indicates a potential detriment so this is a concern that has to be addressed next slide please um well i'm gonna skip that keep going that's not let's go go go we okay this is peter marks basically now so he's the head of the biologic section of the FDA.

Look at that bottom red section there. He has just said a few days ago in the Journal of Medical Association that continuing on the path of making these new variant vaccine boosters is inadequate as a long-term strategy. So basically, he realizes that the game's up at this point, okay? We cannot keep trying to boost ourselves out of this with these new variant vaccines. And I've used the term to try and explain it to people. This is the immunological equivalent of heroin addiction. If you go to the next slide, please, actually a couple of, well, you've seen that one, keep going. And seeing that one, keep going. And then they and again, and we talked about cell therapy and the division within the FDA, we've talked about that already, keep going. And we've talked about this one, keep going.

And let's talk about cancers. Okay. And one of the concerns, I think this is the last slide, one of the concerns, based on the gene therapy considerations is that because these mRNA can interfere in various ways with genes, does it give rise to cancer? And there are a number of plausible mechanisms that the spike protein can interfere with DNA repair mechanisms. We've seen in a paper by Alden, I think it is, that we can get reverse transcription. That means that the RNA can turn into DNA and it can locate into the nucleus. Okay. We've, there's a paper from NIH saying that in the virus itself, the mRNA and the spike can locate into the nucleus. There are photographs called immunofluorescence photographs from Pfizer, which suggests that this can happen. And so, but many of my medical colleagues have been sort of say, well, we're not really sure about these cancer signals, we would expect them

to occur much more quickly. So this is a look in VAERS. I did this the other day, just Dr. Jessica Rose, who I regard as one of the leaders in this, the leader in this field, sort of verified my numbers. She got slightly different numbers, but they were very close. And these are the number of events reported into VAERS. Now, just to stress to everyone, we're not implying causality. This is just looking at a potential signal. But we see 3,100 events in COVID vaccines reported in the last two years, and all other vaccines for all other years going into VAERS, going back to 1990, only has just under 2,100. If we look in the free text field, those numbers are even bigger, 11,000 versus 3,600. Anyone can, if they can look at those

URLs at the bottom, you can look at the same search that I did. But this is clearly showing that there is a potential signal. Okay, one way or the other, this has to be addressed, it has to be done openly, everything that we've talked about today, this has to be done openly, the data has to be made freely available, we shouldn't have to go to court and get an FOI request that's going to take months and months, the data have to be provided by FDA, they have to be open to scrutiny by everyone. And this is this is a potential thing that is going to haunt the country, the world, potentially for a long time. We have to grapple with it. It just needs to be clear what you're saying here, in case anybody missed that. The number

of cancers that are reported potentially associated with the COVID vaccines are 50% higher than the sum of more than 40 years of data of all other vaccines combined. 30, yeah. Yeah, 30, 32 years. Okay. Sorry. I'm sorry, 30, 32 years. I'm sorry. 32 years, all other vaccines combined does not add up to what we're seeing from VAERS. So again, when you talk about signals, and I would say that the one mechanism that you didn't mention with regard to how these vaccines may be associated with new cancers or resurgence of previously, cancers that were previously in remission is simply the immunosuppressive effect.

We know that these vaccines do cause suppression of the immune system overall, and the immune system is fundamentally the first line of defense against cancers. It is supposed to, your immune system is what sees an aberrant cell and says that that doesn't look right and wipes it out before it ever takes hold. So I think that that is, again, an additional potential signal. So we're running down the clock here. So I want to give you an opportunity. I could talk with you forever. I love chatting with you about all of this, but take the last little bit. What did we not cover that you think of you that you would like to mention I think I think it goes back to Drew's one of his earlier questions I you know what happened here and I think we have to look at the the

role of the the medical establishment and particularly peer-reviewed journals in in in how they've not you papers, how certain papers have been suppressed. FDA and CDC have used these papers, and NIH for that matter, to back up their positions. FDA have delegated the responsibility that they should have to analyze the data, and they've done so without any oversight of these journals, without any accountability of those journals,

and I think that's a huge problem. But to anyone who's listening here, you know, we have to recognize this is an exciting technology that if properly deployed and properly tested could treat lots of diseases, could help lots of people. But it just is not the right time. We have to move on here. We have to think about repurposed drugs. As Peter Marks said just a moment ago over there,

we can't continue doing this. He's just saying everything that we've been saying for the last year or two, but now it's official. So Peter Marks, we agree, finally. Yeah, I think we all agree, which is just calm down, be careful, think this through, redeploy if it's appropriate, but don't rush ahead with you think, well, why are they doing this? Is it that cozy relationship with the pharma? I don't know if any of that's true or not. They open themselves to that kind of criticism or at least scrutiny

that maybe something like that is going on. Yeah. Yeah, needlessly. And they're not behaving in ways that they normally do. Everyone behaved abnormally for three years. And to see, you know, because this may be the tale now of all the insanity of the last three years because they're a bureaucracy. And bureaucracies are always the last to change. And that may be why they're taking so long. And I'm wondering if what Dr. Marks just said was the bellwether harbinger of what's about to come, which is, okay, you've had enough vaccines, everybody. Let's start working on therapeutics and keep it right. The really scary thing for me, Drew, and we've talked about it on previous shows, is the undermining of confidence that people have now in these agencies. In our public health

agencies, one of the people posted a comment, and I've said this over and over again, I fear that people will translate this into fear of all things vaccine, of all things public health. God help us when we try to sound the alarm bell from a public health perspective and get people to follow our advice and take heed and take action because your average person looks at public health and the CDC and the FDA and say, says they're a bunch of either corrupt, inept, or both individuals. And why should we listen to them? Yeah, Kelly, I was during, while I was off screen, I was interacting somewhat with our chatters and restreams, and somebody on the Rumble started claiming that cancers were up with the HPV vaccine. And I fought very hard to get that vaccine really rolled out, and I pulled up the CDC data that shows a nice steady decline in cervical cancer since the vaccine was actualized.

And the response from the person on the tweet thread was, you know, I don't trust any doctors or any data. And I was like, well, now we can't even talk. Now we can't even have a conversation. I pulled up some data. I don't know what to do now. You know, yes, I understand why you feel that way. But what do we do?

Gosh, there was another piece of this I was going to say. Well, keep going, guys. Let's kind of wrap up. There's another thing that's going to come to me in a second that was a corollary. Oh, I know what it was, which was here in Los Angeles, we were about to go under another mask mandate because we have a public health official who's not a physician, not a scientist, some sort of sociologist, doesn't know how to make a risk-reward analysis. And God bless, finally, one of the County board of supervisors stepped up and said, you know, if you keep doing this,

first of all, they're not going to follow you. And secondly, when you, they need to follow you, they're not going to, they're not because this is ridiculous. The only County on earth with a mask mandate,

give me a break. And she backed down amazingly. Right. Right. Well, I think, I think your point about people not trusting. I think the, I think the market has

spoken because if you look at the CDC's own numbers about how many people who are eligible for the updated boosters, it's something like 12 or 13, 14%, extremely low. And so, you know, scientists and doctors can opine all day and use very long, fancy words. But at the end of the day, I think people are fed up of it. And Moderna's advert says, we're all sick of COVID. Yeah, we're damn sick of COVID. We're damn sick of all this. And they're not taking these vaccines.

And so I think the whole thing has backfired for lots of reasons. And we've got to have a really serious discussion. And people have got to, like, okay, open up. And we've got to figure out how to do this better because it sure wasn't done well in this time, but we've got to learn from our mistakes. Well, what I am really hopeful, I'm hopeful that we, Drew, I'm hopeful that going forward, people ask me frequently, you know, what happens after COVID? My goal is to address this exact issue with confidence in public health and in healthcare professionals going forward after covet and we there will be an after cove that i promise is to continue to discuss openly and honestly with different uh industry experts whatever the issue is of the day

whether it has to do with cancer whether it has to do with cancer, whether it has to do with increase in violence in schools, if it has to do with addiction or whatever it is, is to continue to use this platform in the way that we have to get beyond the censorship and the politicization and the corruption that has occurred within these agencies and say, if nowhere else, you can find it here. You can find open, honest, rigorous, robust debate amongst professionals and experts who are willing to listen to one another and have it out and entertain other ideas.

Because we sure have seen the shutdown of the town square during this pandemic. And it's really been to our detriment. I told Kelly that throughout my career, alternative, far-out opinions were always just called interesting. I disagree, here's why, and that's interesting. And instead of dangerous or misinformation or God knows what, I had a situation this morning where, well, I don't know. I had a nuanced decision I had to make for a patient. I thought if I were just following an algorithm,

I would not even be thinking about this stuff. I would not be thinking it all through on behalf of the patient. And that's the scary part of over-reliance on evidence in medicine. But that's an issue for another day. Dr. Weissman, thank you so much for coming in today. We appreciate it. We enjoyed it. Again, we would have you back as the information continues to flow forward. Thank you. A pleasure. A pleasure was ours. And then Kelly, you and I are back together.

We have the long COVID guys in tomorrow, just to give us an update. We are next week with Asim Malhotra. Is that next week? No, that's two, three weeks out, right? We have Dr. Teresa Long, who is one of the three military, quote, whistleblowers who testified in front of Congress back now over a year ago with regard to increases that they were seeing in the military of certain classes of medical conditions. And interestingly, it was posting her sworn testimony that got me permanently kicked off Twitter. So it'll be great to have her on. Yes, to have her on to talk about her experience through this, which is not just, by the way, Drew, sharing the data that

she has from DMED, the Defense Military Epidemiology Database, which she has access to, but also her experience of censorship and what has happened to her and her career in the military. And the next day, the 22nd, Kelly's going to come in here and help me with steve kirsch who has been yes an interesting source of alternative information the entire thing and i thank him for the fluvoxamine which helped me with my long covet next week dr hasim mahal tra malhotra if you check out dr john campbell's uh little podcast today he aired it sort of substituted his podcast for this testimony in the parliament today, uh, initiated by Dr. Malhotra to try to get the increased awareness about potential harms cardiologically.

And, uh, that that's far enough in advance. Uh, so I will be in here tomorrow with the long haul guys, Dr. Patterson and Dr. Yo, there they are to give us an update on what their research is showing them. And Kelly is always, thank you so much. so much. And I'll see you next Wednesday. You'll see me Wednesday and Thursday next week. Thanks, Drew. Well done. And for the rest of you. 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.