Ask Dr. Drew - Dr. Drew Answers Your Calls: COVID-19, mRNA, Vaccines & Medical Freedom w/ Steve Kirsch, Christie Laura Grace, Ian Crossland, Laura Powell & Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew - Ep 280

Episode Date: November 4, 2023

Ask Dr. Drew LIVE! Call in on Spaces to ask Dr. Drew anything about today’s topics: COVID-19, mRNA, vaccines, and medical freedom. With special appearances by Steve Kirsch, Christie Laura Grace, Ian Crossland, Laura Powell & Dr. Kelly Victory. WHY 3 CALLER SHOWS? Producer Kaleb Nation and his wife just had a baby! To prepare for sleepless nights with a newborn, we are not scheduling guests for a week… and instead, Dr. Drew will be taking YOUR calls in 3 special episodes! 「 SPONSORED BY 」 Find out more about the companies that make this show possible and get special discounts on amazing products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get an extra discount with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew • PRIMAL LIFE - Dr. Drew recommends Primal Life's 100% natural dental products to improve your mouth. Get a sparkling smile by using natural teeth whitener without harsh chemicals. For a limited time, get 60% off at https://drdrew.com/primal • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at https://twc.health/drew • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get a discount on your first order at https://drdrew.com/paleovalley 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.  「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician with over 35 years of national radio, NYT bestselling books, and countless TV shows bearing his name. He's known for Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Teen Mom OG (MTV), Dr. Drew After Dark (YMH), The Masked Singer (FOX), multiple hit podcasts, and the iconic Loveline radio show. Dr. Drew Pinsky received his undergraduate degree from Amherst College and his M.D. from the University of Southern California, School of Medicine. Read more at https://drdrew.com/about Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

so we are back everybody are you all hearing me okay i'm not sure my mic is on but i okay good because i'm not hearing it here uh kelly victory joins me we are going to be taking your calls off twitter spaces so please join us there uh i see many of you there already so you raise your hand and we'll just bring you up to the podium and uh ask your question on any topic i think kelly and i need to uh debrief a little bit on many things that have happened since we last spoke. Some of you say over on Rumble, I think we're seeing that pre-show with me speaking to Megyn Kelly from over a year ago. Very interesting. It was so weird to see that history now as things continue to unfold so again today uh tomorrow and i think

thursday as well no wait today's tuesday i think remember caleb said not to mention it because it doesn't go on the podcast but oh no we're watching the video you would have seen it no i know i understand that i understand it doesn't go on the podcast but we're all a little three days of all questions starting after this. Hee hee. Our laws as it pertains to substances are draconian and bizarre. The psychopath started this. He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography,

PTSD, love addiction, fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous. I'm a doctor for f*** sake. Where the hell do you think I learned that? I'm just saying. You go to treatment before you kill people. I am a clinician.

I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat. If you have trouble, you can't stop and you want to help stop it, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. I think everyone knows the next medical crisis could be just around the corner, whether it comes in the form of another pandemic or something much more routine like a tick bite.

You and your family need to be prepared. That's where the Wellness Company comes in. You know the Wellness Company, we have their physicians on like Dr. McCullough frequently. The Wellness Company and their doctors are medical professionals you can trust. And their new medical emergency kits are the gold standard when it comes to keeping you safe and healthy. It's really, it's a safety net. It's an insurance policy that you hope you're not going to need. But if you need it, you sure as heck are going to wish you had it if you need it.

Be ready for anything. This medical emergency kit contains an assortment of life-saving medications, including ivermectin, Z-Pak. The medical emergency kit provides a guidebook to aid in the safe use of all these life-saving medications. From anthrax to tick bites to COVID-19, the Wellness Company's medical emergency kit is exactly what you need to have on hand to be prepared. Rest assured, knowing that you have emergency antibiotics, antivirals, and antiparasitics on hand to help you and your family stay safe

from whatever life throws at you next. Go to drdrew.com slash TWC. That is D-R-D-R-E-W dot com forward slash TWC to get 10% off today. Just click on that link. And we are back. As I said, we'll be taking calls off Twitter spaces. I see you guys with your hands up. I will get to you in just a second, but I first want to bring my friend, Dr. Kelly Victory back up for us to have a little reunion here after we've all been

gone for the last week. Kelly, welcome back. Hey, good to see you. It was a nice week off, but I felt a big, sort of there was a hole in my week without having the show to anchor it. So glad to be back. We were most of that week in the great state of Florida, and it's very interesting how different Florida is than California. People are so happy there. Don't go from Boca to San Jose, California. Okay. Just so you know. Right. We then went to San Jose and did an event with RFK Jr. Did you

see any of that, Kelly? I did not see it, but I heard about it. I would talk to several people who were there. It was very well received. As you know, Bobby Kennedy is a personal friend in addition to the fact that I'm very supportive of his candidacy. He and I are unlikely bedfellows. I've known him for a long, long time and we certainly disagree about a lot of our politics. But in addition to being just a stunningly good human being, I think he has really become incredibly circumspect during this COVID debacle, and it's brought kind of full circle, I think, his feelings about the pharmaceutical,

you know, the medical and pharmaceutical complex, as it were. So we see more eye-to-eye now. We certainly see eye-to to eye on things related to the COVID debacle, even though we disagree on many things related, for example, to climate change. I think he'd be a great candidate for a lot of reasons. I think he's the one person in my mind, Drew, who would expose the abject fraud and corruption that goes on in Washington, D.C. Well, that's his big thing.

That's what he enlightened me about, that overreach of the regulators and the cozy relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and other industries, military, industrial complex, whatnot. And we need to straighten him out on homelessness a little bit. He bought some narratives that are going on in California that are just false. And we need to straighten him out on homelessness a little bit he bought some narratives that are going on in california they're just false and uh we need to straighten him out a little bit no i agree with you and that's what i'm saying there are things that um where we definitely don't agree homelessness is one of them as you said i think he drank the kool-aid on some of that we don't see eye to eye on some things related to education as well. I don't think he appreciates at least my viewpoint

that the teachers union has gone, talk about overreach, the teachers union really guided much of what went on during the pandemic with regard to school closures, which were absolutely unnecessary and unjustified. And it really was the teachers union that was calling the shots on that, certainly not the medical science. But all of that said, you're never going to find a candidate with whom you agree 100% or even perhaps 80%. So I'm willing to take

some of those things and accept them given, I think, his commitment to really ratting out and exposing, as I said, the incredible fraud that goes way beyond, by the way, I'm not talking about just the pharmaceutical companies. This goes into the IRS and the FBI and the CIA, the intelligence agencies, all the things that have been going on in our government where the government has not been looking out for the people. And certainly the Kennedys have known of that amount of corruption for a long time. And he says he would expose it.

And so I think he could be an interesting candidate if the Democrat Party would ever let him have a chance. And he learns. He's open to learning. That's why I said we've got to straighten him out on some stuff because when you actually present him the facts, he will go for it. And then I was up there with Asim Malhotra. Well, if he wins, you and Kelly can go be on his,

in his, what do they call it? Work with him. Well, he's been advising. What do you call it? His cabinet. His cabinet. His cabinet. His various, his kitchen cabinet.

You can tell how politically minded I am. After talking to Ben Carson, what it was like to run a cabinet level department, I'm not so sure I want to do that. Kelly would be great. Well, what you just said, Drew, though, is very telling about Bobby Kennedy and I agree he learns unlike every other candidate you will commonly hear Bobby Kennedy say yes I did say X Y or Z 15 years ago and I've done a 180 on it or I've really changed how I feel about this we're the average candidate and I don't care Democrat or Republican. They all say the same thing.

I never said that or no, I've always thought blank as if we don't have the, you know, the receipts that actually they said something very different 15 or 20 years ago. Bobby Kennedy owns it. He says, yeah, I did think this or that about, you know, whatever fuel or foreign affairs or whatever the issue is, he will learn, he will take advice from other people, he will assess the data, and he will commonly change his opinion on something. And I think my viewpoint and my experience, that is the mark of a really good leader,

not these people, as I said, Democrat or Republican, who dig their heels in and act as if they didn't say something that we have clear evidence that they said, and they just don't learn. Recording. Yeah. But as I was saying, I was up there with Asim Malhotra, and he has a 90-minute presentation that is airtight. It's quite a tour de force force so if you can find that or figure out a way to watch it online please oh you go to um oh god reclaiming food and medicine conference dot vhx dot tv victory hugo xylophone i'll put it in the restream okay well it is another one thanks hey one second one sec one second let Let's let Kelly finish her thought there. Sorry, I was just going to say, Asim is another one who is very clear

and has no problem changing his mind and acknowledging that. You may recall, he was extraordinarily pro-vaccine early on. He got vaccinated. And then after he saw what happened to his father and he started getting into the data, he changed his mind on that. And I

have great respect for people who are able to take in new information and come to a different conclusion. So onto our follows. He has gone, Asim has gone full Kelly victory. He has gone all the way to the Kelly victory camp. So Christy, before you speak up. And he also got us an interview on Russell Brand. So Christy, before you speak up, Caleb is good. Yes, yeah. I'm going to do a little quick intro about the schedule

and what we're doing this week. So for those who don't know, my wife and I have some big news. We have a new child. Look at that. Just arrived on the 25th. Look at that. This is Presley Elizabeth Nation, our adorable, perfect little newborn girl.

And so we're just taking a little bit of an easier week this week so I don't have to prep guests. And we're doing three different caller shows. And the way we're doing it is today, all of the questions are going to be about COVID and medical freedom topics, especially while Dr. Kelly is here.

So keep all the questions on those topics. But if you've always been passed over because there's so many medical topics and questions about COVID and medical freedom, tomorrow on November 1st, we're going to be taking topics, calls on any topic except COVID. So it's going to be anything you want to ask, but no COVID calls so you can get those in. And then on November 2nd, we're going to be taking calls again on any topic that can include covid anything not covid plus covid and i believe kelly i think you might also be there on uh on november 2nd possibly right yeah i'm there tomorrow i'm on tomorrow okay tomorrow anything but your medical anything but covid so i'm here today and tomorrow perfect perfect yes perfect brisley and then, Christy,

now, before you say another word, Christy, tell me, how much can we talk about here? Whatever you want, and if we can't, I will,

I will say something. I only have three or four things to bring up, but mostly Dr. Victory, I hope you're doing well. Sorry, go ahead. Can I frame, I like to describe who Christy is, go ahead. Can I frame?

I like to describe who Christy is because I saw her up here and I thought, well, it's perfect timing for us to talk to her. I don't think, Kelly, you've spoken to her since some of these controversies have come up. And Christy is a listener. She's a biotech, I want to call her expert. She's worked day in, day out in biotech. She's a true scientist. She's trained in multiple areas, but she's a – biochemistry really is your primary. Is it not right, Christy?

Is that correct? I also have a degree in sociology and finishing in psychology, but I try not to state that for cancellation purposes. I knew all that. I want to focus on your biochemistry part, though. Yeah, RNA, lipid nanoparticle, and recombinant proteins. Yes, my shtick. Yep.

That was her thing in the industry. And so she was an early observer of concerns about DNA plasmids and the regulatory genes that may be in those plasmids and promoter genes and whatnot. And so she's been very active on Twitter and has some extremely comprehensive disquisitions on this topic where you can really quickly get up to speed if you read her Twitter threads through and through. So Christelle, as you have it. Thanks so much. And Caleb, I saw the new little one. She's adorable. She's adorable. Thank you. Thank you. We love her.

I know you're not sleeping right now, but it'll happen. I know you know that. That's why my camera's not on today. My camera's on today because I haven't had a minute to plug it back in after taking all the photos of her. So later. Thanks, Dr. Drew. And I just wanted to say when I came back to Twitter, I didn't know that there were certain scientists and doctors in Germany who had been using my substack that I had deleted prior in court

to present data against their own regulators. And I told them, please ask me to go with you. Please, please, because they're going to ask you questions you may not know the answer to because you don't have the biotech. Thanks. I've been posting a lot of people are pushing back saying, hey, we were within the regulatory limits and we've done this in the past with other vaccines. But this is inside what's called a lipid nanoparticle. It's called a transfection agent, which allows it to get into the cell but also you know as uh dr buckholtz and kevin mccurden we've been trying

to stress that you don't need you know there's this talk about this nuclear localization signal which means that it it's like uh the directions to get it into the nucleus where the dna is where that's the the thought where you're going to have mutations or integration into the nucleus where the DNA is, where that's the thought where you're going to have mutations or integration into the genome. But I just wanted to make it clear to people that tests have been done all the time previously. You don't need that to get it into the nucleus. It will get in 7% to 10% of the time, no matter what.

How? What's the mechanism? What is the mechanism out of curiosity? So you've got a couple. You have telephase. For basic biology, cell division telephase. It's transient. So for those unaware, cells will divide and replicate. And as that's happening, the cell kind of elongates.

The nucleus opens up. And then it just allows it to go inside. And you don't need that directions you don't need the you don't need like the the directions for it to go in there or to pull it in yeah the transporter you don't need it but but to be clear christy let me just interject here for for folks who are listening there is nothing about this dna plasm contamination that is, for lack of a better word, that is kosher. That is okay.

These, to be very clear, the pharmaceutical companies used an entirely different process to create these vaccines than the process they submitted when they requested authorization under the emergency use. So any way you cut it, I don't care what you change, when you submit to get authorization, if you vary one iota from that in your process going forward, you have breached the regulatory process. They did something that was so egregious. They used an entirely different process. This DNA wasn't even part of the process

that they submitted to the FDA. This is a bait and switch of the worst type. So even if this DNA were 100% harmless, which it's not, hardly, if it posed no threat, which it clearly does, even if it were a harmless change, this is an egregious breach of the regulatory process, and that by itself should cause the FDA to remove them from the market. Across the board, Dr. Victory, not just that, but the lipid nanoparticles, what's called zeta potential. I found a study that was buried that states that the positively charged lipids

can do what's called covalently bond, for those of us who know the science, to any nucleic acid they come in contact with, which would cause a point mutation, aggregation. You have just a number of things that could happen. And for those not familiar with science the positively charged lipids they are inside the lipid nanoparticle a study out of 2021 packer atel found that it is bonding and mutating the rna inside the lipid nanoparticle and they used very special techniques called reverse ion fair hplc which you know over everybody's head but it's very special technique.

So it's not a hypothesis. They were able to see it on multiple imaging. So now the worry is on top of the DNA and the possible mutation there and cancers, this would also, if it's hitching a ride with the DNA into the nucleus can mutate as well. So that's an additional concern. But. Oh, so here's another thing.

So we know Speacher et al released the study data that they found out of Canada. Dr. Speacher, who looked at the plasma DNA contamination and they compared it to batches that are known as hot batches for like, where's my, how bad is my batch? And they found that the higher levels of DNA contamination are also correlated to batches that have. So I actually went into the batch data info, like which anybody can. And when I looked in there, myocarditis was number one. Yeah, it certainly does appear, Christy, that the more highly contaminated batches were the ones that were the hot batches. And that, you know, we've known from the beginning that the adverse events were not homogeneously distributed across all batches. They clearly

were associated with a relatively small number of batches. And it does appear that it's the ones that are most highly contaminated with this plasma DNA. And the other thing I've- I wanted to say something because there are studies coming. Sorry, go ahead, Dr. Ju. Because another study's on that. I don't know if I can mention it. Well, of course. But let me just say quickly that that there was another i forget where i saw this presentation but um you know these dna plasmids are highly um routinized in other words you know scientists have these you can you can download the exact genetics makeup of these plasmids off google i mean they're just they're highly regularly used

in industry and strangely what i heard was this is what i'm led to believe that the only region that was left off of the identification of the genes around the plasmid in some sort in one of the publications that was used for the regulatory process, exclude the promoter gene, exclude the one gene that we worry about that can cause cancer. Can you speak to that, Christine? Yeah. So there's actually two promoters, and it seemed like it was redundant. So Kevin McKernan, he has a substack as well where he details this out, and he has a lot of science in there.

It's pretty intense stuff. But it didn't include Pfizer, Pfizer. So Pfizer specifically, you have what's called a plasmid map. And these are things we worked with all day. Some people have talked about, well, it's just this generic thing they download. When you do a custom project, you design it. When you make an antibody, you design it. You specify what goes in there

and what doesn't. But there was this promoter called the SV40 promoter, and Pfizer did not include it in their blueprint as part of the data set that they sent for approval for the clinical trials, like what Dr. Victory said. And there's just no way that no one didn't see that because it's hitting a bunch of eyes. It's not just one person. Right. But they're in worry that that can cause...

Never, what is it? Never accuse malfeasance. Never attribute malice. Yeah, go ahead, say it. What's the phrase? What Dr. Buchholz said. Never attribute malice. Yeah. Go ahead. Say it. What's the phrase? What Dr. Buchholz said.

Hand lens razor. Hand lens razor. Never attribute incompetence where there could be malice. Or I forget. Is it the other way around? It's the other way around. Never attribute malice. Never attribute malice when it could just be incompetence.

Incompetence. Although I have to say. I can't believe that. it's hard to imagine, I'm not sure which one is worse in this case. It's probably a combination of both. I have a hard time attributing this to simply incompetence. This is something that is so glaring. They clearly knew that there was a change here.

They clearly knew that there was a change here. They clearly knew this was involved. And I think in an effort to get these shots into every arm, they simply fast-tracked it. I imagine. As you know, I don't fault them for that. What I fault them for is not after we got things under control, looking back and going, okay, now let's do our job. That's what I fault them for. And that the continued push in the face of all the shortcuts, that's where I'm having a problem. Testing is coming, so I just wanted to jump in.

Sorry, go ahead. No, go ahead. Go ahead, Chrissy. Thanks, Dr. Victory. And really, I hope you're doing well with everything you're battling. You have been in my thoughts, Dr. Victory. Thank you. I appreciate it.

I'm feeling great. Good. you're battling like you have been in my thoughts dr victory thank you i appreciate it i'm feeling great it's good so with regards to genomic integration where it would integrate into the host genome so that that's been the concern that multiple scientists have raised you know it could be in a daughter cell or a cell where it only lives as long as say a fly would survive versus a stem cell or something that's with you forever there's testing that's going to be coming up i will tag you i will let you know dr drew where those who have had significant vaccine injuries i'm not talking about headache i'm talking about pulmonary embolism uh multiple sclerosis lymphoma, whatever it is, there is testing coming. And once that is made available, I'll tag you.

I'm just not going to say further for the safety of those involved. But it would involve testing tissue, and you would just need, I want to say you would just need preferably a biopsy of the area that was impacted. But other biopsies may be able to be used, such as like a colposcopy, or if you just went in for something routine, or not routine, you know, I'm 48, so I got told I need the endoscopies again

and colonoscopy for cancer checks. But just simple tissues like that. Also, I don't want anyone to rip out their kid's teeth. I'm not saying this, but as you know, stem cells exist in the teeth of children, even though it probably didn't make its way there, but there are multiple ways tissues can be tested and just know that that's coming and it's going to come fast. And Kevin McKernan has already addressed that he's

making the kit for this, but other people are going to be involved. So it's coming fast within the next 30 days and it's going to roll quickly. And I'll tag you because like you've said, we need tests, we need answers right in order to see if this is happening so doctors can help and then also because you know Health Canada their regulatory agency said oh this is fine uh Dr. or Senator Renick who is like huge in Australia just you know asked his regulatory agency and the other politicians, hey, what are you going to do about this? And they literally said, well, because it came into Australia, it's really not something we test. And then they kicked the can twice to separate agencies,

not wanting to take accountability, responsibility, or to do the checks. It was just horrifying to watch. So hopefully this test is going to be the final blow to kick it in. Do either of you think, is there, I'm always trying to assess my own assessment abilities, and I just keep, it's so extraordinary what you're describing. I keep wondering, am I missing something? Is there something we're missing?

Do you have any sense that there's an area, a blind spot in our own thinking about this when you raise these issues and are concerned about them? Things were done rapid fast in 2020, right? Because in the beginning, we know, we can say people died of COVID, that people were on dialysis, that they were having clots in their kidneys, that they were running out of dialysis machines for people. It wasn't just the respirators, it was dialysis machines. In the beginning, there was a stronger need for,

I guess, panic, but they didn't go about things the right way. They listed the lipid nanoparticle as an excipient with the FDA, so they didn't go about things the right way. They listed the lipid nanoparticle as an excipient with the FDA, so they didn't have to test it. And now that's coming out that there's things that are bad. Yeah, it goes way beyond that, though, to me, because there was a complete failure to apply the thoughtful risk-benefit calculation.

The reality is, yes, some people were dying of COVID, but those some people were over the age of 70 in almost all cases, there were people with a set of well-known comorbidities. And we refused to use, we were not allowed to use the entire cocktail of medications that we could have used to treat those people, and the vast majority of them would have done well. We knew from the very beginning that children and, frankly, healthy young people under the age of about 50 were at such a de minimis risk from bad outcome from COVID as to be approaching zero.

There was no justification to panic and try to shove an untested vaccine into the arm of a healthy person, not just under the age of 20, but under the age, say, of 40 or 50. Healthy people didn't need this, and they sure as hell didn't need it, foisted upon them without their, you know, not only consent or their will. This was a breach of the Nuremberg Code. These are, as of today, as I sit here on the 31st of October, there isn't a single FDA approved vaccine, quote unquote, for COVID available in the United States. By definition, they remain experimental. So I am not willing to give people a pass that this was fog of war oh my god we need to get these things out before we can actually test them and inject everybody when 90 of the everybody's weren't at risk from covet

dr victory i'm teetering on the edge i don't know if i was okay to to say I'm teetering on the edge. I don't know if I was okay to say this. I'm teetering on the edge that you are to say intent and malfeasance. But for me to wrap my brain around that, I have to believe in an evil that I can't even comprehend. So that's what I'm wrapping my head around with is I'm probably going to get there. I just haven't been able to deal with that thought that that pure evil would exist like that thanks again thank you no no i i agree and i appreciate all the hard science you're actually doing because we we need the science to back up everything that uh we are thinking and wondering about so thank you for you for being at the bench.

Check out her, check out her threads. It's at Heart of Grace. And she's got really, if you really want to learn about this stuff, she lays it all out in a way that people can digest it. Christy, thanks so much. Thanks. Thanks, Dr. Drew. Thanks, Caleb and Dr. Victory. You got it. Thanks. You bet. Hope we'll talk soon. So we have to take a little break here kelly uh when we get back i i want to assail this risk reward uh issue because that's where my you know that's where you and i have absolute agreement

and and i want to kind of tease it apart a bit and uh you know and i don't know if we're going to end up sort of uh figuring out where we agree and where we disagree, but I just want to get a good look for our listeners and viewers of taking a healthy person and making them sick. And if you're doing that, you better have a damn good reason for it because there's almost no bioethical indication for it ever, number one. And then number two, the mandates and what that has been about

and why this country is continuing to push so hard on something that is hard to understand. So we'll take a little break and be right back. Susan and I have been looking for a nutrition-packed, great-tasting greens drink for a while. And then we tried our friends at Paleo Valley's organic super greens, which is superior to what's out there on the market. Our friends at Paleo Valley, well, they think of everything, and they've created what's been called a magical green powerhouse.

All three delicious varieties, pure, unflavored, strawberry lemonade, and tropical, contain 23 certified organic antioxidant-rich superfoods, including the highest quality spirulina. It's also free of cereal grasses, gluten, grains, soy, and dairy, and no added sugars or artificial sweeteners. And what's more, it delivers digestive enzymes, gluten, grains, soy, and dairy, and no added sugars or artificial sweeteners. And what's more, it delivers digestive enzymes, polyphenols, which are believed to burn fat,

and eight essential amino acids. Imagine the time, effort, and cost of trying to make this yourself. It's impossible. Head on over to drdrew.com slash paleovalley, and you will get 15% off your first order. All the great products they have there, 15% off at drdrew.com slash paleo, P-A-L-E-O. Fall is right around the corner, which means dry, flaky red skin from allergy season is

coming with it. But the best way to take care of your skin is with our skincare secret, GenuCell. You don't need to worry about that puffy, tired eye look or those annoying dark spots or even dry flaky skin because GenuCell skincare has you covered. Susan and I love our GenuCell products so much, we want you to try our personally curated skincare bundles. It's risk-free at GenuCell.com slash Drew. GenuCell works so well, you can see the results in this unplanned live moment on our show when the redness repair cream repaired my skin in just minutes right before your eyes their concentrated vitamin c serum helps keep

your skin plump and hydrated plus with their immediate effects you can see astonishing results in under 12 hours quick effective and easy go to genucell.com slash drew right now to try our bundles and save over 60 today and remember And remember to enroll in GenuCell's world-class concierge program for additional savings and free shipping. Don't wait. It's GenuCell.com slash drew, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash D-R-E-W. These products have transformed my life and Susan's and saved their marriage. Discover the key to oral hygiene, regardless of your current daily dental routine, whether you diligently brush and floss multiple times a day,

or you struggle, you got bleeding gums, bad breath, plaque buildup, this revelation is for both of you. Surprisingly, over 350,000 Americans experience health issues that may be connected to their toothbrush or even caused by it, ranging from heart or blood sugar problems, forgetfulness, digestive difficulties, immune issues, all related to oral hygiene. Scientific studies have shown that a simple switch of your toothbrush can lead to a healthier teeth and potentially save your marriage. Yes, save your marriage. Our study, we did a personal study. My wife, Susan, hates the sound of the sonic toothbrushes.

But introducing the Real White Sonic Toothbrush, of course, also their Hydroxy Appetite Dirty Mouth Mineral Toothpaste by Primal Life Organics, these products have transformed my life and Susan's and saved our marriage. It's much quieter. It's a very powerful toothbrush, but it is quiet and it saved our marriage. It's much quieter. It's a very powerful toothbrush, but it is quiet,

and it saved our marriage. So, the Real White Sonic Toothbrush from Primal Life Organics stands out among all other electric toothbrushes I've tried. It effectively eliminates plaque, harmful bacteria, promotes gum health. Get yours and enjoy 60% off

at naturaltoothbrush.com slash D-R-E-W. Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. If this episode ends here, the rest of the show is available at drdrew.tv. There's nothing in medicine that doesn't boil down to a risk-benefit calculation. 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. Just a little promo for Kelly Victory that is programmed into our whole structure here,

so we throw that up there. So really quickly, I know we want to get some more calls. We do have some great callers on hold here. But the myocarditis issue is really now, for me, become the Rubicon of sorts. In the sense that we now know that there is an incidence of myocarditis in young males. It is in the package insert on Pfizer. I have seen a ton of it, mostly in the setting of post-myocarditis arrhythmias in young males.

And let me just ask this. So we start with a place of sort of agreement. What would you, based on the data that's out there now, what would you say is the incidence of myocarditis from the vaccine? Oh, boy. Well, here's the issue. It's a hard question to answer, Drew, because the only ones we know about are those that are symptomatic,

those people who have chest pain or shortness of breath or develop exercise intolerance or those sorts of things that cause us to do right you know god forbid an arrhythmia or a sudden cardiac arrest something along a symptomatic something for many people unfortunately there is no symptom and we don't know they have developed scar they have inflammation they will develop scarring somebody permanent permanent and we don't know. Yeah, somebody just sent me an article. I'm going to read it when I have time to sit and read it carefully,

that everybody's study with MRI after vaccine has some evidence of myocardial inflammation. That's an extraordinary claim. But let's come up with a number. What number would you say? And let's give them the benefit of the doubt even. Give them the benefit of the doubt and come up with a number. Let's say that 25% of people who got these shots end up with some element of, you know. And again, I'm spitballing because we don't know.

Let me take a little, go ahead. I was going to say, because I was going to take a little bit different. Well, what I was going to say, because I was going to take a little bit different. Well, what I was going to say is this. Rather than just looking at the incidence of adverse events, if you look at how this program, this vaccine program was organized, hopefully everybody knows by now and all the vaccine manufacturers acknowledge and CDC acknowledge that the vaccines don't stop people from contracting COVID. Okay. I think we can all agree on that, right? They don't stop people from contracting COVID. Okay, I think we can all agree on that, right?

They don't stop you from getting COVID. We now know- Or spreading. That's where I was gonna go. We now know, and they acknowledge, they never even tested it to see if it would stop transmission. Okay, we know that it doesn't.

We now know that it doesn't stop me from spreading it to you. If I'm vaccinated, are you from spreading this to me? So the vaccines, we can agree on two things. Turns out they don't stop you from getting COVID and turns out they don't stop you from transmitting COVID to others and they never even tested that part. That was never even tested. Once you know that it doesn't stop transmission, there is zero, not an iota of rationale for requiring you against your will, no matter who you are, to get the vaccine.

Because the only argument you could make, as flimsy as it is, that I can mandate that you take the vaccine or that you don't enter this bar or restaurant or that you don't fly on a plane or you don't travel if you're not vaccinated is if I had solid proof that I can require this because it's in the public interest for me to keep you from transmitting your COVID to somebody else. Once you know that that's not a case, there is absolutely no justification. There's one. There's one you could throw in. You could throw in, I'm protecting the healthcare system. They were going to be overrun. The ICUs will be overrun, this kind of stuff.

That's obviously not true, but that's what was used. You got to remember that stuff was used. So that was there. But this is a critical, really fundamental thing that people need to understand. You cannot force somebody to do something for their own benefit. Any more than I could say, I'm going to mandate that you go to the gym. I'm going to mandate that you eat a low fat diet.

I'm going to mandate that you stop smoking. I'm going to mandate anything else because people have a sovereign right to make a decision about what they do with their own bodies. And once we have breached that, God help us, we now have a world in which I do not want to live. And let's take a 30-year-old male. What would you say his, we'll take a male, his risk of dying of COVID is? Just out of how many cases of COVID will we see a death in a 30-year-old male? We know almost zero. People under the age of 30, we had a 99.98% chance of surviving. So a 0.02% chance of dying.

So the risk is about as close to zero as you could get. So this is where I am exercised these days. I'm going to use the absolutely most liberal numbers possible and say the incidence of myocarditis is one per 5,000. And I'm going to say the incidence of death of COVID in a 30-year-old is one per 100,000. So that's 5,000, that's what, 20 times? 20 times. We've got 20 people, 20 times, 20 kids getting, healthy kids getting 30-year-olds or 25-year-olds getting myocarditis to maybe save one, maybe. And now we know for sure half of those at a year still have evidence of significant myocardial injury, which is catastrophic in my mind. So that means we are going to sacrifice

10 healthy for every one possible. And that one is maybe more like one per 500,000. And yet here we are. And you're saying, and you're saying it's more like one per 500,000. It's more like one, one per 10 or one per four are getting myocarditis of which half now have persistent problems. So this is, this is where the rubber hits the road. This is where there are profound, profound concerns right there. All my elderly patients, as you know, are all boosted up and have, I think, reduced the risk of hospitalization. We can disagree on whether that's true or not. But that's very different than requiring it for college students to go to school. That's a very different thing.

Exactly. Right. So the numbers, even if we use your very liberal numbers, the calculation doesn't come anywhere near. I mean, it is absolutely an egregious affront to people's health, what we did. And you're talking about people, not that the lives of the elderly are not important, don't misinterpret what I'm saying, but you're talking about young, healthy people, our military, our healthcare workers, our law enforcement people. These are the people who are mandated, who are forced.

They were young, healthy people whose risk from this virus was zero or darn near it. And we harmed them. They were harmed. You took the healthiest and the most productive amongst us and destroyed their lives. And the thing that is never discussed is years of life lost. Years of life lost. We were very focused on saving lives of people in nursing homes. The data is clear, and not that we shouldn't be very concerned about that,

but understand that the average life expectancy for a male admitted to a nursing facility chronically is six months. We are talking about 30-year-olds with 50 years of life lost. Laura, go right ahead. I'm sorry, Dr. Victor and I are going on here. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Laura Powell and I just thought I'd offer an update on AB 2098. I don't know if you've talked about it lately. We have not. Thank you so much. And to refresh everybody's memory, AB 2098 was a California law that it's the medical censorship law that could take away a doctor's license for misinformation, disinformation on COVID. So that was passed last year and took effect in January. Lawsuits were filed. I'm co-counsel in a lawsuit with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, and we successfully obtained a preliminary injunction in January.

One of the other lawsuits was not successful, and it was on appeal, and that is still pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They had our argument in July. It did not go well for the state. I think anybody listening would agree with that. So it looked as if they were likely to lose that appeal. We still had our preliminary injunction in place this whole time. And then right at the end of the legislative session, a bill was amended to repeal AB 2098. And it happened so last minute, there was no discussion, no explanation. So that was passed. The governor signed it so ab 2098 as of january 1st will no longer be good law um however uh it isn't clear that that means the state is giving up on

its desire to censor doctors and to use the medical board to threaten doctors, threaten to take away their medical licenses if they say things they don't agree with. There was a case that's pending against one doctor that was filed not under AB 2098, under the pre-existing negligence law. Threatening, it's still pending here. Let's see, what were the things she said? This was considered gross negligence that she told a patient the masks do not stop viruses, that COVID-19 are not true vaccines, they are gene therapy, that vaccines are produced with aborted fetal cells and encouraging the use of ivermectin. These were the statements that the medical board is alleging are gross negligence. So this is not under AB 2098. So, you know, going forward, I don't know what this will look like and if they

will continue to find other means. I mean, they clearly saw this law didn't work for them. It was unconstitutional and they were going to lose. So they're trying different tactics to continue the censorship of doctors. I had multiple complaints against my medical licenses in states other than California that don't have a crummy law or didn't have a law like 2098, but they are absolutely able to use the the medical board as a cudgel to try to keep people under control. And the Federation of State Medical Boards, which is a totally unaccountable, unelected, and largely anonymous group hiding out in Texas, you know, uses, again, wields its power inexplicably to control what doctors say. So I was thrilled to hear that 2098 was likely going to

go away in California, but don't think for a minute that they don't have other ways to try to censor and control people. Yeah, exactly. And so, you know, it's a question of how do you challenge this in court? We had a law we could challenge. Now, you know, you have to go on an individual case-by-case basis after they take these actions. And of course, it's very difficult for doctors to fund these lawsuits to fight the medical board. And understanding their malpractice insurance won't cover those fighting the medical board. And how many doctors are willing to take that risk, their entire livelihood, the years and all the money they've put into this career to lose everything. So we'll see what it looks like going forward. But I mean, the saga of AB 2098 went away. And as you said, that did start with the Federation of State Medical Boards, right? They were the

ones who called for that law and California was a test case. So on the bright side, I mean, it failed. So I think we're less likely to see it happen in the other states. And that's where we are. We had a victory, but it would be so much better. I mean, it's likely the cases haven't been dismissed, but they're seeking to have them dismissed now as moot because the law will no longer exist as of January 1st. But that leaves us without this very definitive statement from a judge. I mean, we have the preliminary thing, but definitive statement on the free speech rights of doctors. There is an interesting case that's pending in the Supreme Court. We're waiting to see if they'll

grant certiorari on a case that does have to do with free speech rights of doctors that should be, I'm hoping they'll grant, and it should be interesting. Laura, thank you so much for the fight and for the update. And we got to get you in here for another formal interview one of these days soon. So I appreciate it so very much. Thank you. Laura Powell, everyone.

And at Laura Powell Esquire, I i think we caleb don't we have her website or something handy somewhere you might want to look that up uh we're going to keep going through calls here we got a lot of people requesting uh kelly any comment before i go on to the next call no no i just i i think um as i said i'm thrilled that 2098 has gone away, but don't think for a minute that they need that in place in order to censor and really persecute physicians. Yeah, I think you remember I spoke to the chairman of the board. What is her position? I forget what they call it, but she's the lead position at the California Board of Medical Quality Assurance. She was lovely. She's an attorney. Her father was a

urologist. Her head's in the right place in terms of, she was really concerned about very outlying behavior. And she said to me something chilling, which was that, you know, I was asking her about, I was worried about AB 2098. And she said, you know, we already have that authority anyway. We don't really don't need AB 2098. So that is really, I think why they abandoned things. So there you go. This is just data, just data, just data. It's a clever twist at D-A-Y-D-A. But data is what from 85 all the way down to 0 to 17. We can see the different COVID waves as they came through. We can see the Delta wave. But we can also notice specifically respiratory deaths were elevated in every age group compared to normal deaths.

But there is no change in cancer deaths. I'd love to hear the comments of the panel. So hold on. So no change in cancer deaths month to month since COVID outbreak? That's correct. Going back to 2018 and going forward, we've seen the continued decrease in cancer deaths that we've noted. Yeah. And that's, of course, treatment, right? Because we have effective treatments for cancer, and most cancers become chronic illnesses these days. I have taken the position, Kelly, just I don't know what your position is. I know people keep writing about and talking about so-called turbo cancers.

I don't know what that means. I'm taking all the cancer stuff, for me, just off the table. I just don't know what to do with it. I don't know if there's anything there. Data's telling us it's not. What do you say? I think that it's irrefutable that we've seen an increase in incidence of cancers. I think it's off the charts. You can't doctor I'd be happy to show you the charts of people you know who are do are the oncologists I'd be happy to show you cancer deaths please please do so we we've reviewed the American Cancer Society charge then

the CDC charts there is no rise so maybe I think I think yeah I think there I So maybe we bring those up tomorrow? I disagree with you. Kelly? Yes, there's a huge rise. Cancer deaths is a silly thing to be following. Fortunately, it takes people a while to die from cancer. So you're saying cancer incidents. Correct. Cancer incidents is what it's up. Exactly. So if you talk to people who do this for a living and who actually see and can tell you

what they're seeing in their practices, you hear not only about the increase in rates of cancers, but in the types of cancers that were previously unheard of in certain groups. For example, advanced colon cancers in people in their second and third decades, people with aggressive lymphomas and leukemias in their early and late teens. And those have been increasing since 2014, correct, doctor? Those have been increasing since 2014. But not at the same trajectory as they are now since 2021. That's correct.

They're at a lower trajectory now. They're at a lower trajectory now. I'm not going to argue with you when neither of us are looking at data. We can both say this is no longer. I'm looking at the data from UCSF. Okay. I'm not looking at it. I'm looking at the screen.

And just so quick, where is that published? Right. Yeah. Okay. I'm not looking at it. I'm looking at the screen. And just a quick, where is that published? We want to talk about data and have it. Yeah. Just so we can all look it up and see what you're looking at. Go to UCSF or the American Cancer Society, and I'll post down below. UCSF, go ahead. It's up to date through 2021. We publish mortality Because in specific, you are looking at mortality due to

cancer with the claim of turbo cancers. That does not exist. I disagree with you. And the bottom line is we need to know, like everything else, is which data you're looking at, who's funding the collection of that data who's publishing it who's funding it because I'll tell you right now it if you've learned nothing else through this it is entirely who is funding and supporting the collection of the data there are a lot

of people who have a vested interest. I would tell you, and I say this all the time, what exactly is my motivation to fudge or manipulate the data? What is my motivation? I can tell you what the motivation of people at universities is. I can tell you what UCSF's motivation is.

Look at their funding page. What is it? Look at their funding page. What is it? Look at their funding page. Look who funds their labs, Drew. I'll tell you who funds Kelly Victory. Funded by the Cancer Society of America and cancer compounds. They have every reason to want to see cancers going up,

not down. They are funded by the pharmaceutical agencies who don't want to throw shade on or expose the results of the vaccines. But the results of the vaccines, we've been vaccinating since 2021. We saw no rise in cancer in 2020, but we saw an acute rise in cardiovascular in young age groups in 2020. Yeah. Well before vaccines. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, for sure, COVID does it.

But the question is, is vaccine also doing it? But listen, so really we're not going to know. I'm looking at this data. We're really not going to know how to parse these two opinions out. I think you'll agree, Collar. What's your name, Collar? Do you mind telling me? Data? Just call you Data? Just Data. Data. So Data, I don't think really we need up through

2023 to really understand what's going on. And I'm not making anything of, Kelly's making a lot of this. I'm making nothing of it. You're making nothing of it. But wouldn't you agree it'd be nice to have two more years of data before we completely put this argument to rest? Okay, we all agree on that. And we have those two years of data with mortality. Can we agree we have two years of data for mortality showing no change? Yeah, I want to see incidents stated since that's what's at issue. Yeah, we need to sit down and have a legitimate discussion.

I would argue, though, Kelly, on his behalf, I would argue that if really there was a marked increase in stage four cancers, it should impact mortality data too, right? Because stage four cancers don't. But I think that we are starting to see that in the past. Stage four cancer mortality at one year? We're starting to see that now in the past six months. Please, doctor, in what resource are you quoting

that you're seeing a change in mortality at six months? I can show you lots of data from lots of different physicians. Please do so. I look forward to discussing it tomorrow. Let's bring that out. Okay. Well, first of all, let me start with one thing. First of all, yeah, I don't argue with anonymous people.

So I am Dr. Kelly Victory. I can give you my credentials where I trained. You know who I am. I can bring on somebody like Dr. William Mackus, also willing to use his name and his credentials. So you're galloping towards name instead of discussing the CDC data? I don't understand why you don't want to reside on the data. No, what I'm saying is I do not argue with people.

As far as I know, you work for Pfizer. Okay. Why would I work for Pfizer? All right, so I'm going to – okay. As far as I know okay as far as i know we're supposed to do no calls tomorrow so but kayla's throwing a sign up to me saying no covet calls right well we could at least review this data if we want to but listen you guys we're not going to solve this unless we you know prepare to have the argument discussion we about it. We're definitely not, but I wanted to take a moment to say thank you. Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Did I get rid of him? Can you bring him back? Wait. He's still there. I'll try and bring him up. But if he's still listening, please email the stuff you're talking about

to contact at drdrew.com, and I'll try to get this to Dr. Drew and Dr. Kelly directly. I've got it in front of me. I've got it here. I mean, it's very, very easily accessible. The question is, is it adulterated, and why is there a difference, what Kelly's saying? And this all needs to be, to me, kind of worked through. That's why I'm staying out of the cancer conversation, because it seems too complicated for me. Cancer it's cancer is a sporadically occurring illness it's to try to to try to give it a infectious you know sort of um inciting influence it it should show up it should show up if there's an inciting but inciting and say i'm like an infectious disease you know you get an agent and it causes it you should see that you should see

that data show up in next couple couple of years, seems to me. Yeah. And yes, I think we're starting, I mean, I think we are seeing, if you talk to individual oncologists and, you know, people might know, for example, you know, I have the opportunity to speak to oncologists regularly. And so I know what they're, you you know what individual oncologists are seeing and then we have people like you know the folks who are good friends of this show which includes people like pierre corey and ryan cole and uh peter mccullough and william mackis and others um all

of whom you know have no have no reason to um to try to you know fudge the data or cause an increase. True, but they could be wrong. I mean, that's the point. We can't make the mistake that the other side make and get too hubristic about our... That's my one call to all of us. Let's just be open. Let's be open.

I think when the day is done, it's going to be a lot of mixed stuff. That's why I'm so focused on the myocarditis it's super clear there's something going on there and once something else clears up and i'm going to hang my hat on that uh art you can unmute your mic there art oh he's not used to unmuting it's in the lower left hand corner there the cartoon just went up showing you how to do it um and if you don't uh if you're not able to uh get up there oh i'm going to bring just data up uh to finish his comment if he wishes while we're trying to get uh art in here hi do you want to data you want to just finish that last comment you're making you You were saying thank you for something.

Absolutely. I was saying thank you for the discussion. Thanks for listening to both sides. And thank you for being open-minded as we continue to look at both cancer data as well as cardiovascular data, which I also included in the issue. We saw the sharp rise in 2020, but not in 2021. I'd like to say thank you again for the opportunity to speak and have a good day. Yep. You got it. Thank you.

Okay, Art, are you there? Yes, I am, Dr. Drew. How are you doing? Art Ziegler. I'm good. How are you? I'm doing great. Excellent. I was listening about the myocarditis, and my father-in-law, who lives with us, is 94.

And he had been in perfect health through a couple of years ago. And I guess it was about a year and a half after he took his COVID shot. He started having ventricular tachycardia events. How long after the vaccine? How long? About a year and a half. Year and a half. About a year and a half. Year and a half. About a year and a half.

He was the only one in the household who decided to get the vaccine because he felt because of his age he needed to and I was thinking because of his age he didn't need to but that was the difference of opinion. But

one of the things with the ventricular tachycardia, he'd been in perfect health until then. No heart issues, nothing. There's no real blood pressure issues, just diabetes too. That was the main thing with him. And now he's gotten to the point where he can't get up can't move around because his blood pressure's going up and down like crazy so okay well those are all you know i mean it could be a you know pot syndrome but go ahead kelly well what i was going to say is unfortunately at 94 when somebody develops a cardiac issue, unfortunately, he's in an age group where

those sorts of things do start to happen or can start to happen, the ventricular tachycardia in particular. Now, I will say, however, that labile blood pressures, this issue of blood pressures going up and down, that is something that we have seen an increase in without any question following these vaccines. It's quite profound in a young person when you see it. People look at it with less of a critical eye, I think, when it happens to somebody in their 90s. So that by itself is unusual. The ventricular tachycardia, unfortunately, and changes in heart health can happen certainly in that ninth decade for certain.

So there'd be no way to say with certainty that this was secondary to the vaccine. That said, Dr. McCullough just posted a sub stack just today, I think, where his concern is that people are continuing to show cardiac injury, you know, two years, two plus years following vaccine, and that he has concerns about even sudden cardiac death two years later. So the fact that, you know, I guess what I'm saying is a long way of saying there's no way to stay with your father in particular because he's in that age group where heart issues can happen anyway. But,

and I, we probably will never know if his was vaccine related. Right. I will say one thing, Art, one thing I will say, Art, is that the,

in terms of these labile blood pressures like that, these sort of autonomic instabilities in elderly patient, the most common place that I see that is in the setting of even mild Parkinson's. So does he have Parkinson's at all? Right. No Parkinson's at all. And he's on two medications, one for the VT. It's amirotadrone. And the other is midodrine to bring his blood pressure back up.

Because when he wakes up in the morning, his blood pressure a lot of times is something like 91 over 58. So he has... This happens. He tries to sit up and he gets dizzy, or he just wants to pass out very nauseated. So we're just trying to help him get through it. I get it. And I want to say, I know, Art, you had another family member that had an episode. I want you to know that that person was at a leading edge of something we are seeing, continue to see

a lot of in the last few years from cannabis a lot the cannabis is so powerful that is just causing these syndromes and that person in your own sphere there had something that is now quite common to me quite commonplace oh yeah and and since she's been on her medication and off the other, then she's been doing very good. Yeah. Great. Congratulations. Thank you.

Talk to you soon, my friend. Okay. You got it. We'll keep going here. This is John. Real John MK is the. Okay. And Ian, I'll be with you next.

And John, you have to unmute yourself. Okay, I'm trying to get to everybody. You guys have been very good about raising your hands. There are quite a number of you requesting now, so I'm trying to get through everybody. But I tell you what I am going to have to do is if the uh the microphone glitches like seems to be happening with john i just have to move on to the next person so because we are running out of time ian you are up next uh ian crossland hey what's up gian hey drew uh thanks for having me on thanks kelly and

caleb thanks for hosting. This is Ian Crossman from TimCast IRL. I co-host with Tim. I've been thinking a lot about the DNA plasmid. I think that's what it is. It's just this, from what I can tell, DNA got broken up and then has infected the process. I want to figure out how to concisely talk about this stuff on YouTube. Ian, Ian, Ian, you must have missed that we did about 20 minutes of it with a biotech expert at the outset of the show.

With Christy, did you hear all that? Okay, good. Yeah, I did. Some of it was passing over. I was really, really listening. I'm going to go on this big YouTube show, and I want to talk about it concisely. Are there documents that I can reference that you guys are aware of? They talk about the plasmid contamination, the DNA?

The plasmid. I think you need three things. You need three things. If I'm telling you, Christie has several great threads. There are only about 10 or 12 entries per thread, and you can really bring yourself up to an expertise on how you know what what the the issues are on the plasmid doctor um what's the doctor she always references he has all the data on the what is it well and and gets go uh you know who we've had on the show a couple times you know he's a phd was good yeah he you know he did though really has broken it down into lay terms i think the debate and switch um so he you know that's the part of it as to what what why you know why there's concerns about the the plasmid being used as the platform for developing

the vaccine and yet they didn't ask for approval for that platform so people are worried about that and and jessica rose also has a good one jess rose the final thing is that i'm sorry to interrupt you is this other doctor that has a lot of good stuff up here let me see uh plasmid doctor who's gets go i get these, these full names as well. You can go, if, if you go on to drdrew.com, you can, you can,

you can actually get the spelling of his last name and see, actually look at the hour long segment that we did with him. He's actually based in Israel got it that's Getzgo it's G-O-E-T something like that it's not G-O-E-T I can't tell you how I'm not sure how to spell it so you'd have to look on the website

I can't tell you offhand I think it's probably mentioned yeah go ahead yeah Christy what's her last name I want to follow up on her work too I think it's probably mentioned. Yeah. Go ahead. Sorry to interrupt, man. Yeah, Christy, what's her last name? I want to follow up on her work too. Christy Grace.

And Kayla, maybe you can throw up her Twitter handle. It's at something of grace. I said it a few minutes ago. Working on it right now. I'll put it on screen. Maybe you can throw that up there. Okay. He won't see it, so I'll read it after you put it up there but there

but she also is very involved with another um researcher who was one of the first to sort of raise a question about this and one of the the other issues is how the regions of the plasmid were identified and for some reason in all the applications and in all the material that's available about the plasmid they leave out the most important piece of dna which is the so-called promoter region which is the part that if it gets into your dna can change the regulation of the dna and that's how cancers happen okay they left that out of the documentation yeah they left it out of the documentation but it was actually there were promoters within that they found that's how i understand it yes and there there are researchers out there making issue of that not me i'm just taking their word for it so i don't know again

this is all stuff i'm hearing that's that's coming my way yeah so christy and i want to come back out to wes christy is you can find heart of grace yeah well it's it's well it's x.com slash underscore heart of grace underscore so it's h-e-a-r-t-o-f-g-r-a-c-e but there's an underscore at the beginning and the end Christy Laura Grace her account might be protected

and locked right now say that again the what? sometimes she locks her account i think it might be locked right now but you can request to follow and she'll probably approve people there okay i just follow her and i want to i want to okay i want to come back out to west virginia and see you guys let's do it man i you hit me up on twitter uh i message me i message you and then let's do something on twitter and then get you out here, dude. Okay. Done a done.

I want to hear more. All right, brother. Thanks, man. I really appreciate your time, guys. Looking forward to more callers. All right. Anytime. Good to hear from you. Let me quickly... Gosh, you guys have been so good and so patient. I'm already feeling bad that we're not going to get to a lot of people. So I'm trying to get to a lot of people um so i'm trying to get to people that have been up here waiting a while by the way i like kelly's point that if she doesn't know who somebody is she's not gonna sign on yeah yeah yeah i yeah i don't argue with people who hide behind a shroud of a shroud of anonymity uh and and nor do i argue with people

who interrupt me incessantly because you're simply trying to pick a fight. You're not actually interested in a true, you know, robust, but respectful debate. I'll debate with anybody on the facts, but I want to know who they are. I don't argue with faceless, nameless people because it goes into exactly what I've said, which is who do you work for? How do I know that you're not a pharma shill? If we want to actually have integrity in our data and integrity in the discussion, then man up and put your face and your name

and your credentials out there, just like I do every single day, and expose and disclose who it is who's paying you. If anybody... We should bring you, at some point, bring the data up, because I do know the data he's referencing, and that's why I'm waiting on the cancer data to evolve before I say anything about that.

Yeah, fair enough, and I agree with you, Drew. I think we should look at the data and say, why is this data not comport with what I'm seeing or with my data? Yeah. And look at it and say, you know, is there a reason? You sent me a study the other day, by the way, and said you had an issue with a particular paragraph. And it was a study looking at whether or not there was ill effects to newborns from pregnant women who were injected with mRNA during their pregnancies. The first thing I did before I ever even read that study was to look at the conflicts of interest.

Two of the three authors work for the Canadian counterpart of what we'd call the CDC, and the third investigator, Fell fell is employed by Pfizer. Okay. So you tell me how much faith I am going to put in that study. Two out of the three work for the CDC for the Canadian Canada CDC. And the third works for Pfizer. I don't really want to hear what they have to say about, you know, that's the, you know, that's the,

you know, you got the fox guarding the hen house. I'm a little more, maybe it's naive, but at least look at the study. Anti-corrupt. You're up. Just unmute your mic and you're in. There you are. Hi, thank you. Thank you, Dr. dr drew i just wanted to say i put in the little purple pill at the bottom this should be going live on naomi wolf's site shortly i just got out of communication with her there is a protest going on outside of pfizer this sunday between 1 and 3 p.m we have also put together i helped author the letter the press release and such to albert borla it's been sent to the letter, the press release and such to Albert Borla. It's been sent to the Michigan legislature. We are awaiting votes to see what legislators will be signing it. We are asking them to halt the production of the COVID-19 vaccine and remdesivir upon further,

you know, finding out about the adulteration and the things that we're discussing here and also the deadly hospital protocols that we know are a result of remdesivir. We may have a special guest speaker. We're not sure. We may not find out until last minute, but I just sent that stuff over to Naomi. She should be publishing it on her site. If not, there is information in the bubble, but I am waiting to hear back from the Michigan legislature to find out who, if any of the legislatures, will be signing that letter to Albert Borla directly asking him and Pfizer to stop the production based on the ongoing revelations that we're finding about the vaccine. Thank you. Okay. There you go. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Okay. There you go. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. We are just about out of time. I think Steve Kirsch is going to join us. Oh, what is Steve doing? On Twitter spaces. What does Steve need? He emailed us.

Remember, we had asked a question this morning to you guys. Yeah. I don't think. There were some email exchanges about us not doing that. So thank you for putting me in a very awkward position. No, I mean. But I will be happy. He likes to stir the pot a little bit.

Yes, he does. Yes, he does indeed. He's on. Can you see him? I don't see him. Are you raising your hand, Steve? Or he's requesting to be a speaker. Yeah, I have to request to be a speaker.

There's a little lag, so he'll just hear that now okay give me a second i'm looking around for it is see if i can find him sorry we're running out of time too what's that caleb ask him susan ask him to uh request like to raise his hand i also i i do think it's kind of funny that the moment that you said steve's name then the real truther also shows up on the space at the exact same time. Hello, real truther. We got to have the positive and the negative poles. Get them both on at the same time.

That's a different day. Steve's up. Okay, he's got it. He did it. Caleb, can you see him? Yes, I got him. He's up. And thank him for the lovely time the other night. And his heated toilet seat.

Steve put on a thing here you are and steve uh very kindly put a put a uh fundraiser together for your friend uh bobby kennedy kelly and it was lovely that's great so steve what's going on uh well i i just got off the phone with Roger Seaholt. And I asked Roger, I basically have posted this survey results that show that the COVID vaccines are a complete disaster. And I said, look, anybody can replicate the survey in 24 hours. And it will cost Roger about five minutes of his time to replicate the survey. Literally, lest he could do it for less than five minutes. All he has to do, I'll give him a custom URL. He can just post that. And he and I can watch the data come in and make sure the data wasn't tampered with.

So neither of us could touch the data. And he hung up on me. And Caleb, you have concerns about online data collection. me let me express what what the issue is the concerns are with that kind of thing Caleb uh yes I uh yeah so I I love Steve I love Steve a lot I just I know with the internet it's called I mean a lot of people internet call it the Bodie McBoatface phenomenon, where if you have a poll on the internet, and especially if you, it's, they're very easily manipulated. I can go online and I can buy 10,000 votes in a Twitter poll for like $150. And so it's really hard. I don't usually, I don't usually look at Twitter polls as good, as a good way of doing

a study. But now that's not to say that your data is bad, Steve. It's not a Twitter poll. It's not a Twitter poll. You don't even know what the poll is. Right, right. That's why it's like I... To be honest, I said that in a little private conversation with Drew. It wasn't about anything that you're doing specifically. I just said it in general

that it's hard for me... He's educating me about how this works. I don at you. Educating me about how this works. I don't know anything about your details. So this isn't anything about Steve Kirsch specifically, Steve. I follow you very closely, so I like your stuff. I'm just saying that in general, it's really difficult to use polls on any space, not even just Twitter, but from anywhere that's online based because they're very easily manipulated. And plus, it's also if you send a poll out to

your followers and you may have 200 or I don't know, 500,000 or a million followers, it's going to be very skewed because the people that follow you are already somewhat skewed as it is. And that's, it's not saying that you're, you're doing it badly. I'm just saying in general with online polls, that's how you end up with, you know, they do a public poll in a city and they're like, what are we going to name the city's official boat? And then Boaty McBoatface wins because it goes viral on the internet amongst a bunch of trolls. So that's my only point. I think before you comment on the poll, you should read the poll, you should look at the data, and you should look at the questions, and you should look at the explanation for why there's no bias.

Are you willing to do that? Okay. Yeah, all the way to the end. Why don't you go ahead and at least give people a feel for what is the poll? Give people an idea of what it is. The poll was sent out to people who follow me on Substack, who read me on Substack. And it asked if you know of anyone who died since January 1 of 2021. And then it asked for details about the death. What was the date of the death?

When was the date of the last vaccination? How many vaccinations did the person have? Things like that. These are all third-party verifiable pieces of information, in some cases. In some cases, that information is not maybe private, but the person who has it knows it, and we can verify that and see if we can verify that. And so the point is that there is no incentive for people to lie. There is no possible way people can collude on the answer to manipulate the results to get it in the form that you want because nobody knows

how anybody else voted. And yet the signal is clear. There is no possible way that you could get, I don't care if the people are biased, it is impossible to get these results because they're consistent. So either people are lying consistently or have the exact same bias for everybody, or the poll is reflecting reality. And many people wrote in to say that they couldn't fill out the poll because they didn't have the accurate information. They didn't know when the person was last vaccinated, or they didn't know which vaccine was the last vaccine the person had. This is why I only got 500 responses while I normally get 12,000, because people followed the instructions, which is only report what you know

and give me a link so I can have it verified that the name of the person matches, they died, and so forth. So people would have to actually kill people in the past in order to game this survey. And to my knowledge, people can't time travel into the past, kill someone right after they got a vaccine, and then report it. And also that they would have to know that person too. So time travel is not possible. It would be very hard to game the survey because most people only knew at most one person who died and they knew the vaccination details of that person.

And so they could only respond with one person. And it's not like they're killing people because they knew Steve Kirsch was going to run a poll two years later. I understand that, Steve. And Steve, I love you. This isn't trying to say that any of your data is inaccurate. I haven't dug that deep into it.

I just know from my experience of being on the internet for a while, you know, since I was a little kid, that anything that's done on the internet, you have to assume people are lying. And if you don't actually have like full on, you know, if they're not uploading death certificates and things, there are a lot of different influences on both sides. Like there's influences from the anti-vax movement and the pro-vax movement that want to mess with it. They can't lie consistently. Let's say you have 10,000 answers. And you go and you look at samples of 100 or less. And you pick thousands of random samples of 100 or less.

You get the same numbers. Right. So here's how... It doesn't work that way they have to be reflecting reality in order to get that kind of consistency but there the thing is there are organized groups that try to do this so like for example if if let's say someone over on 4chan posts something there and they said let's go mess with this guy they'll make stuff up but you see they they they don't know what I was looking for. And I have proof of that because I asked people, I went on Twitter for all these guys to expose me.

I said, do you know how I can use this to prove it? And nobody was able to do that. Nobody could figure out what I was asking for. So they can't game the survey if they don't know what I'm looking for and how it will be analyzed. Right. And so the way I would say, because I do know the survey and at your behest, I did review quite a few of the survey submissions. And what I would say is this. Hey, Kelly, that was an earlier survey. So on this survey, I don't ask for any opinions. I ask for opinions, but it's discarded. I don't even use the opinions. So anything that they said, any justification, any opinion,

is not in the survey that I most recently did. Okay. What I was going to say about these surveys in general, Steve, because I do think you've taken some pains to make sure that it doesn't get corrupted the way that Caleb is clearly pointing out that some of these can, and many of them are, is that I'm very clear that this is not a, quote, scientific study. We aren't looking at hard data. What you did, however, I think is important because this falls squarely under what I would call when there's smoke, there's fire. There is evidence and it's evidence that's being provided by the average lay person.

People are seeing this and you cannot continually ask people to not believe their lion eyes and not believe what they are seeing happening around them. A lot of people know someone who has been harmed by these vaccines. Are they a doctor? Do they have the data? Has it been published at UCSF? Has it shown up at the CDC?

No, the reality is if you think that observation and what people are seeing, what millions of people are seeing doesn't hold sway, you're wrong, or doesn't have legitimacy, you're wrong. I think what you are looking at is good. People poke holes at it because it is not, and I freely admit, a scientific study. It won't get published somewhere, Steve, but it's real. This falls under the, where there's smoke, I promise you there is fire.

Yes. And I want to say really quickly, I would never challenge Steve to a debate because Steve does this 24-7, 365 right now. So I'm not challenging the data and everything you just said, Kelly, is true. Where there's smoke, there's fire. My worry is that if we start basing our arguments on these types of polls, then what I just said, those are the arguments that the other side are going to use to try and dismantle it. I totally agree. Steve, you could totally be 100% right. I just worry they're going to say those things about internet polls. So it's not against you. All right. Yeah. Look, this is not about me. It's not about my poll. The point is that no public health authority will go through their records and confirm the results.

Nobody is going to look at the records. Nobody even has the records so they can look at it because they keep the databases separate. So they basically, no public, any public health authority could replicate this in their own database in a day. All right, guys, we got to leave it here. We've run over by quite a bit. Steve, I will talk to you very soon. I appreciate you being here. Okay, thank you.

You bet. And Kelly, we appreciate you as well. You'll be back tomorrow. I will. We'll be talking about non-COVID, which is great. I have a feeling we're going to get some overlap tomorrow, whether we like it or not. Because there are many, many people I did not get to today.

It'll just be data. Yeah, I did not get to. But we have to promote something, too. I want anybody in the New York area who likes the show and wants to see us live in New York at a comedy festival. We're going to do an Ask Dr. Drew with Jimmy Fela and Kat Temp. Everybody loves them. They've been guests on the show.

It won't be live streaming, but we'd love to see your faces. Do we have the video, Caleb? It'll play at the end of the show. Yeah, I have a promo that'll play. Okay, excellent. And yeah, the tickets are available at drdrew.com slash nycomedy. That'll be fun. And it's not expensive.

It's me and Kat and Jimmy Fallon. So we're going to be shitting on things that we can do in a more raunchy way in a comedy festival. Fair enough. So Kelly, we'll do a little carryover from this topic, no doubt, because again, there's like 30 people that want to come up and ask questions. But we really want to take any medical, psychiatric, ER, whatever questions you might have. Tomorrow will be the day for that.

And there's the little flyer for the Chelsea Music Hall on 830. November 6th. All right, Kelly. It's a Monday. You don't have anything else going on. Come on down. Tomorrow we're going to be at our usual time, 3 in the afternoon. Our on Monday. November 6th. All right, Kelly. It's a Monday. You don't have anything else going on. Come on down. Tomorrow we're going to be at our usual time at 3 in the afternoon, correct? We all agree on it? All right. We'll see everybody

tomorrow at 3 o'clock Pacific time. 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.