Ask Dr. Drew - Dr. Harvey Risch: mRNA Adverse Reaction Data Suppressed by CDC w/ Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 148

Starting point is 00:00:00 Hi, and welcome. Thanks for tuning in. Happy Wednesday. Happy Thanksgiving Eve. I'm Dr. Kelly Victory filling in for Dr. Drew, who is just wrapping up a much needed and well-deserved holiday with Susan and their kids over in Europe. Drew and team will be back. In fact, I think they're flying back tomorrow. So they'll be back Friday for a special show, which I'll talk about at the end today. Today, I am joined with my guest, one of my very favorite people, fellow COVID truth tellers and brilliant epidemiologist, Dr. Harvey Reich. Many of you have been following him for the duration of this pandemic and with good cause. He's been a real ray of light. And as I said, a truth teller

Starting point is 00:00:53 who has been fearless. Dr. Harvey Reich is an epidemiologist, now epidemiologist emeritus from the Harvard, excuse me, Yale, the Yale Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. His research interests prior to COVID at least were cancer etiology, early treatment and prevention. He is a brilliant epidemiologist. As I said, I've learned a tremendous amount from him myself during this pandemic with regard to how to read studies, to find the flaws in the

Starting point is 00:01:26 studies and understand which studies are actually worth listening to and reading and which ones are essentially junk science. As importantly, as I said, Dr. Reich has been very, very vocal during the pandemic. In 2020, he provided testimony to the Senate regarding the COVID pandemic. He has spoken widely about his opposition to the mandates, masking, all of these things, as well as the reliability or lack thereof of the PCR tests. He has successfully fought the vaccine mandates in New York for city workers, saying that anyone who'd already had and recovered from COVID already had far superior immunity. So we look forward to getting into many of those topics. As you all know, I am required to read this disclaimer

Starting point is 00:02:20 with regard to our comments and our discussion here today. The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and reduce your risk of severe illness. Parts of this show may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. You should always consult your physician before making any decisions about your health. And given that Dr. Riesch and I are exhibit A in countervailing views on COVID, I wouldn't be surprised. So you can expect that

Starting point is 00:02:51 disclaimer to pop up once or twice during this show. Before I go to Dr. Riesch, however, I feel obligated, because it is Eve of Thanksgiving, to wax a little philosophical, perhaps, with regard to where we've been and where we're going. These last three years, I mean, apart from the damage that was done and the millions of people who died unnecessarily because of suppression of information on certain drugs and certain therapeutics, apart from the huge toll that we exacted on children by disrupting two and a half plus years of their education, forcing them to mask, causing them to have fear and anxiety in social situations and on and on. Apart from the smoldering crater

Starting point is 00:03:47 that we left where our economy used to be by the lockdown, specifically targeting and harming those smaller businesses, the mom and pop shops, the one-offs, anything other than a big box. Apart from all of that, really, and perhaps far worse, was really the devastating rift that this pandemic and our response to it has put between families, friends, acquaintances, coworkers, because people felt obligated to pick a side. You were either vax or not vax, mask or not mask. You agreed with the lockdowns or you didn't. You bought into the idea of the vaccine mandates or you didn't. And here we are now, three years later, again, on the eve of our third Thanksgiving of this debacle. And I am not

Starting point is 00:04:40 suggesting that we are granting amnesty, and Dr. Riesch and I will get into that topic, amnesty to people who should have known better, those people at the helm of our public health institutions, those people running the large agencies, federal agencies, those politicians who used this. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the people who you are likely to be joining or hopefully joining tomorrow for a time of family gathering. Those people who you may be estranged from or may have had some distance from because you found yourself on the other side of the aisle. I am no stranger to this. I have a very, very large family that I have not seen in two and a half years because we have diametrically opposed opinions on this. And I was a psychologist before I was a doctor. I have a

Starting point is 00:05:31 graduate degree in clinical psychology. If I put on that hat, my clinical psychology hat, I will tell you this isn't something that's just going to go away. It's not going to mend itself. This isn't something where you can apply tincture of time. In other words, time heals all things and we just let time go by. This rift has taken on a life of its own, in my opinion. And without doing something proactive to mend that rift between you and those people who had previously been close friends or our family members, I don't think it's going to get better. So I would suggest that you use this Thanksgiving, in my humble opinion, to do something proactive. I don't know what that is. Maybe raise a glass of

Starting point is 00:06:17 wine, make a call, pat someone on the back, do something that says, let's at least the two of us or the three of us or our family get beyond this. There's plenty of time for hashing out who did what wrong, but with regard to your family and friends, use this Thanksgiving as a time to say, no more. We will not have another holiday or let another holiday go by where we have this estrangement or this divide between us. I'll be back soon with Dr. Riesch. love addiction. Fentanyl and heroin? Ridiculous. I'm a doctor for f**k'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

Starting point is 00:07:14 the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat. If you have trouble, you can't stop and you want help stopping, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. Bet MGM 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.

Starting point is 00:08:03 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.

Starting point is 00:08:26 BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Dr. Reich, welcome. Thanks very much for joining me. I meant what I said. You are one of my favorite truth tellers during this debacle. So thanks for taking your Thanksgiving Eve to be here with us. I also have to tell you that part of the reason I wanted it to be you today with me is because we can now arm everybody with facts, figures, and the latest data so that they are sure to be the

Starting point is 00:08:57 hit of the Thanksgiving dinner table tomorrow when they come right in and launch into some really controversial topics before anyone even passes the giblet gravy. Welcome. Great to be with you. Thanks. So we'll start right in. One of the things that you have been really terrific about is exposing the problems, the issues with the quote studies. We've been told from the beginning of this pandemic, follow the science, the issues with the quote studies. Let's, you know, we've been told from the beginning of this pandemic, follow the science, follow the science. And much of the problem is that the science has been troubled. The science, you can't expect, or I don't expect the average lay person to be able to read a scientific study and understand why it's flawed. Even, you know,

Starting point is 00:09:44 frankly, tragically, perhaps, your average physician isn't very good at it. I don't think they do a very good job of teaching that anymore. And if you didn't go to graduate school like you did and I did, meaning non-medical graduate school, you largely didn't learn statistics or statistical analysis or study design or any of that stuff in which you are truly expert as an epidemiologist. Talk a little bit about, let's start at a relatively high level. When we talk about what's going on with the studies, those that have been quoted saying whatever it is, that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin don't work or that masks do work or that the vaccines are safe and effective. Whatever the study is, talk just in general high-level terms about why you see so many of the studies and even the relationship with big pharma, why there is so much doubt now or should

Starting point is 00:10:38 be about the veracity of the outcomes that are reported in these studies? Well, what I've really recognized over the last three years is that the public messaging about all of this has not actually been science at all. It's been plausibility, that what we've been told is certain plausible theories about scientific issues, but we've never actually been told the science because much of the science hasn't actually been there in the first place. It's been presented as if these were scientific materials and questions, but they're never addressed scientifically. So the first thing I would say is that people have to understand that there's a difference between plausibility and science.

Starting point is 00:11:25 Plausibility, which means theories about how nature works, are just that, they're theories. And they remain theories until somebody does an observational study or an experiment to actually do work to figure out what the real world does when you address the theory. And so you gather evidence that way, and that evidence either tends to confirm or to refute your theory, and so you update the theory to address the new evidence. Or if the evidence is so compelling that the theory doesn't work, then you discard the theory and you move on to the next one. That's how science is done. We have not had that. We've had statement after statement after statement of things like masking prevents transmission of the virus or that the vaccines will prevent transmission of the virus or medications do work or medications don't work.

Starting point is 00:12:15 All of these things have been statements of essentially theories. And when one tries to address the science behind them, one finds that the science isn't there, or it's bad science, fatally flawed science posing as real science. And there's countless examples of these things. Every day, it's overwhelming to deal with new papers that come out that are just either fraudulent or fatally flawed, and so on. It's routine now, instead of seeing what real science is. And it's really astonishing that this whole promulgation of plausibility instead of science is actually much older than the COVID epidemic, pandemic has been. So if you go back to 1990, 1991, medicine at that point had been an accumulating body of medical knowledge spanning thousands of years and realistically, for the most part, last 400 years of scientific observation and sharing of information between doctors

Starting point is 00:13:21 that rapidly escalated in knowledge about diseases and drugs and so on for the last 100 or 150 years. And in 1990, it was proposed a new field of medicine called evidence-based medicine. And I remember as an epidemiologist at that time feeling insulted that somehow medicine knowledge, medical knowledge up to 1991 wasn't evidence-based. Suddenly we have new field with new rules of evidence and so on. And so what was being said is that the pinnacle of medical evidence was the randomized controlled trial, the double-blinded randomized controlled trial. And this of course is an affront to epidemiology as a whole because epidemiology has a lot more science behind it than just randomized trials. However, the idea that

Starting point is 00:14:11 randomized trials solve medical evidence problems is plausible. It's very attractive because one would think that if you randomize subjects, then on average, everything is balanced out between the treatment group and the placebo group. And so any effect that you see in such a study could only be attributable to the effect of the drug versus the placebo. That's the theory. And this is so believable. And I had an on-air discussion about this with a CNN interviewer a couple of years ago who provided no evidence that this was so, only plausibility because it's so believable. But as it turns out, it's actually not true.

Starting point is 00:14:52 And the reason why plausibility fails in this case is because of the practicalities of randomization. What this means is, for example, do a thought experiment, flip a coin 10 times. You flip a coin 10 times, you're very likely to get seven heads and three tails or vice versa. Now, seven heads versus three tails is more than a twofold difference. What the problem is in epidemiology is called confounding. And this is when you have, say, a drug that's related to a disease, but it's not really the drug that causes the disease, it's something else that's associated with the drug. That's called a confounder.

Starting point is 00:15:27 That kind of relationship that biases the real true relationship you're trying to study is one that does not depend on whether it occurred by chance, but on how big the relationship is. So in your coin flipping experiment, a twofold relationship is a big problem. If you've got a twofold relationship that underlies your drug versus the outcome you're trying to prevent in your trial, then that could bias it quite a bit. So the point of randomization is to remove that kind of bias

Starting point is 00:15:58 by other factors except for the drug. Randomization, however, doesn't work when you only have 10 people because I just showed you it's easy to get seven versus three, so it's not working. Randomization, however, doesn't work when you only have 10 people. Because I just showed you, it's easy to get seven versus three, so it's not working. If you have 70 versus 30, it works really well, but seven versus three doesn't. And those numbers have to be in the people who have the outcome, the people who died in the trial, for example, if the trial is to prevent mortality. And so what you see is, for example, the first trial of the Pfizer vaccine to prevent spread of COVID, to prevent getting infected by COVID, in the treatment group,

Starting point is 00:16:32 there were eight COVID infections, whereas in the placebo group, there were 162. So 162 is really good, but eight for randomization is useless. You can't randomize eight people and expect them to be randomized for anything. And so that trial failed in plain sight because of the small number of events in the treatment group means that the randomization didn't work. So a study with 40,000, 44,000 subjects, it looks like it's a big study when it only has eight outcome events in one of the arms of the trial is useless. And that's the problem that faces us, that in order for randomization to work, you have

Starting point is 00:17:10 to have large numbers of people as the outcomes in all the arms of the study. And nobody's policing that. Nobody's monitoring that. And so all these studies get published in the New England Journal and Lancet and so on, purporting to be big and important randomized trials when they're all bogus because the randomization didn't work and the authors didn't even think about that and didn't adjust for other kinds of variables of other factors that might have biased the results as well. They just left the raw results there that are biased because the randomization failed. Well, and this is an issue, I think the question really is why, because is this just

Starting point is 00:17:49 because these people aren't very bright and they design a really lousy study? I mean, the pharmaceutical companies are well, well versed. They have a playbook for how they essentially, as far as I'm concerned, end up falsifying data. They lie about data. They expunge data. They have underpowered studies. They don't divulge the conflicts of interest in studies. They disparage well-known experts like yourself who then criticize the studies. So there's this whole playbook that comes out of pharma and the relationship between, I think, what people need to understand is this deep relationship between the people funding many of these studies and how the studies are designed. Because you're hard pressed, or at least I am hard pressed to come to the conclusion that all of these researchers are just stupid, that they just came up with a bad study. When you look, for example, at that ACTIV-6 trial that came out, essentially putting the final nail in the coffin of ivermectin for

Starting point is 00:18:52 the treatment of COVID, it is such a preposterously, just a ridiculously bad study. I mean, they gave the wrong dose of the drugs. They gave way too little of the drug, particularly to the obese patients who are at highest risk. They gave it for too short a duration. They didn't start it until too late in the course. And then they came to the stunning conclusion at the end that ivermectin didn't work to treat COVID when, in fact, the study was, in my estimation, designed to fail. So where do you fall on that? Where the control patients went out and bought ivermectin over the counter because they were still getting sick.

Starting point is 00:19:39 Yeah. And there were study patients who tried to sign up on the weekend. And so they were like on day 13 or something of their illness by the time they started the treatment with the ivermectin. So again, these are studies. If somebody died and anointed me king, I would make the conflicts that appear at the very, very end of any of these studies. The conflicts are the last thing that are divulged in the study. I would literally make it a law that you have to emblazon that above the title in the article, sort of the study, so that I could decide if I even want to read it. in Moderna or used to work for Johnson & Johnson or whatever it is. Because I really think that this has been driving a huge part of what's been going on with this pandemic because people quote these studies all the time. Yours and my colleagues do all the time. And a big part of the problem is, as you said, these are just junk studies. And you think, I mean, what's our, and these are in the big journals.

Starting point is 00:20:47 These aren't in sort of some throwaway, you know, this isn't appearing in Golf Digest. These are studies that are appearing in the big ones, you know, BMJ, Lancet, all of the big medical journals, the top five that people really look to. You know, has this been going on for forever and we just didn't know it? Yes, it's been going on for forever and we didn't know it. That, you know, the reason why the clinicaltrials.gov database was set up was because of this chicanery. Congress passed the law in 1997, eventually got it set up in 2000 to register the design, every aspect, all the nitty-gritty detail of every clinical trial for drugs for serious diseases. And that's now moved into

Starting point is 00:21:36 essentially any clinical trial that gets set up has to be registered in clinicaltrials.gov in order to pin down the details so they can't be fudged in the middle of the trial. And even so, chicanery still happens. But at least Congress was recognizing that there were problems, that randomization didn't guarantee good studies because they were still doing this. It used to be that the pharma companies would carry out 10 trials, 10 different trials, then pick the one that did the best and hide all the others. So that's why they had to register all the trials so that they couldn't do that. There's lots of ways of manipulating trials to make them look bad or look good. And many of these ways are still apparent in plain view when you read the trials.

Starting point is 00:22:22 But part of the problem that we've been facing is that statisticians and medical researchers in general do not understand epidemiology, and they think they do. They think that epidemiology has no science, and yet they think that they understand it when they don't. And the whole issue that I've said about confounding is never addressed in randomized trials. The trials are never designed to reduce confounding. They're designed to have enough power, statistical power, to see a benefit of the size that they think is going to happen. But it has to be much larger in order to reduce the potential confounding because of bad randomization.

Starting point is 00:23:01 And they're never designed for that. We're going to, in a minute here, we're going to take a break for a commercial, but before, and when we come back, I want to get into the weeds a little bit about specifically how these different quote studies ended up putting the kibosh on really effective, safe, readily available medications that could have been used and should have been used to treat COVID from the beginning. And you've been a very vocal about that and about the devastating results of the hit job that was put on those specific drugs. But I do want to make the comment too, you were dissing the whole concept of evidence-based medicine. In my mind, that was the worst thing

Starting point is 00:23:46 that ever came down the pike during, I've been a practicing physician for more than 30 years. And when they all of a sudden coughed up this concept of evidence-based medicine, to me, what it really was, was a dumbing down of the practice of medicine. Essentially said that medicine is an algorithm and everybody can be crammed into that algorithm and you don't need to apply any art to practicing medicine. It's simply algorithmic because here's what the evidence shows. This is what you should do. And therefore you should do it for everyone, regardless of their age risk factors, their own risk tolerance, and those sorts of

Starting point is 00:24:26 things. And certainly that is what we saw of all of the errors that were made during this pandemic response. And that's a long list from which to choose. I think the gravest was perhaps acting as if we were all at equivalent risk from COVID, and therefore applying this, quote, evidence-based stuff with regard to everything from the lockdowns, quarantining, masking, and the suggestion that you should get vaccinated. I see evidence-based medicine really as the beginning, the death knell for truly the art of practicing medicine. Well, I agree. All right.

Starting point is 00:25:09 Well, let's take a quick break here and then we come back. We'll start talking, as I said, about some of the therapeutics and what happened with our therapeutic nihilism that went on for the duration of the COVID pandemic. I have some pretty exciting news. Our favorite skincare brand, GenuCell, is having a holiday preview sale. It just went live for all the products

Starting point is 00:25:33 that Susan and I love. GenuCell Silky Smooth XV Moisturizer soaks right into my skin instantly. And with its immediate effects, you can see the fine lines and wrinkles disappearing within 12 hours. And Susan loves, of course, the GenuCell vitamin C serum infused with the purest vitamin C that absorbs to the deepest layers of the skin because of their proprietary skincare technology.

Starting point is 00:25:54 I am a snob when it comes to using products on my face. The dermatologist makes a ton of money from 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. And for a limited time, take advantage of the GenuCell Holiday Preview Sale and save up to 60% off our favorite GenuCell products. 60% off. Treat yourself this holiday season. Go to GenuCell.com slash Drew. That's GenuCell.com slash Drew. G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash Drew. My guest is Philip Patrick. He is a precious metal specialist, trains at University

Starting point is 00:26:40 of Redlands. He has spent years as a wealth manager at Citigroup, and his current position is with Birch Gold Group. So gold has always been somewhat of a safe haven, particularly in times of great turmoil, much like our present moment, I imagine. Gold has always traditionally been a safe haven asset. Gold specifically has always been about wealth preservation, right? Gold has always held its buying power. You can look at as far back as you'd like in history and biblical times, one ounce of gold would buy somebody 400 loaves of bread. And today it does the same thing. So it's a store of value. But I would say in times like this, as you mentioned, it's particularly important when you're dealing with things like 40 year high inflationyear high inflation, the air that's coming out of a stock market bubble. These times in

Starting point is 00:27:30 particular tend to drive gold and silver up quite significantly. If things are different, the solution needs to be different as well. So I encourage everyone to get informed, and we have a lot of good information here to help your listeners. Just a reminder, I am not a financial advisor and I do not give out financial advice nor investing advice. Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, and thousands of satisfied customers. Check them out now. Visit birchgold.com and secure your future with gold. Do it now. The Dr. Drew Collectible Bobblehead is here. Limited stock for the holidays. Makes a perfect gift for any Dr. Drew fan.

Starting point is 00:28:08 And we are having a special Black Friday event offering discounts for all of our viewers. It's a high-quality bobblehead, handcrafted, hand-painted, and packed in this cool box. Look at this thing. It's got a window, clamshell for product visibility when it is boxed. And it has our logo dr drew logo all over the place uh features me and my usual jeans and uh black t-shirt that's right it's the perfect stocking stuffer for the dr drew fan in your life also for limited time save an additional five dollars with coupon code dr drew at checkout order online at drdrew.com slash shop. That is drdrew.com slash

Starting point is 00:28:46 shop for this special price. Click on the link and save 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, public health, to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population. This is uncharted territory, Drew. Terrific. Welcome back. So let's, and by the way, I'll feel like I really hit it when I get my own bobblehead. Or maybe it's the twin pack, the Dr. Kelly Victory and Anthony Fauci twin pack bobbleheads or something, garden gnomes.

Starting point is 00:29:44 Let's get into some conversation about the actual therapeutics. The reality is this, you and I know it, and hopefully more and more people are aware that we have always had effective treatments for COVID, outpatient treatments. When used early, we have always had, and it's not just a single medication, it's this cocktail of medications that has been really well honed by some of really the thought leaders, including people like Peter McCullough and Zev Zelenko and others who've treated tens of thousands of COVID patients effectively with medications like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonide, colchicine, vitamin D, zinc, really a cocktail of medications. You have been very vocal, as have I,

Starting point is 00:30:36 that really the FDA, the CDC, and other organizations are complicit really in having done a hit job on those medications and have resulted as a, you know, as a, or it caused as a result, the deaths of tens of thousands of people undoubtedly who didn't need to die. So talk a little bit, you know, you really were out there at the beginning and fearless about it. Talk about that whole part of this pandemic debacle. Well, I think it's actually hundreds of thousands of people who've died from inability to get those medications. This goes back to evidence-based medicine again. The idea that only randomized trials provide evidence in favor of medications is, aside from what I said before about how randomization doesn't work in many studies because the numbers of outcomes are too small, that there's empirical data showing that

Starting point is 00:31:40 randomized trials and non-randomized controlled trials give the same results. This was done by the Cochrane Commission, which is a meta-analysis think tank in the UK that publishes reports on various topics. And they commissioned a report from 2014, I believe, that examined the whole medical literature for about 15 years, or maybe it was longer, on studies that compared randomized trials to their non-randomized counterparts. And they ended up finding 14 meta-analyses, each one of which had hundreds or thousands of individual study comparisons, and combined that all together. So they had thousands of these studies in this meta-analysis of meta-analyses showing that the difference in risk on average between randomized trials and non-randomized,

Starting point is 00:32:32 but controlled trials is 8%. Not statistically significant, even with those thousands of numbers, an 8% difference between the two kinds of studies. That's empirical data showing that these kinds of study designs do not matter when the studies are done well. And this is why the literature for these medications is not just the randomized trials. And many of these randomized trials were purposely misrepresented as to what they found. The literature is all of the non-randomized but controlled trials. Now, the randomized trials tended to be things like looking for how long people were still symptomatic. And these studies were done by the internet. They recruited subjects on the internet. They were self-reported questionnaires. Half the people knew which medication they were on because they asked them to guess, and they guessed right in these studies. And so they could tell that they were on the drug and not on the placebo. And then when you have a self-reported subjective outcome, like are you still symptomatic or not, there's a lot of gray zone. that's not important for you know for for a potentially

Starting point is 00:33:46 life-threatening illness or what we were led to believe was a potentially life-threatening illness the only things that matter are risks of hospitalization and mortality and so most of these studies had people who are way too young they were middle-aged people there were no deaths there were one or two hospitalizations in the whole study. So these randomized trials were proclaimed as showing nothing beneficial, but in fact, they showed nothing at all. And this is the problem, that they entered the literature proclaiming that the drugs don't work when, of course, they were totally underpowered because they're designed to show anything. However, the non-randomized studies show a lot. There have been nine non-randomized studies of hydroxychloroquine, I think nine or ten of ivermectin. They all show benefit in using these drugs against risks of hospitalization

Starting point is 00:34:38 and mortality when they're used in outpatients early in the course of the illness within the first four or five days to start. And there's no question, this scientific evidence is unquestionable. And the argument that somehow the people who got the drugs because they chose to get them or not were better off and would do better is refuted by the data in the studies because the studies all show that the people who chose to take the drugs were actually sicker than the people who were willing not to take the drugs. People in general, when you give them the choice, they're symptomatic with COVID and you say, we're doing a study and do you want to take this drug or not? The people who are sicker will say, yes, more so than people who are less sick. And so that's a hurdle that the studies have

Starting point is 00:35:24 to surmount before they can even show benefit. So all of these studies are already biased against benefit from these drugs, and yet they all consistently show, you know, 50% to 75% reduction in these serious outcomes, and that's what matters. Well, what was also, you know, really glossed over is how insanely safe these drugs are. The public was led to believe that those two drugs in particular, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, were risky to take. And when in fact, these drugs have been FDA approved for use in humans for decades, in the case of hydroxychloroquine since 1942, it is so safe that we actually give it to pregnant women. It has that level of a

Starting point is 00:36:08 safety profile. And if a drug is safe to use for lupus or rheumatoid arthritis or to prevent malaria, it doesn't become unsafe when you then take it to prevent or treat COVID. If a drug is safe to treat intestinal parasites, it doesn't become unsafe when you use it to treat COVID. If a drug is safe to treat intestinal parasites, it doesn't become unsafe when you use it to treat COVID. But the public was led to believe, and with really a concerted marketing effort on the part of the FDA and the CDC to lead people to believe that. If you remember the commercial that the FDA put out with regard to ivermectin saying it showed a woman with a horse or a cow or something. It said, you're not a horse. Stop it. Implying very clearly that that ivermectin was only intended to be used in animals.

Starting point is 00:37:00 And many people believed it was a veterinary medication only. Now, fast forward two days ago, the FDA, after all of this, after many of us being threatened with our medical licenses, having pharmacists who refused to fill legitimate prescriptions, CVS, Walgreens, the whole lot of them wouldn't carry it, wouldn't fill the prescription. You were just lambasted in social media if you did it. The FDA came out two days ago and said, we never said that you shouldn't take ivermectin for COVID. We never told anyone not to do it. We just said it was a recommendation. Seriously. I mean, this is, talk about scrambling to get on the right side of history. Yeah, there it is. I love that. You're

Starting point is 00:37:45 not a horse. You're not a cow. Stop it. I mean, this was the length they went to, to try to make people believe that these medications were unsafe, when in fact they are over the counter in almost every country, other than the United States, taken by hundreds of millions of people every year with no ill effect. And so here we had these medications that could have been used. And in your estimation, you said hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people's lives could have been saved. Where do you think we go with that little bombshell? Well, you know, sometimes you wonder in the chaos of a pandemic, were you, was I crazy and was the whole world right or vice versa? And so when that happens,

Starting point is 00:38:33 I go to the FDA's website where it has this warning against hydroxychloroquine use. And this was put up in July of 2020. It's still there. And it says in big stentorian black letters, warning, do not use hydroxychloroquine for outpatients because of risks of cardiac rhythm irregularities. That's the big text. Then a little further down the page in small letters, it says, we base this warning because of one study of adverse events looked at in hospitalized patients. Now, everybody knows, all doctors treating COVID know that outpatient disease is a viral replication flu-like illness, and hospitalized disease is a calamitous infiltrative lung pneumonia where the immune system debris all fills up the lungs, and

Starting point is 00:39:22 they're treated differently. They have different pathophysiology. Almost everything about them is different. And so for the FDA to say it's basing usage of a medication for outpatients on a disease of inpatients is totally fraudulent. But it says something else in addition. It says that the FDA has no systematic information about adverse events of hydroxychloroquine in outpatients. Because if they had that, that's what they would have quoted. That's what's appropriate. If you're saying there's hazard in outpatients, then you present the outpatient data.

Starting point is 00:39:55 They didn't do that. That proves that there are no systematic, large-scale data to show that there's hazard of risk of using this medication in outpatients and with COVID. And it's plain as day just reading that webpage to see that this is a fraud, that there never has been any of this adverse events in outpatient use. And so for that reason, you know that the FDA is lying. And that's enough to cover everything. Right. Furthermore, it's interesting, this big fervor about the concern about cardiac complications with hydroxychloroquine, when actually, if you look at where that falls on

Starting point is 00:40:33 the list of risk for cardiac complications, I think it's number 33 below things like albuterol and ciprofloxacin and a heck of a lot of other medications that we prescribe that have actually a higher risk of that very complication. I don't know a physician who has ever done an EKG or a cardiac workup in a patient before prescribing hydroxychloroquine when they're doing it for something like lupus. And those patients are on the drug for years, not just to treat a, yeah, they're not just, you know, treating a transient viral illness where they're going to be on the medication for, you know, five to seven to 10 days. Uh, these are people who are on these medications and ivermectin as well for years

Starting point is 00:41:17 at a time on a daily basis, many of them. Um, anyway, so I think, I think there's something really, really important that needs to get followed up there. I want to talk for sure about the vaccines. But before we do, I want to ask you a specific question because I get asked this frequently and don't have a great answer. We have known from the beginning that the spike protein itself from COVID is toxic. We know it's thrombogenic, that it causes blood clots. We know that it causes damage to multiple organ systems in itself, just the spike protein. And that's why many of us had grave concerns about the vaccines, because the vaccines are designed to induce you to start producing these very toxic spike proteins. And in the case of the mRNA, there is no off switch. We don't know, and neither do the manufacturers, for how long you will continue to make those

Starting point is 00:42:15 spike proteins. This issue, however, about now shedding, spike protein shedding, does it happen? I get asked this question. I haven't read any great credible studies showing that it does, but the idea that somebody who is vaccinated and you're not, that somehow their spike proteins are falling off on you or that they're being transmitted in saliva or semen or bodily fluids. What is your reading of the studies or of the science on whether or not you can share or shed spike proteins? Well, I'm just as much in the dark, I think, as you are. The Pfizer, in its so-called doctor information about the usage of its vaccine says that a pregnant woman who comes

Starting point is 00:43:10 into intimate contact or a childbearing age woman who comes into intimate contact with a partner, say, who has been recently vaccinated should notify Pfizer to file an informational report to Pfizer. It means that they're monitoring that. They have reason to think about it. Does that mean that there is a concern for adverse events? It's hard to know. I would say that even if it's theoretically possible, the dose of these spike proteins that one would get would not be very large. It doesn't, just from a common sense point of view, it doesn't seem like a small amount of spike protein would trigger huge immune responses or

Starting point is 00:43:50 huge thrombogenic responses. It has to get into the bloodstream where it does a damage. Most of these exposures would not get into the bloodstream. They might get into the gut or into the lungs, perhaps. So I'm not seeing that there's a huge risk necessarily from this happening either way. It just doesn't strike me commonsensically. Does that prove that there isn't one? No, but that would be my kind of common sense medical thinking. Well, I am thrilled because you and I are in lockstep then because I can't figure out the mechanism by which somebody would be, what's shedding them through their skin, exhaling them, and how are they getting into me? Do they fall on my skin and I somehow

Starting point is 00:44:29 ingest it? This idea of spike protein shedding, I just don't understand what the mechanism would be, could be, or why it would in any way be meaningful. So again, I've said the same thing. If somebody shows me a study where they prove that it happens, I'll be meaningful. So again, I've said the same thing. If somebody shows me a study where they prove that it happens, I'll believe it. But right now, I'm not even understanding what the mechanism would be. And then another question, perhaps tangential to that one, is about the safety and security of our blood supply. The Red Cross is not keeping track of, or at least is not reporting, which units of blood that are donated come from someone who is vaccinated versus someone who is not vaccinated. Now you're talking about something very different. You're talking about taking the

Starting point is 00:45:17 blood from someone potentially vaccinated, which is rife with spike proteins circulating around, and you're talking about infusing it into the bloodstream of someone perhaps who's not vaccinated. What do you think about, is there a risk there? Because that seems very plausible to me to be a risk, although I don't know what the nature is or the longevity of these circulating spike proteins when they're given to somebody else. Well, I think I agree with you that this strikes me as a higher risk proposition. And it's hard to know exactly how much. And since we've been kept in the dark about this, the Red Cross hasn't come out and made any statements about it. It hasn't even apparently tried to address this topic. It just says blood transfusions are safe

Starting point is 00:46:11 and take our word for it. And since we've known that we can't take the word from anybody in any organization and government or related at this point, it's hard to believe that we should take their word for it also. So I just don't know. Okay. All right. That's where I stand on that too. All right. Let's talk about specifically more about the vaccines and talk about adverse events. Right now, there are two large repositories of data for adverse events. The VAERS system, which we've had for, what, 24 years now, the VAERS system was put in place by the CDC 24 years ago as the proverbial canary in the coal mine. It was supposed to be the early warning system that they put in place and encouraged people, individual patients, to report an adverse event to a vaccine so that they would have a heads up early on when there

Starting point is 00:47:06 was a signal that perhaps something was going on with a particular vaccine. Now, we had that in place for COVID. And despite the fact that we had tens of thousands of adverse events reported to VAERS very early on within the first couple of weeks or months, the first month of the rollout, the CDC has not looked at it. They had a second system, the V-safe system, which they implemented in December of 2020, right before the vaccine rollout. And they encouraged people to go and download this app and put it on your iPhone, the V-safe thing, and then report if you had a negative or adverse kind of event of any sort to the vaccines. But it wasn't until very, very recently, I think within the past week or two or so, that the FDA has finally released under court order the data

Starting point is 00:48:02 from V-safe. They had not reported any of it, despite the fact that they had 10 million or something people sign up for it. So talk about the V-safe data, what we now know that only by court order they have been mandated to release to the public. Well, I haven't gone through all the details of the V-safe data because it's voluminous, but my impression is that the V-safe, from an epidemiologic perspective, even the V-safe data are questionable because it's self-selected. It's not a random sample of anybody. It's not a representative sample of anybody. And so it's hard to know that the people who are reporting, and the reporting is subjective after all, are really

Starting point is 00:48:45 representative of what's going on out in the real world. I think that the FDA's access to large insurance databases is going to say a lot more about who's been vaccinated and when and what they got and when and so on. And those are the kinds of information sources that need to be addressed and analyzed to look for adverse events. And I think it has to be done seriously and systematically. Now, one interesting thing is that, so I've been dealing with, besides the VAERS, there's also an FAERS. This is the FDA's version of this for drugs. And this has been around for the same long period of time. And there's been a question as to what the signals in these databases actually represent. FDA says in its literature about these that one should not rely on these databases as

Starting point is 00:49:37 showing evidence of causation, but only as, as you put it, canaries in the coal mine. In other words, signals of concern that one should go and look and study further. Now, that's not quite honest either, because you know that if you have some rare condition that occurs in the United States, you know, maybe one person in the whole country per year, and you start seeing 10 or 20 of these in either VAERS or FAERS, you know that something's going on. Okay. So that is already evidence of a signal. And so you have to kind of titrate, you have to figure out what the signals you're actually seeing represent and how much you can rely on them. And if not in a quantitative fashion, then in a qualitative fashion.

Starting point is 00:50:23 And what's interesting is Steve Kirsch put out on his sub-stack today that I think the CDC finally responded to his question about why CDC has not addressed the deaths that have been occurring with the COVID vaccines, either from the VAERS database, the V-safe database, or its insurance databases. But his point was, and he basically put a billboard across the street from CDC saying, this signal is apparent to anybody who looks at it. Why aren't you addressing it? Why are you silent about it? So finally, the CDC responded to him saying, disingenuously, we didn't look at it because it's not our data to analyze it. We have a third party that analyzes the VAERS data and go talk to them, basically, which is the most absurd thing in the world. They're the ones who put out all the statements about what's safe and what's not, what's useful and what's not. And they're saying that, well, since we didn't analyze it,

Starting point is 00:51:20 which of course they said they did when there was that hullabaloo about whether they did or they didn't analyze certain of the VAERS database some months ago. When they said they didn't, and then they said they did, and they actually did, in spite of saying they didn't. The same thing is going on here. They're playing musical chairs rather than addressing what the issue is, and they're trying to hide behind their misbehavior. And this has been the constant refrain of the government. And it's not just for this vaccine. Every vaccine, every adverse event has always been understated, underplayed, underanalyzed in order to support pharma as far as it could go before the calamity was so obvious to everybody in the general public that the FDA and CDC couldn't maintain a straight face about it. Absolutely. I mean, the data are overwhelming in my estimation, and I've been

Starting point is 00:52:11 reporting on it from the very, very beginning. If you go back and look at previous, you know, in the swine flu vaccine issue back in 1976, and that was way before VAERS existed, they pulled that vaccine from the market after there were 25 reported possible associated deaths from that vaccine, 25. We were in the thousands within the first month on the VAERS database with these COVID vaccines, and you can barely get anybody to look into it, let alone really analyze the data and come to any conclusions about it. With regard to this vSafe, it's my understanding that something in the range of 10 million people actually downloaded that app. And as you said, it's not randomized. So one is left to sort of come to your own conclusions about who would be the people most likely to download that

Starting point is 00:53:06 data on V-safe. But I have looked at least cursorily at the data that was just released. And it comes, there's a tremendous number of people who reported that they did not feel well enough to work. Something in the range of 1.3 million of the 10 million said they felt so poorly, you know, 13% felt so poorly after their first shot of the vaccine that they couldn't go to work. 800,000 of the 10 million went to the hospital. 8% of the 10 million people who downloaded that app said they went to the hospital with an adverse event following vaccination. Now, we're talking about, we have a regulatory agency, the CDC, who is in charge of public health, who didn't see fit to advise the public that 8% of the

Starting point is 00:53:57 people getting this shot end up in the hospital. I mean, these are- I'm sorry? You probably don't. I think there's an answer to this, and I think you're probably not going to like the answer. But the answer is that in 1976, there was actually two sides to the media. And so our federal agencies were much more circumspect about what they did because they knew there was a big risk of being criticized and being taken over their bad decisions. Whereas now they think they're hand in glove with the media and pharma and they can do whatever they want and they're very brazen about it and they don't care

Starting point is 00:54:35 because they don't think anything bad is gonna happen to them. And that's the reason why it's a different response now than it was in 1976. Right, I think you're right. To be very clear, 10 million people who downloaded this app, that is a huge sample size. That's very, very meaningful when it comes to extrapolating the data to what does this mean for the general population, the 230 million people who got vaccinated, even though it's not randomized in terms of who downloaded

Starting point is 00:55:05 the app, you know, anyone, no one could argue that 10 million people and of those 800,000 had to go to the hospital. That is not an insignificant number of people. Well, so I wasn't saying that randomization was necessary, but representativeness is necessary. So we don't know if those 10 million people are all over age 50, you know, or all female or something. I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea that we need to realize, but I think you're right that people go to the emergency room for serious things, not necessarily ones that deserve to be there, I think only a small percent of them were actually hospitalized where they spend a night in the hospital or longer.

Starting point is 00:55:50 It's still large numbers. The hospitalization rate after the vaccination is in the V-safe is large enough that it's plenty concerning and would have led to adjustments or holds on the vaccination, just as there was for the J&J, you know, with all. And again, with regard to, you know, representative, I'm just spitballing here,

Starting point is 00:56:13 but I'm guessing that the people who, when I think about who's going to download a new app from the federal government, I'm thinking it's going to tend more to younger people. I'm guessing that it's not, as you see, people over 50 or certainly people over 60. I'm guessing it was a younger crowd who did it. So the idea that there were that many adverse events is, again, alarming, but more alarming that the FDA comes up with this, quote, warnings system to gather this data. And then it takes a court order two and a half years later to get them to actually divulge what they found out from it. Talk now about vaccine mandates. You have been really a fearless proponent of doing away with or never having had the vaccine mandates. You fought for city workers in New York

Starting point is 00:57:05 successfully on that. I can't see any justification for the vaccine mandates, particularly, and never did, but particularly now that we have irrefutable evidence that the vaccines don't stop you from contracting COVID and they don't stop you from transmitting it to others. To date, there isn't a single credible study that shows that they decrease your risk of severe illness, hospitalization, or death. But beside that, if it doesn't stop transmission to somebody else, what business is of the federal government whether or not I get sick or get hospitalized? Well, you've hit the nail on the head that until recently, until August 11th of this year, the federal government and the CDC and the agencies were all saying that these vaccines were effective in reducing transmission. And we knew this was a lie. We knew this in December,

Starting point is 00:58:03 January last year, the beginning of this year, that the vaccines were failing, that they worked for increasingly shorter amounts of time before they went into negative territory, and that there was evidence they do go into negative territory as far as getting infected. And people who've been polyvaccinated have had multiple doses of the vaccine, likely to have had COVID multiple times. And it hasn't necessarily been so bad for them in the most cases, but still, that's still something that recognizes the vaccines are not working as we were led to believe. The only government interest in all of this is preventing spread. And if the vaccines don't prevent spread, as the CDC said on August 11th of this year, then the government has no compelling interest. That is one of the four criteria for allowing a vaccine mandate that were part of the Jacobson

Starting point is 00:59:00 versus Massachusetts case from 1905 in the smallpox epidemic period. Justice Harlan wrote out the four criteria. Judges have misused this case to say, well, they allowed a mandate then, so we can have a mandate now without addressing whether the vaccine now, like the vaccine then, whether the illness now is like the illness then, and so on. But the amazing thing is that that case established what attorneys call strict scrutiny for when a government wants to take away your constitutional rights, that it has to pass these criteria, that there has to be a compelling reason for the government to do it. It can't be arbitrary and capricious, meaning it can't do it for one class of people and not for another, that it has to be effective, has to be safe, and so on. These are the issues that the government

Starting point is 00:59:50 has to show before it can take away constitutional rights. And that has not transpired in the COVID era. And in particular, since the vaccines do not prevent spread, as acknowledged by the government, there is no compelling interest. And so they failed the Jacobson test for vaccine mandates. And so all the vaccine mandates are technically unconstitutional, according to that case. And in addition to that, yes, it is an egregious affront to constitutional rights. In addition to that, if they got rid of the mandates, particularly for healthcare workers, it would allow hospitals and systems that accept Medicare and Medicaid dollars to rehire those people. I don't think people understand just what a huge loss we have had in medical professionals. The last study I read said 334,000 healthcare workers have left the system in 2021.

Starting point is 01:00:52 And of all the physicians were the biggest group, somewhere in the range of 117,000 physicians left the practice of medicine, 54,000 nurse practitioners, 27,000 PAs, and on and on. And many of them left because they did not want to submit to the mandate. And if they dropped those mandates, it would allow hospitals, hospital systems, doctor's offices to rehire all of those people if they were interested because it's saying, you know, you can actually come back, let alone all of the, you know, young military recruits and others who chose to leave or not enter into the military because of these ridiculous mandates. So just 22 attorneys general from 22 states have filed a compelling brief asking to drop the mandate for healthcare workers, really in response to this paucity we have of people, particularly going into this flu season.

Starting point is 01:01:54 Speaking of which, let's talk about, that's a hot topic. Everyone's, you know, the fear mongers want you to believe that we're having this unbelievable triple threat, perfect storm of COVID, RSV, and influenza. I think that I'll know your answer to this with regard to the immune systems, but what's your take on the triple threat that we're facing, according to them. Well, one of the interesting things about viral respiratory illnesses is that once you get one and your interferon levels go up, it prevents you from getting others at the same time or shortly thereafter. And we saw this in the major COVID waves when there was hardly any flu going around and there was hardly any flu going around and there was hardly

Starting point is 01:02:45 any RSV going around. And now we still have COVID going around, but at very relatively low levels. And the flu has started, but it started early. It started in October. And I'm not sure whether we're really going to have a major flu wave. RSV is concerning, not because there are large numbers of cases, but because the cases are occurring at ages when this degree of severity doesn't usually happen. So when you start seeing, normally RSV you see in kids under two, and especially under six months, and in the oldest elderly. You don't see it in children in general and middle-aged people. And now that hospitals are seeing five and 10-year-olds with RSV, something is wrong.

Starting point is 01:03:29 And that means their immune systems aren't coping with it. And the first thing to address is what are the alterations in their immune systems that are allowing them to be clinically sick with RSV that they shouldn't be. So that's the first thing. We are not seeing a COVID wave yet. And I'm cautiously optimistic that there won't be one because we're seeing the takeover of the BA5 strains with the BQ1 and BQ1.1. Those are taking over. It doesn't look like much else is behind them yet, but something inevitably will be as something mutates and gets a new label,

Starting point is 01:04:07 a new name going forward. But these are going to be around for another three or four weeks. The current vaccines, the new booster doesn't work too well against the BQ strains. Not that it would work that well against BA5 a month or two later. Anyway, so I'm optimistic, cautiously, as I said, that we're not going to have a major wave of COVID going into the winter because children are already in school and kids are in universities. All of the fall, you know, enclosed activities have already occurred. They've been occurring, you know, occurring for two to four weeks already. And yet we haven't seen a pickup off of that that we would normally expect to start to see arise. And yet we haven't seen a pickup off of that,

Starting point is 01:04:45 that we would normally expect to start to see a rise. And that hasn't happened yet. So this is going to take some time to know for sure, but at least we haven't seen that yet. These variants don't seem to be any different in terms of virulence to the other Omicron variants that we've had before. They can cause an annoying, unpleasant state of COVID for a couple of weeks. But in general, they're not life-threatening. Most people do okay. And they're treatable, as we've been discussing all along. So that's where things are at. I'm not expecting to see that much. You know, our society takes annual flu waves in stride. We don't get all excited and declare pandemic emergencies, even when there are 30,000 or 40,000 deaths from flu in stride. We don't get all excited and declare pandemic emergencies, even when there are

Starting point is 01:05:26 30 or 40,000 deaths from flu in a season. Now, maybe, I don't know whether we should or not, but it would be pretty hypocritical. We don't declare annual pandemics for the half a million people who die each year from smoking-related diseases, from tobacco diseases. Half a million people die year in, year out, and there's no pandemic declaration for that at all. That's half a million deaths every year, and we're talking about tens of thousands, and we're getting all excited about that. You know, if it's children, maybe we should, but still, the amount of panic and irrationality

Starting point is 01:05:58 that's being whipped up over this is disproportionate compared to what we as a society have tolerated and what the government has never done anything about in decades and decades of talking about this. I agree with you. And I think, frankly, that you hit the nail on the head with regard to these cases of RSV that we hadn't seen previously in certain age groups. I think it's probably a combination of the lack of viral interference, the concept that, as you said, when there's a surge of one virus, you see a decrease in the others. People have been locked, we're locked in their basements for two plus years. And I think we've done a hit job on immune systems as a result. Particularly in children, they have some senescence of their immune systems,

Starting point is 01:06:41 meaning they haven't been exposed to anything. they haven't come in contact with people, and therefore their immune systems are sluggish. You add on top of that the immunosuppressive effect of the vaccines, the fact that we know that vaccinated and multiply COVID vaccinated people do not mount the anticipated or expected immune response when they come into contact with COVID in the future, certainly. And I said from the beginning, we don't know what will happen when they come into contact with COVID in the future, certainly. And I said from the beginning, we don't know what will happen when they come into contact with influenza or RSV or any of the host of other respiratory viruses that are out there circulating every single year. So I think some of the immunosuppression is likely coming from the vaccines because of this negative efficacy at

Starting point is 01:07:26 the five-month mark where you're at higher risk for contracting COVID than if you were never vaccinated at all. I see my clock's ticking down here. I'm going to have to wrap it in a minute, but I want to ask you one last question since I started with my little thoughts about healing, for lack of a better word, and those sorts of things. There was an article written, I think it was in the Wall Street Journal maybe a week or so ago, suggesting blanket amnesty for people, amnesty, forgive and forget for all the people who were wrong because we, quote, didn't know then what we know now, and therefore we need to let people, whether it's Deborah Birx or Anthony Fauci or Rochelle Walensky or on and on and on, all the people in the

Starting point is 01:08:12 mainstream media, we need to let them all off the hook because we're that kind of people. Where do you stand on that? And do you think that that's the answer to moving forward on this? Well, I'm in favor of a just society, one that recognizes misbehavior and deals with it through legal processes. And I think that these were not crimes against humanity from ignorance. They were intentional, that these people knew this. There was planning, the Vent 201, and even before that, there was planning about the virus, that this virus was an engineered virus. We know that from studies of the RNA sequence of the virus, and that the idea that people should be forgiven, there's a very fundamental theological assumption here, and that is the only people who can forgive are the ones who are injured and still alive to be able to choose to forgive. That the people who have been

Starting point is 01:09:11 killed, who died because the treatment for them was suppressed, and they weren't able to get treatment in time, they are no longer able to forgive. And those people, you can't expect somebody else to come along and say, oh, I forgive you. They have no right to forgive for the person who died and can no longer forgive. That opportunity is long gone. I think that people who were fear-mongered into making bad decisions deserve some degree of sympathy and leniency, so to speak. But the people who organized and led the campaigns of bad decisions, horrible, destructive decisions on the country, who demonized people who disagreed with them, either through smears in the media or smears from the president saying that half of the society were bad people because they disagreed. That kind of demonization

Starting point is 01:10:06 is still going on. Dr. Fauci said the same thing today or yesterday, that there's going to be a bad winter because of all the unvaccinated people. This is still continuing demonization. You cannot forgive problems that are still going on. All the people who've been injured by the vaccines, they are still injured. They still have to suffer their daily lives, you know, dealing with their injuries and trying to recover. They're not going to forgive when they still have to cope. So you don't get a free pass for bad behavior. You have to, first of all, you have to account for your bad behavior. You have to apologize. I don't see anybody apologizing. So the first step in forgiveness is the apology, and it has to be a sincere apology. I don't see that happening. So

Starting point is 01:10:49 there's no room for forgiveness until people at least start apologizing. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Without contrition, there is no forgiveness. As a starter, you and I come from different religious backgrounds, but I think we agree precisely on that particular piece. And I also agree with you that without legal recourse, we will never fully heal and move on. So I'm going to let you go. Thank you again so much for coming on the eve of a major holiday, taking time, your expertise, your wisdom is greatly appreciated. Your fearlessness, uh, is unbelievable. You have, as I really mean it, when I say you have been a beacon of hope, uh, during this debacle. Um, so thank you again for coming back and sharing, um, with us. Uh,

Starting point is 01:11:38 as I said before, Drew will be back. Uh, he, I think they are on a plane tomorrow on Thanksgiving itself, and he will be back on Friday for a show with Tulsi Gabbard. Should be a really interesting conversation. And I will be back with Drew for our normal Wednesday show a week from today, November 30th with Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist who has done personally dozens and dozens of autopsies on patients who have died from what he believes clearly are vaccine-related injuries. And he's going to report on those. He's got unbelievable information to share. So be sure to set your clocks now for that show on November 30th, next Wednesday. Thanks very much for joining me. And Drew will be back.

Starting point is 01:12:30 We'll have the band. We'll be back together next week. And you'll see Drew on Friday with Tulsi Gabbard. Bye. Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky. As a reminder, the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment. This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only.

Starting point is 01:12:52 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.

Starting point is 01:13:17 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.

Ask Dr. Drew - Dr. Harvey Risch: mRNA Adverse Reaction Data Suppressed by CDC w/ Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 148

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.