Ask Dr. Drew - Dr. Kelly Victory: John Beaudoin Says New Data Shows “BIGGEST Story Everyone Is Missing” About The Pandemic & Lymph Node Cancer w/ Karl Jablonowski Ph.D. – Ask Dr. Drew – ep 390

Episode Date: August 10, 2024

Data analyst John Beaudoin returns with what he calls the “BIGGEST story” that everyone is missing about the pandemic, paradoxes in the graphing data, and evidence of an increase in lymph node cancer. Dr. Kelly Victory is filling in as host, joined by Beaudoin and CHD’s Karl Jablonowski Ph.D. John Beaudoin, Sr. is an engineer and data analyst with a background in high-tech and military sales. He is the author of “The Real CdC: COVID Facts For Regular People” and “The CDC Memorandum”. Follow him at https://x.com/JohnBeaudoinSr and read more at https://TheRealCdC.com Karl Jablonowski Ph.D. is a specialist in Biomedical and Health Informatics. He has expertise in managing terabyte-sized databases, including biological and electronic medical record systems. Dr. Jablonowski’s research contributions include over 14 peer-reviewed journal articles focused on data mining and analysis for scientific investigation. His work centers on leveraging large-scale data for advancements in health and biomedical sciences. 「 SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS 」 Find out more about the brands that make this show possible and get special discounts on Dr. Drew's favorite products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors  • FATTY15 – The future of essential fatty acids is here! Strengthen your cells against age-related breakdown with Fatty15. Get 15% off a 90-day Starter Kit Subscription at https://drdrew.com/fatty15 • CAPSADYN - Get pain relief with the power of capsaicin from chili peppers – without the burning! Capsadyn's proprietary formulation for joint & muscle pain contains no NSAIDs, opioids, anesthetics, or steroids. Try it for 15% off at https://drdrew.com/capsadyn • 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 15% off your first order at https://drdrew.com/paleovalley • TRU NIAGEN - For almost a decade, Dr. Drew has been taking a healthy-aging supplement called Tru Niagen, which uses a patented form of Nicotinamide Riboside to boost NAD levels. Use code DREW for 20% off at https://drdrew.com/truniagen • 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 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 Portions of this program may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. Always consult your 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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome and thank you for joining us today. I'm Dr. Kelly Victory sitting in for Dr. Drew who's off on other adventures today. We have a really great show. I've got two guests here and I'm going to talk about them in just a second. But as everyone's been tied up and distracted by everything, I'll tell you, there's so much going on right now, it's hard to imagine what an October surprise could bring us. I feel like we're in a blender and somebody hit the puree button lately, and everyone's been distracted by that. But what is still happening in the background, folks, is that the data continue to roll in with regard to the ill effects that people are experiencing as a result of the lockdowns. We're continuing to see the economic devastation and on and on.

What's been interesting to me is that more and more people are coming out of the woodwork who come from unsuspecting places. They aren't all scientists or scientists in the traditional sense. Certainly on this show, we've had our good friend and colleague, Ed Dowd, for example, who's a BlackRock financial analyst from Wall Street. You know, he got really, really into the weeds on the data with regard to vaccine injuries and excess deaths. who have deep backgrounds in data analysis or in analytics, who I think are bringing more and more just a different look at this data. And they have credibility, I think, because once again, they don't have a dog in the fight. They aren't standing to make money, for example, by presenting the data they're presenting. I think they just are trying to get the truth out there. One of our guests today, John Bodwin, who's been on the show in the past, he's an electrical engineer and someone with a deep history in the military industrial complex.

He's been a research scientist. He's been in military sales. In the past couple of years during the COVID pandemic, he has really become the data analyst extraordinaire. And he's back today, he's going to share what he considers to be bombshell data and some things that he feels have been overlooked with regard specifically to acute kidney injuries and lymphomas, cancers of the lymph nodes that he's going to be talking about. And then I've got Carl Jablonowski, who's from our friends over at the Children's Health Defense. He's a senior research analyst over there.

And we are specifically going to talk about the fraudulent nature of the PCR test, one of my favorite topics. Anybody who follows me or has watched me much during this pandemic, I have spoken quite a bit about the problems with the PCR tests, the fact that they drove much of what was a case-demic rather than a pandemic, and Carl has really gotten into the weeds on that and is very knowledgeable. So the second half of the show, we'll really get into the PCR testing and where it led us astray, where it's going to take us from there. So I'll be back in just a few minutes and we'll get on with our first guest when I get back. 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. Joint muscle pains are exhausting and frustrating but i've got a over-the-counter medication i'll introduce you to that provides great relief using the power of check it out chili peppers capsidin is made with a proprietary formula that contains no non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents no opioids no anesthetic or steroid nothing no chance for addiction no side, no anesthetic or steroid, nothing, no chance for addiction, no side effects, no chance it's going to interact with other medication you might be taking.

Capsodin contains capsaicin, which is the substance in chili peppers that burns your tongue. That gives you that burny feeling. And of course, I've recommended capsaicin creams to patients over the years, but other capsaicin creams burn your skin. That's what makes capsaicin creams burn your skin. That's what makes Capsodin so unique. In clinical trials, Capsodin has actually been demonstrated not to burn. I've been using Capsodin to relieve my pain in my hands and my wrist from carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis. The results have been amazing. I use it every day during my show and I highly recommend it.

Get the pain relief you need from various sources, even backaches, sprains, bruises even. Order now at capsidin.com slash drew to get a 15% discount plus free shipping. That is C-A-P-S-A-D-Y-N capsidin.com slash D-R-E-W. It is hotter than ever outside, but your home could be a sanctuary of comfort with bedding and towels from Cozy Earth. Now up to 40% off at CozyEarth.com. Susan and I, we can't go back to our old sheets. Now that we've slept on Cozy Earth, their best-selling bamboo sheet set is made from 100% premium viscose from bamboo. Soft, breathable, and extra durable and their plush bath towels are crafted with a unique

blend of cotton and viscose from bamboo using their innovative zero twist technology all of their bedding and bath products come with a 100 night sleep trial and a 10-year warranty but once you experience the comfort of cozy earth you will not want to go back upgrade your nights and transform your days with cozyzy Earth and get up to 40% off at CozyEarth.com slash Drew. Using that promo code Drew, don't forget to tell them that we sent you in the post-purchase survey so you get the free socks. That is C-O-Z-Y-E-A-R-T-H.com slash D-R-E-W. All right, welcome back. Well, as I said, I'm going to be joined in just a minute by our first guest, John Bodwin. John has a degree in system engineering.

He worked for 30-some years in the semiconductor research and design industry. He also has an MBA, I believe, in business management. He became interested in the fraud and what he was seeing going on with the debacle that was the COVID pandemic and really became interested in looking at the data. And he's quite expert at crunching that data. So I know he's been on the show before. What we're going to talk about today are a couple of new findings and things that he thinks have been underreported in the mainstream media, like everything's been underreported in the mainstream media, including all the harms of the vaccines. But he's got some actual data to show us. And we're going to, so I'm going to bring him in. We're going to talk first also about some things about the way in which data is presented

that can be confusing and can be used to manipulate the data in how it's presented. So we're going to talk about all that and more. So if we'll bring John on without further ado. Hi, John. Good to see you. Hi, Dr. Victory. Thanks for having me. I sent you a message and said, I've missed you the last two times on Dr. Drew.

And you wrote back and said, oh, I'll have you on again. Exactly. Well, I know that Drew has had you on when I have not. So happy to do this. As I said, you're back in medicine. You're a systems engineer. Tell us a little bit, just briefly in your own words, about your background and how it is that you pivoted to sitting where you are right now, having written two books, and we'll talk about those as well, the real CDC and the other one is the CDC memorandum. So we want to talk about both of those, but how it is that you went from somebody in the semiconductor research and design industry to sitting where you sit with regard to data on the COVID debacle and the CDC? Sure. First of all, I have had medical training. I was in the Boy Scouts and we had to take first aid. So that's the extent of my medical training. But seriously, I was an engineer by degree. I really didn't like the design world, sit in a cubicle and design for a while.

So I made my way into a career in sales. And the contracts got bigger as you get older and more experienced. And then if you do really well, they give you bigger and bigger stuff. So I guess my career culminated with a couple of big deals, one of them being the guidance control system for the Trident nuclear missile. That's the Polaris missile that pops out of submarines. It's the most awesome weapon in the history of man, and it's why we're as safe as we are right now. I won't get into that further, but I'll just say that I put deals together, and I had to be able to communicate among not just the engineers, but also the CEOs, CFOs, chief legal counsel, bantering the legal terms of the contract. And the contracts are pretty large. I mean, it's all software, so there's no cost of goods sold.

But if you were to equate it with a regular deal for hardware, it'd be in the $250 million range. So how did I get here though? Well, at the, I guess it was the end of my career because I was told my social media presence is not amenable to hiring me to any position in that market. So my career is over in that. So let's see I did I stammer on this part I lost my son in 2018 he bought a motorcycle and crashed he was 20 he's my oldest boy I raised three boys on my own and I was just depressed on the couch and my youngest one was still in high school and they were kind of basically his last two years of high school were non-existent because of COVID. The second semester of his junior year is when COVID hit. And my middle son had graduated high school and was ready to start something.

But he said, this is all BS. And I said, no, you have to take it seriously. But in the back of my mind I kind of wondered and I looked up the data and within five days I had found that they they changed historical data from 2014 through 2018 and they didn't change the math they changed the actual data so then I really started digging in I sued the governor over the mask mandate I knew the masks don't work because it's a product it's designed by engineers tested by engineers, developed by engineers. And doctors said, oh, they work.

I'm like, really? What do you do, read the back of the box? So when it comes to a scalpel, a doctor can't tell you the tensile strength of the blade, but an engineer could. So it's just different things that we all kind of study. So I sued him over the mask mandate and that's how I started. Well, it's terrific. And that's what I have been fascinated by stories like yours, people who, you know, are scientists clearly and have very, very, you know, in scientific endeavors, in ancillary areas like engineering.

And you've brought a tremendous amount, I think, to the table in your assessment of the data. So let's cover four things in relatively short period of time here. I want to start with, you brought to my attention what you call our two paradoxes. And it has to do with the way in which data is represented or presented to people graphically. And I think there's tremendous opportunity here

and tremendous risk for people to be misled by any data. I mean, there's, you know, lies, damn lies and statistics and has to do with, you know, how the data is commonly presented. So let's start, and we're going to take just a short bit of time on this, but to give our viewers two examples of what you call these paradoxes and how looking at graphically displayed data and have it be misrepresented or misinterpreted. So I'll give it to you to start. All right, very good. Thank you. And I'm very happy that you used a quote from Mark Twain. I was born in Hartford, where the Mark Twain house is, and he spent a lot of time. So yeah, I get the Connecticut data recently. But before we get into that, I just want to explain to the audience what I did in my career in marketing and sales is try to manipulate people. It's not a nice word.

I've used it before on the show into signing large contracts. And these are very intelligent people, CEOs, CFOs of billion-dollar companies. And I would come up with ways to present the information visually to have them see what I want them to see. And I could shift time windows for when a stock was down or up. One guy said he was the CEO of a company had just finished working for Gates. He was there at the founding of Microsoft. And he said, you know, I'm kind of worried about your stock and signing this deal with you guys.

I'm like, what are you talking about? Our stock's fine. And I showed him a presentation and I started it at a point where our stock was down and our competitors were up. It's that simple. And I showed that our percentage gain was greater. And he said, oh, okay, I guess you're fine. But had I shifted that time window to a different point in time, it would have shown that we were actually doing poorly compared to our competitors. It's just their different representations of data. So I think you've got a, there's a slide there, Caleb, if you can show the ones that, you

know, one of the slides that John put together. So talk us through this, how it would be different based on the time window that you're presenting. The data is the same. The numbers are the same. The facts are the facts. But how you represent them graphically, and as you said, we are impacted. We are manipulated by what we are shown and how we, you know, that's what the art of advertising, it's the art of propaganda. So talk us through this slide.

That's the same data in both graphs, but looks quite different. Sure. So this is secondary thrombocytopenia. Thrombocytopenia has been one of the worst, most prevalent, most common things. It leads to strokes and gastrointestinal hemorrhages and ischemia, all kinds of stuff going on in the body from the vaccine. Okay, so what you have here is every calendar year begins on January 1st. Each bar is 12 months worth of data. Every bar is 12 months.

It's just where you start the data. So on the left side in calendar year, it starts on January 1st. So every calendar year, you have those totals of secondary thrombocytopenia. I don't see any problem there at all in 21, 22, 23, or even 2020, that there's nothing going on. But because there were so many people died

in the first wave that was only in 2020. And that's mid-March to mid-June. What happened is it created a lot of paradoxes in the data, meaning if you look at two signals, one is negative, one is positive, they combine to be zero, right? Negative one and plus one is zero. So let's set aside all of that. I'm just going to say, can you imagine a visual representation where you start a year on July 1st and you capture the winter wave, only one winter wave in every bar? And all of a sudden, the same data, the same cause of death, the same state, you see what happens on the right. There absolutely is a change that occurred in the middle of 2021, which is six months into the vaccine program. So I just want the audience to understand that data visualization, it can trick you.

That's why I use a lot of waveforms. And in the next graphs, when we talk about renal failure, I'm going to use waveforms instead of bar graphs. So what you're saying is, you know, fundamentally, if you do a calendar year, like we show on the left here from January to December 31, there are, quote, two winter waves. There's from January through March, and then there's November and December at the end of the year. So there's two waves where if you represent, and so that's, that makes a huge difference when we're talking about following things that are seasonal, like influenza or common colds or whatever it is. of how somebody can take the exact same facts, present them in a graphic way, and believe something. And that's why I think I feel badly for the average layperson,

who shouldn't have any understanding of how to really read these kinds of things. They weren't trained, for example, perhaps in mathematics or statistics or data analysis. And so people are one of the most common questions I get asked or the common, you know, comments I get these days, John, is I don't know who to believe. I don't know what to listen to. You know, I hear two diametrically opposed things in the same day. You know, I will be telling people on a daily basis that these vaccines are not safe. They were not effective. They did not stop transmission. They did not stop people from being hospitalized or dying. And the same day they're hearing somebody on MSNBC or CNN or somebody from the CDC saying,

get your booster. They're safe. They're effective. And they prevent transmission. They prevent you from being hospitalized or dying. So I feel for people, insofar as you can at least plant the seed that there may be every graph you see, you should really look into it a little bit more and see, is there a way that that graphical representation of data may be misleading? I think it's very, very helpful. Do you want to look at the second one, the second paradox there? You've got another slide, I know. Sure, but I'll try to keep it to 30 seconds on the next one. Okay. So this is pneumonia in Massachusetts. And I want people to understand that the way you put age groups together and present the data can hide signals.

And that's what a lot of people do when they hide the 85 plus versus the 65 to 84. What I'm showing here is that you have three waves in 2020, 2021, 2022 of pneumonia. Now, if the vaccines work, why is the third wave greater in the younger ages, 25 to 44 on top and 45 to 54? You see it's going up. So you vaccinate everybody to protect them from COVID and you have more younger people dying from COVID. Now what happened in the bottom, you see the slope of the line first changes to almost level in the 65 to 74. And then you see the 85 plus. It's what it should be, right? A bunch of white people got wiped out in the first one.

And fewer people are dying because either they've got over it and they have antibodies and they're healthy or they're gone. They can't die twice. So you have two different things happening across the age groups. How can that be? If the disease is really deadly, then why are more people dying after getting vaccinated? And that's what's happening. You've got negative efficacy of this vaccine and it's hidden because what they do is they tell, they combine all these age groups together. And because so many more older people die, it hides the fact that younger people are dying more after being vaccinated. And unfortunately, we have, and I'll leave it at this, we have the receipts

from groups like Pfizer and Moderna. We know that they changed their data, that they manipulated their data specifically so that it would look better. They fundamentally lied. They were fraudulent in the way they presented their data to the CDC and to the FDA. The FDA and CDC are complicit because they should have known better. They employ scientists and researchers who are expert at understanding data presentation like this. But the reality is that the big pharma clearly presented the data in the way that was most beneficial, that was most positive, and that really tried to hide those negatives, the signals, the signals of efficacy. I've been quoting the, with regard to more people getting sick and dying, you know, the gold standard, as far as I'm concerned now, is the CD, excuse me,

the Cleveland Clinic study of more than 50,000 patients that shows unequivocally that the more shots you got for COVID, the more likely you are to get COVID. Okay. I mean, I don't really know how to say it any simpler than that. If that is not define a failure of a quote vaccine, I don't know what does. The more shots you get, the more likely you are to get the disease that the shot was supposed to prevent. So we'll just leave it at that. Now I want to get into really the two bombshell areas that you want to talk about. Specifically, let's start with acute kidney injury. There's no question from a clinical perspective that I and others and my colleagues started to see a significant increase in acute renal failure and specific

types of renal failure shortly after the rollout of the mRNA shots. That has unfortunately continued to increase. We have not seen that plateau as yet. So I'm going to give it back to you to talk us through what you have seen with acute kidney injuries. Okay. So if, Caleb, you can put the graph up whenever. Oh, there we go. All right. This is the first one of the two.

So I have 1.4 million non-reducted death certificates from four states, but really three that we talk about. Vermont is very small. It's a very good data set, but they don't give you the ICD-10 codes, so it's difficult to work with the data. So Massachusetts, Minnesota, and now I have Connecticut. I'm doing a study on climate change versus heart disease, which is the reason I got the Connecticut data. And now I have incidental findings, which is acute renal failure or acute kidney injury is up over 100% in all three states. But the point at which it began is that red line here. What you see on the graph,

I'll just say it's nine years, okay? The top is Minnesota. The middle line is Massachusetts. And the bottom one is Connecticut. And when you go across the line, you see that those dashed gray lines, which is normal, that's 2015 through 2019. And you see in 2020, you have this big wave of COVID come. And in 2020, there's nothing there in Minnesota.

But there is a wave in Massachusetts and a smaller one in Connecticut. What people need to understand is that the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston was a trial center for remdesivir and other drugs for COVID treatment plan. Now, the National Institutes of Health instituted the, what's it called, the new COVID treatment add-on payment plan. That came from CMS.gov. It started on November 2nd, which is where that red line is. Now, the trial that was in Massachusetts, that might be why that bump is there in Massachusetts, or it might just be a bunch of old people who died with renal failure. But you see that it takes off.

Not only does it not return to the bottom of those banded dashed gray lines, but it just takes off like crazy. There are actually two signals in here. I won't get too technical. I have a guy at MIT using discrete cosine transform and discrete Fourier transform to determine signal-to-noise ratio in this. There are two signals. Just trust me on this. There are two signals.

Just trust me on this. One is seasonal. And that's why you see the bump and the bump and the bump in each COVID season. So you go to the hospital with a whatever, broken leg or maybe trouble breathing, and you get a positive COVID test. Based on the positive COVID test alone, they started you on remdesivir because they get a 20% adder to the entire hospital bill. Now, if it's a million dollar ICU stay,

that's another $200,000 to run remdesivir through your veins on a positive COVID test. I have the individual medical files of several people. One file is 12,000 pages. Another one is 6,000 pages. I looked through their vital signs which were every hour leading up to the point of ventilation they were fine they were ventilated anyway because ventilation they also get a lot of money whatever got a lot of money is what they did

now the program kicked in in november if caleb do you have the next one i'm not sure do you have the next one? I'm not sure if you have the next slide. Oh, so we're not going to go with the, yeah. Nope, never mind. We decided not to put it up. Yeah, just the one. So briefly, because I do want to get to the lymph node cancers. I guess the question here, John, is how do you sort out what was COVID causing this versus what was mRNA vaccines, quote unquote, causing this? Now, in the top one, Minnesota, you would say that the worst wave in terms of COVID itself was the Delta wave, which happened during 2020. But you weren't seeing big increases in kidney injuries in 2020 in Minnesota. It wasn't until after the rollout of the vaccine, which would lead you to believe it wasn't COVID itself causing this. It was actually a vaccine related thing. This is confounded data, however, because of the use of remdesivir.

There's a reason that we coined it, you know, run death is near, because it caused kidney failure. And we knew it caused kidney failure. They knew it caused kidney failure. And I think, frankly, death knell for many, many people when they got remdesivir. So how do you answer people who say either these deaths are related to A, COVID, or or B remdesivir, not the mRNA. Okay. Well, that's, it's actually very easy, but not for us because the government has all this data. They can look in the side of any medical file, any, anytime they want. They're purposely not looking at it. And when I served them the Connecticut memoranda series volume one, about four weeks ago, I gave it to the governor, the attorney general,

the public health commissioner in Connecticut, along with some deputy directors. They are now knowing they're in a knowing state of mind, which means they have a legal duty to act. If you're a lifeguard and somebody's drowning in front of you and you don't rescue them, you're guilty of murder. It's not just negligence. So they have a legal duty to act. So now they know. Now they can look at all the files. They have the immunization information registry that every state has. They can tell when somebody is vaccinated. They can look into every medical file. They can find out when were they given the medications? When did their creatinine levels change? when did their liver enzyme levels change. So from that forensic analysis of their medical files, they can easily determine in one man week, one man week with a knowledgeable person can figure out what was the cause.

And I'll tell you right now, half of them are the vaccine. The other half are medical protocols put out by the NIH. Now, this isn't a small thing. This is 1,721 excess deaths in Connecticut alone, 3,500 in Massachusetts, 2,700 in Minnesota. This is 155,000 across the United States. And these people are down to the 25 and even 16-year-old age range. This is not old people dying like COVID. In fact, if you look at life years lost, there's more life years lost from acute renal failure alone in the United States in the last four years than there is from COVID. It's bigger than COVID. Nobody's looking at it. I don't get it. No, I agree. So 150,000 plus excess deaths from kidney failure. And I agree with you, it would be very easy to sort out if somebody went

into the medical record and looked and compared vaccination rates, vaccination dates, and the use or not of remdesivir. We're winding down the clock, so I do want to get to the next big issue, which is you've looked specifically at the data regarding lymphomas, cancers of the lymph nodes. So let's get into that. Tell us what you found in that data. Next one, Caleb. There we go. So on the top is Minnesota. I have both calendar and fiscal graphs. You see where it jumps in both. That's a 1.8x normal in Minnesota. You have a 400% of normal in Massachusetts, 400%. These are crazy looking numbers. There isn't anything else this big except for causes that go from zero to six, or from one to six, a 500% increase. So anyway, this is it. Lymph node cancer on death records in three different states,

1,300 miles apart. Connecticut and Massachusetts abut each other, but Minnesota is 1300 miles away. And, you know, I don't know what else happened here other than the vaccine that, you know, entered our society. So this is the bone marrow cancer also. And what I say, I found this two years ago, Dr. Victory, and it's just getting worse every year. And it's all about blood form, right? So lymph node makes white cells and the marrow makes red whites and platelets. And it's all dysregulated. Something's really wrong. Yeah. And as everyone who's been following me knows, I've been talking about and actually predicted

an increase, a serious increase in cancers before the vaccines were ever rolled out to the public, and we are now living it. We are seeing very, very aggressive advanced cancers in groups of people in whom we normally wouldn't see them. Advanced colon cancers, for example, in people in their 20s and 30s. Lung cancers, aggressive lung cancers in people who are non-smokers and haven't been exposed to secondhand smoke, and this really concerning increase in lymph tumors and in bone marrow tumors. So I look forward to actually getting time goes on. Unfortunately, tip of the iceberg here, I fear, John. So I look forward to I know you will continue to collect the data, continue to analyze it, continue to represent it graphically for us. In the meantime, I know you are very active on Twitter at John Bedouin Sr.

And people can follow you there. You also have two books. We didn't get to talk about the books enough, so we'll have to bring you back to talk more about the books, The Real CDC and the CDC Memorandum. So we want to get, where can people get those, find those books, by the way? Right above my head, therealcdc.com. So if you go to therealcdc.com, that's it. Perfect, perfect. Well, so go there, check out those books. And I promise we will bring you back because I want to continue to delve into this data.

It's a moving target. It's growing by the day. And I've said, and I'll leave it at this, if people want to push back, this is not the result. All of these findings, these increases, all of these different categories of medical conditions are not the result of the mRNA vaccine. If you think it's something else, great, let's have that discussion. Tell me what it is. What's your theory? What are you positing as causing it if it's not the vaccine? Because we are obligated as scientists to delve into it and to figure out and come up with an explanation. I know what I think it is. I clearly believe it's the mRNA injections. If people disagree, I'm happy to

have that discussion, but you have to have an explanation. It's not, it's that, you know, it's not the vaccines, but you have no other explanation. You're obligated to come up with something. So bless you. Thank you for coming back. I appreciate it. And we'll do it in the future. Thank you very much. Thanks for having me, Dr. Victory. And we got to cut to a commercial break. and then um after the commercial bring in our second guest uh carl jablonowski to talk about the faulty pcr tests and where and how they led us astray during the covid pandemic of course i'm a fan of the healthy aging supplement, True Niagen. I've been taking it almost for a decade myself. This supplement boosts NAD, which your cells need to survive properly metabolically,

and it goes down as we age. It does so with a nutrient called nicotinamide riboside, or NR, specifically patented form of NR called Niagen. It's the most efficient and trusted NAD booster. NAD can also play a role in reproductive health. Boosting NAD is recommended with prenatal vitamins for women over 30 looking to start a family. Here's Dr. Amy, also known as the egg whisperer, a highly influential specialist in this area. That was when I said, this is amazing.

I need every single person going through fertility to take it. I not only take it myself. My patients have shared stories. They took it and then they got pregnant naturally. And that's really my goal is I want people to empower themselves with the tools so that they can get pregnant without my help. TruNiagen is an amazing NAD booster. You're going to want to add it to your reproductive health arsenal.

And of course, it's in our family of Dr. Drew sponsors. Go to drdrew.com slash truniagen for 20% off your order. That is drdrew.com slash truniagen. Enter Dr. Drew at checkout for 20% off. I'm excited to bring you a new product, a new supplement, Fadi. I take it. I make Susan take it. My whole family takes it.

This comes out of, believe it or not, dolphin research. The Navy maintains a fleet of dolphins, and a brilliant veterinarian recognized that these dolphins sometimes developed a syndrome identical to our Alzheimer's disease. Those dolphins were deficient in a particular fatty acid. She replaced the fatty acid and they didn't get the Alzheimer's. Humans have the same issue. And we are more deficient in this particular fatty acid than ever before. And a simple replacement of this fatty acid called C15 will help us prevent these syndromes. It's published in a recent journal called Metabolites. It's a new

nutritional C15, pentadecanoic acid, it's called. The deficiency that we are developing for C15 creates something called the cellular fragility syndrome. This is the first nutritional deficiency syndrome to be discovered in 75 years and may be affecting us in many ways and as many as one in three of us. This is an important breakthrough. Take advantage of it. Go to fatty15.com slash Dr. Drew to receive 15% off a 90-day starter kit subscription or use code Dr. Drew at checkout for that 15% off or just go to our website, drdrew.com slash fatty15. Many of us have not gotten over COVID. I'm not talking about the virus itself, but the response. We were flabbergasted about what the government could do to us. There is no telling what they might pull next time. And it's looking more like there

will be a next time. So we all have to be what I call rationally ready. That's where the wellness company comes in. TWC is about access, Access to physicians via telehealth. Access to potentially life-saving medication. Years ago, having access to medication and telehealth might have seemed crazy, but now it seems crazy not to. Now, with claims that gain-of-function research have been done in the bird flu, I urge everyone to take control of their healthcare with the help of the wellness company. Go to drdrew.com slash TWC for 10% off all their products, including the four medical kits, each of which has a different purpose. And we've added Tamiflu to one of them in case the bird flu does become a problem for humans.

Be rationally ready. drdrew.com slash TWC for 10% off. 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. Welcome back. And before I bring in my second guest, I want to mention a few things about those kids from the wellness company. As people watching the show undoubtedly know, both Dr. Drew and I are

associated with the wellness company. We're both on the chief medical board. I'm the chief of disaster and emergency medicine there. And the reason I joined was really because of my experience with the COVID pandemic debacle. The reason that we put together these kits and there are quite a few walking through each one, I would suggest that people actually go to the wellness company website. Each kit's a little different. different, but what all of them contain is a broad range of medications, mostly prescription medications that treat a broad range of conditions, viruses, bacterial infections. There are medications in there to treat relatively minor wounds. An EpiPen is available. And by the way, we have the best pricing on EpiPens that I think of anybody I've seen. And what Drew said in his commercial break there, rational readiness, this is what

we've been talking about. We aren't preaching fear. We're suggesting that people be rationally ready. Do not allow yourself to be in a position during COVID where you are at the mercy, frankly, of the CDC, the FDA, the powers that be. And I think it's a time really after what we witnessed with COVID, it really makes sense for people to go and to pick out the kit that fits their need or kits that fit your needs the most. You know how you travel.

You know what your family needs are. You know, when I go on vacation, it may be very different from what you do. Some people go camping in the wilderness. Other people are at a hotel going to art museums. So the kit that you might want to have to take with you may be different, but we have a broad range of kits. And I would really strongly recommend that you avail yourself of these and not be beholden to the system if we were to have another outbreak of something, bird flu or something else. So then now on to our second guest, Carl Jablonowski. My apologies, Dr. Carl Jablonowski. And my apologies by Dr. Carl Jablonowski. He has a PhD in biomedical

informatics, I think, and computer science. Suffice to say, you are a data analytics guru. You work with terabyte-sized databases, electronic medical record databases, and other sources of medical data. So no disrespect intended, I should be saying Dr. Jablonowski, and really excited to have you here. What we're going to talk about primarily, and we could take this anywhere you want to go, but one of the things that was brought to my attention and why I was really interested in having you on was specifically to get into some of the problems with the PCR test. Because,

you know, the PCR test, I hope everybody knows, is the ever-faithful swab that you've had, you know, many people have had shoved up their nasal passage over and over the COVID pandemic. We were led to believe that this was critically important for us to do. We needed to do it, you know, over and over again, keep them on hand, keep them in your glove box, keep them, you know, in keep them in your drawer. Everyone should have half a dozen PCR tests at the ready in case they should sneeze or have a runny nose. So I want to talk about, and the PCR test was very, very successful in driving a lot of the COVID pandemic agenda. It really was successful in driving the lockdowns. It was used to shut down schools. It was used to manipulate how or if people could travel, go to work, you name it.

So tell me a little bit about how you even got interested in or knowledgeable about the PCR tests and we'll kind of take it from there. So first I sort of embrace my own ignorance. I am not a medical doctor. Medical doctors have very unique skills and one of them is you have an ability to accept ambiguity from test results, right? I don't want a test result to be yes, maybe. But as a doctor, that's what you live with. I want my test results to be absolute. Either yes, I have it or no, I don't have it. And the problem really stems from my simplification of how I see viruses and infectivity. So in a simple worldview, a person has a virus, a respiratory virus. They breathe it out and someone else breathes it in and it crosses the mucosal membrane and then it gets into the cells and starts replicating. And in that simple worldview, we can use a PCR test to swab the mucosal membrane. And both SARS-CoV-2 and H5N1 bird flu are RNA viruses.

So we use a reverse transcriptase to turn the RNA into DNA. And then we have a double-stranded. And a PCR works on cycles. So each cycle, you have your double-stranded DNA. You heat it up a little to separate two, and then you cool it down a little in the right solutions, and it will build back up a copy of itself. So it's really a Xerox copy of what's going on in your body, and you can do that again, heat it up again, and then replicate it again. And when it comes to PCR, you know, there's a question of how many times you repeat that cycle. And that makes a huge difference.

There are some protocols that redo that cycle 40 times. And that is if you find that that's 40 times redoing that cycle is 1 trillion copies of the initial one. So the world is not as nearly as simple as my mind would like it to be. A host, a human host making, making an infected human host making viruses can make a trillion viruses a day. And a trillion is a huge number. And they breathe it out. And viruses are, you know, especially the mRNA-based viruses, they don't last too long. They degenerate, they disintegrate, they die. But it's not like those dead viruses go away. And so when I'm breathing in, I can be breathing in a whole lot of dead viruses, all of them having some mRNA

sequence. And so without a virus ever getting into my body and infecting my cells and getting my cells to reproduce copies of that, I can test positive because the PCR test is picking up bits of mRNA and amplifying it a trillion times and showing that I'm positive when I'm not. Okay, so let me interject here for a second. Let me, because part of my job here on the show, Carl, is to take information that really smart people like you are giving us and to sort of re-reverage a non-scientist can understand.

So correct me if I'm wrong on this. The way that I understood the PCR technology is that it fundamentally for a scientist to be able to work with it in the lab because there isn't enough of it. So to take some minuscule little bit and then amplify it, in other words, make a whole lot more of it, create a bunch of it so that the scientists can then work with it in the laboratory. So what it's done in this case with COVID is it's taken some minuscule little bit of

genetic material that might not even be capable of infecting you. It's some little, might be a little bit of leftover fragment of a virus that you had to go or came upon, but it never, it's not even capable of actually growing or replicating or causing disease. And it amplifies it and says, yes, it exists. The analogy that I used to make was it'd be like me finding a stray hare from my Labrador retriever that passed away five years ago, finding a hare on the floor in my office and saying, oh, the dog must be here because there's this hair. It's creating something and making something out of an infinitesimal, insignificant fragment that's left over. Is that right?

That's right. And it can be very wrong. The Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in 2006, a few people had some symptoms. They coughed, and it had a bit of a whoop at the end of the cough. So they did a whooping cough PCR test, and they started finding a whole lot. They had suspected 134 different cases of whooping cough at that medical center, and they doled out 1,300 or 1,400 prescriptions for antibiotics, and something like 4,500 people were vaccinated for whooping cough. Zero lab confirmed. The whooping cough epidemic of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center

did not exist. It was all a PCR error. And it's my understanding that, again, with regard to COVID, that if you took those swabs, you know, that swab they shove up your nose, and you actually did what we normally did in virology lab, where we take a plate with viral growing medium, and you spread that swab on that viral growing medium, that it wouldn't have grown anything. In other words, most of these PCR tests that came back, if you have a strep throat test, people maybe in the old days, we used to swab people's throats. We'd stick a Q-tip down their throat on their tonsil, get something out, put it

on a plate, and either it grew strep or it didn't. And if it grew strep on the plate, then we said, oh, you have strep throat. It's positive. With these PCR tests, if you put them on a viral growing medium, isn't it true that most of them would never have grown virus, that there wasn't actually virus there, despite it being positive? I'm sure a lot of them would never grow a virus. A PCR test does have some limited ability to aid in a diagnosis, but it's never a definitive diagnosis. And implementing a PCR test on an asymptomatic population-wide is, you know, it's kind of on the insane side. There are only really two reasons of doing that. One is they cost a lot of money, so if someone is making an awful lot of

money on all of those PCR tests, and the other is that no matter how good your PCR test is, you're going to have a false positive rate, which means people who are not infected are going to show up as infected. And the only reason to do that on a population is to seed fear. once you see fear you can sell them products like experimental gene therapy vaccines um and you can do a you know a whole lot worse america really loves its freedoms and um you know we participated in mutually assured destruction to make sure the american way of life you know we had our freedoms or there would be nuclear war and all of that um we loved our freedoms so much but for the small period of time we stopped we We stopped. We wanted security. And during the pandemic, you know, Ben Franklin said, even participating in the act, you don't deserve either. And as it turned out, we lost both of them.

Yeah. And there's no question that those, that these PCR tests, as you said, the insanity, and I think that is the correct word, the insanity of mass testing asymptomatic people. We've known from the beginning of time that asymptomatic people are never the drivers of a respiratory pandemic. Anthony Fauci finally acknowledged that himself on the record, but that was a little late. But the idea of doing that drove much of the ancillary, the mitigation schemes, things like the lockdowns, closure of schools. Remember, because we had to follow the case rates, every day we got bombarded with, here's the case number. And if the case number went above this

then we got to have a lockdown and we got to shut the schools and we got to shut down the sporting arena and we got to shut down the beach and then you can't go to work and if you tested positive you can't go to work until you test negative so not only you know people are testing over and over so what if you test positive and then you you know, three days later, you still test positive and are counted as three cases. So first of all, they jacked up the case rate because how can one individual be three separate cases of COVID, you know, just because you had three separate positive cases and they used the positives to drive the rest of these behaviors.

I mean, isn't that how it played out? That is exactly how it played out. Do you have any, what would you do? Have you done any crunching of the numbers where you have even a ballpark of what you said would have thought the actual number of cases of COVID that we had in the United States versus the number that was reported? No. I mean, understanding the biases in the data is really difficult. There are some things that are so obscure that you can't unpack them. There are estimates that people have tried to do so, but it is difficult. Because, and I would be purely guessing, but I would say that just based on what I was just

saying, the fact that people got tested over and over, the number of false positives, testing asymptomatic people, which is ridiculous. I mean, if you came into my emergency department, you said, yeah, I feel great. I just was at the beach or I just was at the gym. I just went running, but I was hoping you could do a chest x-ray to see if I have pneumonia. I would say, no, I'm not going to, why would I do a chest x-ray to see if you have pneumonia? You have no, you know, that you have, you're asymptomatic. Why, why would I do that? I meanray to see if you have pneumonia? You have no, you know, you're asymptomatic. Why would I do that? I mean, that would be just stupid.

Unless, as you said, I were trying to find, you know, false positives and trying symptomatic people, plus the repetitive testing and counting as a, quote, new case, each person who got tested over and over again. I would have to say that the actual cases are probably a quarter of what was actually reported or maybe half. I don't know. I mean, it just seems like it would be off by an order of magnitude. I would not be surprised. And I really wish we learned the lesson then. But, you know, history seems to be repeating itself. There are calls to PCR test all of the cows in the United States for bird flu. And if you have a test that's going to spit out

5% false positive, America has about 100 million cows. You're going to have about 5 million false positive cows on a PCR test rollout, and someone's going to make a heck of a lot of money making all of those PCR tests. Well, and on top of it make a heck of a lot of money making all of those PCR tests. Well, and on top of it, let's talk about where it goes after that, Carl. They're talking about if they test positive, they're talking about culling, unnecessarily exterminating entire flocks of birds and herds of cattle if they test positive. Talk about an assault on our food chain. We are talking about absolutely exterminating mass numbers of animals based on a faulty test. I mean, this is going from bad to worse. Is the PCR test for bird flu any different in terms of

its ability to be accurate than it was for COVID? That I don't know. I think the PCR testing is still in its early phases. I don't know if I've, I have not seen a large study on the PCR test themselves. You know, something they could do instead is do an antibody test, which actually would ask the immune system of whichever animal you're looking at, human or cow, have you seen this virus? Has your immune system adapted to fight this virus? If you have the IgM antibodies, that means you've seen it in a pretty short term period of time. If you have IgG antibodies, that means you saw it a while ago and have successfully fought it. Right. And that would make sense to me if you actually wanted to find out how much of the population is actually immune to this. But the problem with that, Carl, is that

you would actually expose that natural immunity, actually expose the fact that a given immune system actually works as it was intended to, and that natural immunity far supersedes, as it always does, vaccine-induced immunity. And they don't want you to know that. Here's something that I would love you to dispel or not for me or confirm for me. One of the things I find fascinating is that we are led to believe that you need a different booster because everybody knows that COVID, like all viruses, mutates. Coronaviruses mutate more adeptly than others. And as a result, you need a different booster. You need to get the shot over and over again because as the virus mutates,

you need a different shot. They had to change the shots. How come they didn't have to change the pcr test how come this say even though the virus is mutated but but you can use the same pcr tests that you used back when it was the original delta wave so one of the the faults of a pcr test is the covid um sars cov2 virus is about 30,000 base pairs long. Most of the PCR tests are only looking for a few hundred base pairs long. And none of them really examine the tail end of the virus, where you would know that the cell started and then completed its replication of the virus. Perhaps if those itty-bitty pieces don't mutate as much as other parts that would warrant a new booster, I don't know. I don't put too much stock in a PCR result,

and it's unfortunate that a lot of other people, mostly in policy positions, do. Well, as I said, I find it fascinating that you need a new booster because the virus has mutated its way out of the original one, but somehow the PCR tests were used really to manipulate so much of what happened during the pandemic, specifically the lockdowns and people's ability to work or not. And if you look simply at the fallout from that, the secondary fallout that's been underreported, interruption, for example, of the food supply, global supply chains. UNICEF did a, predicted that somewhere, you know, in the range of, you know, 130, 140 million into starvation as a result of interruption of the food chain, specifically because of interruption of people's ability to work that was led by these faulty. So this is not just some inconvenient thing.

Pivot with me for a minute here too. You are currently a senior researcher, I understand, at Children's Health Defense. Is that right? Yes. Okay. They are friends. Bobby Kennedy's group and Children's Health Defense is doing tremendous work and they have long before COVID, by the way, with regard to harms on children. Talk a little bit about the work that you are doing for Children's Health Defense. I am overworked. That is for sure. So I do do a lot of data analysis on,

I mean, it's all retrospective data because I'm a data scientist. Everything I look at is in the past. And we had a pretty great paper that we published about two months ago by now, which examined Florida's Medicaid data set for infants under one year old who received various combinations of vaccines. And what we found in this study is that the sheer number of diseases exponentially increased with every added vaccine. And a lot of the research I do is vaccine heavy. And, you know, a lot of the criticisms that I receive personally are

usually about the vaccine, about a vaccine topic of one form or another. But it's, you know, it's super important work and nobody is, it is not work that is largely supported by a scientific community. There are definitely interests at play that do not want studies like this to be done. Correct. No, you're right. And do you also take, there's no question. And I sit here as a physician who was largely pro-vaccine prior to COVID. I spoke and wrote prolifically about the importance of vaccines.

I believed what I was taught in medical school. I believed what the journals told us, the storied medical journals, the Lancet, JAMA, New England Journal. You know, we, with vaccines are not only safe and effective, they were critically important to, you know, eliminating, eradicating, you know, you know, these diseases that when in fact, it turns out that was not the case. So for me, COVID, I was wary, wary is too soft a word. I was incredibly concerned about the mRNA injections for COVID before they were ever rolled out. And I sounded the alarm

flag early on and said, this is a really, really bad idea. Don't do this. But it's become an existential crisis for me to understand just how much we were misled as medical students, as residents, and as practicing physicians to the safety of these vaccines, because it simply isn't the case. Really, none of them have been well-tested against a placebo. These studies, the data has been co-opted, it's been the negative data has been, it's been out and out fraud. I'm so appreciative of the work that you are doing with Children's Health Defense because it needs to be done despite the people who are pushing back on the other side. Have you gotten into the data at all on looking at areas of the population, whether it's in this country, Amish people, Mennonites, or in areas of the world that are unvaccinated and comparing their incidence of childhood diseases and things like autoimmune issues, whether it's food allergies or autism, any of these things,

comparing vaccinated populations versus non-vaccinated? Absolutely. And Dr. Ryan Hooker and Bobby Kennedy wrote a book, Vaxxed Unvaxxed, which does a tremendously good job. It is a little difficult to examine those populations because in a lot of cases, the unvaxxed have a different disposition. They have different healthcare-seeking behaviors than the vaxxed cohorts. And so in studying the populations and comparing them to each other, you really have to keep that in mind. It's a lot of work that I do tries to sidestep that. And I look at recipients of one vaccine versus another vaccine where you may not have much of a say, like, you know, what was the brand of your last flu vaccine? And did you really choose it or did someone else choose it? Right. But if you can compare two different flu vaccines and find that one is safer or unsafer than the other, then, you know, that really changes the landscape and then neither of them are really safe. Yeah, well, it's so interesting because, you know, it has changed tremendously over the years. When I was growing up, when Bobby Kennedy was growing up, the average number of

vaccines that you got between birth and age 18 was somewhere between six and eight, depending on where you live, because there was some state variation, but between six and eight total vaccines from the time you were born until age 18. That number as of today is up to 72. From birth to age 18, you now on the standard vaccine schedule, you would receive 72 different shots. Now, I don't care if you, you know, to call, you'd be anti-vax or skeptical or whatever else. You cannot believe that, you know, flogging over and over and over again with these immunologic challenges, which is what a vaccine is. You are essentially asking your immune system to respond over and over again to a challenge. And the question really, you've got, we've got to start

asking ourselves, do we need to vaccinate our way out of every single pathogen out there? You know, I can tell you right now, I've been practicing physician for 35 years. I've never had a flu vaccine ever, never, because I figured here's the deal. Do I want to get influenza? No. But if I get it, will I do okay? Yeah, I'll be sick for a week to 10 days. I'll feel lousy. But it is not worth the risk to me of, you know, taking a flu vaccine every single year. I would have gotten another, you know, 30 vaccines. And I don't want to do that. What was your feeling, you know, going into this work? Did you have a stance or a feeling about vaccines when you started? And has it changed as a result of what you're doing? Oh my gosh, has it ever? You know,

I was between jobs when I signed up for the fellowship at Children's Health Defense. And I was like, they need a data scientist. I'm just going to do the thing, and I'll probably find nothing, and then I'll just move on. And that was so not the case. It was like the first scientific paper I read that was put out by the CDC was, we talked about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. And they were using V-safe and VAERS. And, I mean, they were making statements that you clearly you you had to know the authors knew were false i mean it should never it was published in the lancet so you know the domino started to fall before i even started into you know big databases or even

digging into vers i i i knew something was um very not right in this country. One of the criticisms that we had from the last paper that we pushed out was a guy who said, you know, Brian and Carl, Dr. Brian Hooker and myself, we don't have a PhD in immunology or in virology, and we're not physicians. And I really thought about that because it's a decent argument. I'm not a physician. I have a PhD from medical school, but what a physician is is drastically different training than what I've received. But I felt like I should steel man his argument where you like entertain the best possible notion of it.

And I'm like, well, we don't have a PhD in vaccinology. And so I went looking for people who have PhDs in vaccinology to see what they had to say about the paper. And there aren't any. In the United States, the most vaccinated population in the world, we do not have a single PhD program in vaccinology. There are a few course offerings that mention vaccinology here and there. UC Berkeley has a master's in public health on vaccinology and infectious disease. But a master's in public health is a lot different than a PhD where graduates are expected to contribute meaningfully to the research. And that really just like blew me away. The people who literally wrote the book on vaccines, Paul Offit and Ornstein and Edwards and Botkins,

they don't have PhD in vaccinology. They have MDs, actually. They don't have PhDs. And it's just so stunning that this thing that we put into, some people would like to put into every child in America 70-some times, up to 100 times if you include whatever COVID boosters you're expected to take for the next dozen or so years, that we don't seriously study what a vaccine is. And you can say, well, I mean, isn't a PhD in immunology or virology close enough? And those PhDs could design a vaccine, but they could also have a very successful long career without ever hearing the words myocarditis or Guillain-Barre syndrome or cerebral venous thrombosis or Kawasaki disease. All of those you would hear and know what they are on the first day of a PhD program in vaccinology. Yeah, it's fascinating. And I will tell you that I think you're exposing something that's critically important. While I appreciate, you know, the

deference to MDs, I think that people with PhDs like yours are critically important because you look at data differently. And physicians tend to, you know, defer to the medical journals. And this is really the root of the problem. The medical journals are largely owned by big pharma. Nothing gets published in any of those journals if it isn't bought and paid for by a big pharma interest. And that is the reality. And Bobby Kennedy is certainly very, very aware of that. He's tried his best to expose it. We have got to end that cozy relationship between pharma and our medical journals, big pharma and the medical schools are funded by pharmacy. So you cannot get, there is no integrity

in the data. There's no integrity in medicine. There's no integrity in the research when you have that conflict of interest. And so I think for whatever awakening it's had for you, it's certainly had that for me, as I said, I'm still grappling with all the things that I may have done, believing they were correct, whether it was the use of statin drugs or the use of, you know, certain testing and certainly the promotion of vaccines over the years, despite my own hesitance to take quite a few of them. I think that there's still a lot to unravel there and we need to expose it. So God bless you for doing it.

I'm up against the end of the clock here, Carl. I hope that you will come back. We could do a whole other show just on this vaccine issue, not independent of the PCR stuff that we were talking about, which on its own is important. But please say you will come back. I think this has been a great conversation and lots more to have. Absolutely. Thanks for having me. Terrific. Thanks very much. Caleb, I know we want to do a quick rundown of the upcoming shows. I

apologize. I know for our viewers, I ran a little late there, but it seemed like there was just an awful lot to talk about. We got some great shows. I know on the 8th, but it seemed like there was just an awful lot to talk about. We got some great shows. I know on the 8th, there's no show with Drew. It's Susan's show, Calling Out, with her transhumanism expert. Brandon Tatum coming on. I think that show is actually an earlier time. It's at 1130 Pacific, but that should be a great show. You can read down the others. I'm looking forward to the most. Well, our friend, Dr. Peter McCullough, Peter's always terrific and brings a wealth of information. He brings the goods every time. So August 20th, an update with Dr. Peter McCullough,

and I'm going to be on with Senator Ron Johnson, which I'm really looking forward to on Thursday, the 22nd. Senator Johnson has been one of the real heroes in this fight during the pandemic, and he's continuing to be on the right side of history. So looking forward to that show as well. Sorry for running over, and thanks for joining me. 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.