Ask Dr. Drew - Dr. Meryl Nass SUSPENDED By Maine Medical Board For Defying COVID Mandates w/ Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 192

Episode Date: March 12, 2023

After defying mask mandates & the CDC on COVID-19 treatments and mRNA vaccines, Dr. Meryl Nass was suspended by Maine’s Board of Licensure in Medicine and ordered to undergo a psych evaluation. Though the board claims they received complaints about her medical practice, Dr. Nass says the complaints were fabricated by activists using targeted harassment to censor her freedom of speech. “The BOLIM, a regulatory extension of policies enacted by Governor Mills, was intent on silencing her,” said Gene Libby, Dr. Nass’ legal counsel. Dr. Meryl Nass is a board-certified physician with over 40 years of experience in all areas of internal medicine. She is a nationally recognized expert on epidemics who has consulted for government agencies around the world, especially focussing on anthrax, Zika, Ebola, and biological warfare investigations. Follow Dr. Meryl Nass at https://twitter.com/NassMeryl 「 SPONSORED BY 」 • BIRCH GOLD - Don’t let your savings lose value. You can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it. Claim your free, no obligation info kit from Birch Gold at https://birchgold.com/drew • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get 10% off with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. Hundreds of millions of people have received a COVID-19 vaccine, and serious adverse reactions are uncommon. Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician and Dr. Kelly Victory is a board-certified emergency specialist. Portions of this program will examine countervailing views on important medical issues. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.  「 ABOUT the SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 WITH DR. KELLY VICTORY 」 Dr. Kelly Victory MD is a board-certified trauma and emergency specialist with over 30 years of clinical experience. She served as CMO for Whole Health Management, delivering on-site healthcare services for Fortune 500 companies. She holds a BS from Duke University and her MD from the University of North Carolina. Follow her at https://earlycovidcare.org and https://twitter.com/DrKellyVictory. 「 GEAR PROVIDED BY 」 • BLUE MICS - Find your best sound at https://drdrew.com/blue • ELGATO - See how Elgato's lights transformed Dr. Drew's set: https://drdrew.com/sponsors/elgato/ 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 For over 30 years, Dr. Drew has answered questions and offered guidance to millions through popular shows like Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Dr. Drew On Call (HLN), Teen Mom OG (MTV), and the iconic radio show Loveline. Now, Dr. Drew is opening his phone lines to the world by streaming LIVE from his home studio. Watch all of Dr. Drew's latest shows at https://drdrew.tv Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As always, there we are. Welcome everybody. And as we said, Dr. Kelly Victory joins us as always. And today we are joined by Dr. Meryl Nass. Dr. Nass is an internist, board certified, and she has an illustrious career working in international arena with major institutions around epidemics,

including anthrax. She was critical in the Cuba outbreak of optic neuritis and peripheral neuropathy. She has written about Ebola epidemic. She has worked for governments, Institute of Medicine. She'll tell you about her career, but it is illustrious. But she has come to our attention because she was, what shall we say, attacked by the state medical board in Maine because they were persuaded by activists who fabricated a story. And this makes perfect sense to me given the world I

seem to be living in right now. So let's get right to it. Our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre. A psychopath started this. He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction. Fentanyl and heroin, ridiculous. I'm a doctor for. 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. You have trouble, you can't stop and you want help stopping, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got 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.

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

and authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge.

BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Whether you own a bustling hair salon or a hot new bakery, you need business insurance that can keep up with your evolving needs. With flexible coverage options from TD Insurance, you only pay for what you need. TD, ready for you. And we'll be bringing Dr. Kelly Victor in here in just a minute. We, of course, are watching your comments on Restream and over on the Rumble Rants. YouTube and Facebook and Twitter and Twitch.

Which is where we'll be streaming. That's Restream. And we are out on Twitter spaces as well. We will try to take a couple calls at the very end of the program. But right now, we are going to speak with Dr. Meryl Nass. Please bring in Dr. Nass. Welcome. Glad to be here.

We appreciate you being here. Now, the first thing that jumps out at me about your story is you've been practicing general medicine and internal medicine for 40 years. I have been for 35 years. This epidemic was one of the most astonishing experiences. I couldn't even have imagined anything like this 20 years ago. I just wonder what your general thoughts are

and what we bore witness to during this extraordinary experience. Well, that's a general question. Certainly at the beginning, I assumed it was probably a lab leak. And because I knew about gain-of-function research, and I knew that actually a hundred lab errors are reported to the CDC every year just in the United States, a hundred potential lab leaks and there are many more of course in other labs around the world. So when this appeared out of nowhere that's what I expected. I was surprised when there was an effort in March to paint those who thought it might be a lab leak as conspiracy theorists and nuts. didn't make any sense that the lancet had a correspondence signed by 20 about 25 of peter dazak's um friends and himself uh that was designed to do the same thing to to you know paint us as conspiracy theorists and then at the same time there started to be the suppression of hydroxy

chloroquine which was a drug i was quite familiar with and was using for COVID. And I thought that this is really crazy because here we have a safe medicine. It's on the WHO list of essential medicines. I've used it on myself. I've used it in probably a couple hundred patients for Lyme disease. And it's a reasonably safe, perfectly safe drug when used correctly. Why would you suppress it in the middle of a pandemic? What I found out later was that actually the NIH and the CDC in two papers had shown that the drug killed SARS-1, the original SARS that had appeared in China in 2002. And it also killed MERS in the NIH

paper, which was published in 2014. And the federal government agencies that published these papers suppressed all of this information. So anyway, that was my take in the first half of 2020 on what was going on. And what actually happened to you? What happened with this medical board dust-up? Well, as you probably remember, there was a great effort to suppress hydroxychloroquine. And I wrote about that, how around the world, I identified 56 or 58 different ways hydroxychloroquine was being suppressed for COVID. There were also about a dozen ways ivermectin was suppressed later. And I was aware of that. I was writing about it. I was talking about it. I was working with Children's Health Defense and others

to try to turn this around, work with the attorney generals and legislatures to try to explain to them why it didn't make any sense to suppress drugs that were relatively safe and potentially extremely effective. So as medical boards were asked to do by a non-profit organization called the Federation of State Medical Boards, which is basically a trade organization, for some reason that organization stepped out in July of 2021 and instructed the local boards to go after doctors for using these drugs and for misinformation.

And my medical board, the staff, of course, are appointed by the governor and their state employees. The members are mostly doctors, some lay people. And the chair of my medical board is on the board of trustees of the FSMB, the trade organization. And one of the staff members had worked at a conference talking about, you know, doctors and misinformation. And so they got two complaints from strangers who had never met me, acknowledged they'd never met me, they didn't know me, they didn't know any of my patients, and they'd seen something on the internet and they believed it was misinformation and they felt it was their duty to report me

and have my license taken away. And so the board told me they were investigating me and I told them, you know, under what statute can you go after me for this crime? Did you forget that we have a First Amendment? I'm allowed to say what I like as long as I'm not crying fire in a theater. And apparently, even though the board staff had three lawyers on it, none of them had bothered to read the Constitution. And they didn't know that misinformation is not a crime. And it can't be a crime because of the Constitution. The Constitution says governments, both the state constitution in my state of Maine and the federal constitution, protect freedom of speech. So after a time, the FS, so they went after me for that

initially, but they dropped all of those charges before my hearing, a couple of weeks before my hearing started. And then they went after me for using hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin on patients. And I had reported to the board, I had actually emailed them one day in December of 2021 and said, look, because of your bad policies, I was forced to lie to a pharmacist today so I could get hydroxychloroquine for a patient because you've imposed a ban on dispensing for pharmacists. And this makes no sense. And you need to rescind this ban. And so they decided that I had implicated myself, that I lied to a pharmacist that was unprofessional. And it immediately, it was so dangerous that I should have my license

immediately suspended, which they did in January of last year. And so for 13, 14 months, I've not had a license. And what was the nature of your practice before all this? I had an outpatient internal medicine practice and a lot, well, before COVID, a lot of it was chronic illness, Lyme disease, things like that. And once COVID hit, a lot of it was chronic illness, Lyme disease, things like that. And once COVID hit, a lot of it was treating people for COVID and giving them drugs ahead of time, which in my state, wasn't allowed to give them hydroxychloroquine in advance,

but legally I was able to give ivermectin. And I did that. And I spent a lot of time educating people about the disease and how to protect themselves and vitamin D and all the rest. And earlier in your career, did you have a hospital-based program before the hospitalist thing took off or took over, I should say? Yes, most of my career. So I have this peculiar career, I'm probably the only person in the US who had a career

like this, where I tended to work for hospitals, first in the ER and then as a hospitalist for most of my career, for probably, I don't know, 25, 30 years became well known because the things I had become interested in, you know, became important. So I had identified the world's largest anthrax epidemic and it was already identified. It happened in Rhodesia during a civil war, but I had shown it was due to biological warfare. And then anthrax became immediately important because of the Gulf War. And so everyone then heard about anthrax. And I, you know, was one of the few people who knew about the disease.

I had also worked on issues of Gulf War syndrome. I had investigated this Cuban epidemic for the Ministry of Health in Cuba. And all of this was done sort of as a hobby. It was part time, you know, while I did a lot of media interviews and explained to people and the mandates for anthrax vaccine beginning in 1998. So that was a very dangerous vaccine. And yet the military insisted that everybody get it. And so we fought that for several years. Eventually, we we won a case and the judge threw away the license and told FDA to redo it. And unfortunately they didn't redo it, but they did rubber stamp a new license about a year and a half later. So, and I've consulted for the US government as well,

for the director of national intelligence. And so when COVID hit, I was well positioned because I had so much background in epidemics and biological warfare. And I was even very familiar with hydroxychloroquine and SARS. I knew something about SARS because it's a designated biological warfare threat by the CDC and the USDA. So I felt I was in a position where I had something to offer and started doing a lot of writing about what needed to be done regarding the pandemic and how to manage things and sort of became a critical voice throughout the last three years. What did they get wrong in terms of other than therapeutics from your standpoint?

What else did they get wrong? It's easier to answer what they got right, and I'm having trouble remembering what they got right. So I guess the answer is everything. And how can that happen? I think that I've tried to figure that out too. It was just the most bewildering, astonishing thing to me. And again, the current experience to me has just been nothing but one extraordinary, no, our key public health officials were hoodwinked by their

Chinese counterparts in terms of, particularly when it pertains to things like lockdown. They were persuaded by them. It was a political maneuver in China and they persuaded our people that it was a medical maneuver and a miracle. And that was the end of that. That was where we started down the road of really very bad ideas. So you may be right. I think in the beginning, I was certainly willing to go along with lockdowns because, you know, if it was going to be for a month or less. Because, you know, you've got roughly 10 days during which a person is contagious. So you double that. And that, you know, classic public health training is you need that much time to stop transmission.

But our government never made the lockdowns. You know, there were all these essential workers, which were maybe up to half the workers. So a lockdown can't work if half your people aren't paying attention to it and you've told them not to. So then you have to ask, why did they not try something like China did, which was a real lockdown? And why did they institute track and trace after the horse had gotten out of the barn? And why did they delay the provision of tests in the beginning, allowing the disease to proliferate throughout the country? And I think we can't excuse them as having been misled by China on those issues.

They certainly bungled the testing, right? There was an intent to test, and that was a mess. I don't think, where have there been successful lockdowns for a respiratory virus on a national level ever? Right. And so local lockdowns, well, right, never been thought of. And so local lockdowns

and quarantines have always made sense. Why didn't we just go down that path, right? Correct. Correct. All right, I'll tell you what let's do. We'll take a little break here. I'm going to bring Dr. Kelly Victory in here to sort of take over and ask her questions. We appreciate you being here. Are you engaged now? Did I read correctly that you're

engaged in a lawsuit against the medical board? No, not currently. So I'm in the middle of a hearing and they've taken their time with the hearing. So we started the hearing five months ago. They've given me four days and we don't even have a date for the next hearing day. But if I'm not fully exonerated, because I did nothing wrong, I do plan to sue. And perhaps even if I am exonerated, because they've taken away my livelihood for quite a long time time and they have What's the word that they have? Put my name as mud

They have encouraged four different public radio, you know main public radio articles and TV and shows about me and I was put into the national news as you know they I think that I was selected to be a poster child to scare all the other doctors on the issue of misinformation so for alleged misinformation doctor loses license you know you you can still keep practicing if you're accused of raping or murdering

a patient until they have evidence but But in my case, I had to immediately stop practicing. The misinformation was your therapeutic advice to patients? Was that the misinformation? Or did you have some public? And my comments about the vaccine, everything I said has turned out to be absolutely accurate, but they didn't like it. And so it was called misinformation.

And, you know, if the WHO gets its way and becomes the arbiter of public health for the world, the WHO is insisting in the international health regulation amendments that have been proposed that all nations have to clamp down on misinformation and disinformation so that only the single narrative on pandemics will be allowed worldwide sounds kind of spooky right pretty spooky pretty upsetting we'll take a little break back with dr meryl nass you'll follow her at

nass meryl m-E-R-Y-L. Be right back. I think you know how much Susan and I love our GenuCell skincare and how easy it is to try our one-of-a-kind customer packages bundled with our favorite products. Susan realized the other day that one of our kids stole some of our deep correcting serum from our stash, if you will. We had no idea that the lactic and

hyaluronic acid combo is so great for adult acne, dark marks, and scars. So not only are Susan and I hooked on these products, but apparently somebody else in our family is too. Somebody's ripping it off. I know I'm a snob about the products I use on my face. Everybody knows it. Every time I go to the dermatologist's office, they're just rows and rows of different creams. Retinols, vitamin C cream, under eye cream, night creams. And then when I get to the counter, they're overpriced. All kinds of products that you can all find at GenuCell.com. I've fallen in love with this product at a fraction of the price. I've been using GenuCell for six months now, and I'm very impressed. Great skincare

is important at any age, and we love how amazing the results are. Thank you to GenuCell. Plus, now you can find your very own bundle based on your unique skincare needs using cutting-edge AI skincare technology. You can get a full skin analysis instantly and create a skincare regimen tailored towards your needs. Visit GenuCell.com slash Drew to check out our favorites and enter that promo code Drew, D-R-E-W, at checkout for added savings. All orders include free shipping and a free mineral mask. Order now. Go to GenuCell.com slash Drew. That is Genuucel, G-E-N-U-C-E-L, Genucel.com slash Drew. Buy gold and get a free save to store it in. You heard right. On qualifying purchases from Birch Gold Group now through March 31st, they will ship you a free save directly to your door.

Here's the deal. Fed keeps raising rates because it is the only tool they have to keep inflation under control, but it isn't working. You can't spend your way out of inflation. You've seen the impact on the stock market. You've seen the impact on your savings. Hedge inflation by owning gold, whether physical gold and silver in your safe or through an IRA and precious metals where you can hold real gold and silver in tax-sheltered retirement accounts. Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied customers. Visit birchgold.com slash drew for your free info kit on gold and to claim eligibility for your free home safe by March 31st on qualifying purchases.

Again, visit birchgold.com slash D-R-E-W. Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. If this episode ends here, the rest of the show is available at drdrew.tv. There's nothing in medicine that doesn't boil down to a risk-benefit calculation. It is the mandate of public health to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population. This is uncharted territory, Drew. Dr. Beryl Nass, I give you Dr. Kelly Victory. Hi, Dr. Nass. I'm so happy that you're here. I was thrilled that we were able to get you

scheduled and I really appreciate your taking the time to do it and your courage. I want to get back ultimately to your experience with the medical board because I think it's really important for people to understand exactly what physicians are going through and how little daylight there is quickly becoming between the United States and some far more tyrannical regimes. But before I do, I will say, number one, that I was also a very early person on board with the lab leak information. It's not a theory, it's the fact. And I said it in February of 2020 and was lambasted and ridiculed and derided for doing the same, but it's very, very clear. And I maintain you and I

will land firmly on the right side of history when it all comes out. Secondly, I, like you, was aware of the literature on hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and these studies that as you rightly state were published in 2005 and subsequently 2014 regarding the use of those drugs uh for sars cove one uh back in 2003 and for mers uh so the idea that our own government subsequently put the kibosh on them and and claimed that they were it was absolutely snake oil is really tragic because we know that that drug worked. We knew all along that it did. And so I think that again will land us on the right side of history.

I also had multiple seven different complaints filed against my medical licenses in different states all anonymously, all having nothing to do with a patient that I treated, all having to do with things that I said on air, on radio shows or television shows. And I didn't go through what you have. I was able to defend myself only by the grace of God and because of the states, perhaps, that the complaints were filed in but but we need to really expose this and rally around people like like you before we go further into that piece of it though I want to go back to your clinical

practice when you were treating people and you were clearly an early adopter of the early treatment protocols and using the cocktail of medications that we knew would work where patients were you seeing just your own patients and able to counsel them or people actually hearing about you and seeking you out, knowing that you are a provider or potentially a provider of early treatment? Oh yeah. No, I did no advertising. So yes, my whole practice was people seeking me out, word of mouth. And patients were desperate. They're told there's this deadly disease and there's nothing you can do. So stay home until your lips turn blue.

And especially for older people. But then you never knew who among those who got COVID was going to get really sick. So sometimes young people got really sick also. And, you know, and I mean, I had so many people tell me they thought I had saved their lives because they were never as sick as they became when they got COVID. So, you know, they waited a long time, some of them, to come to me. Anyway, I appreciate you telling me that you also got complaints. I have learned very slowly, unfortunately,

that just about every doctor I know who has used early treatment and has been outspoken, everyone has had complaints issued against their license. And I suspect much of this is done on a troll basis. These are not even real people, or they work for the government, or they have an ulterior motive. And in some states, doctors have been protected either by the legislature, which had said it's okay to prescribe these drugs and has told the med boards not to go after them, or in some cases by an opinion issued by the attorney general. And if this happens to anyone again, they should look up on the Nebraska attorney general

website, a fabulous 48 page discussion of the science behind the use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and disputing the federal agencies showing that they were in conflict with their own statements that they didn't have any science behind them. So it's a very important document that can help doctors, you know, legally in these fights. So have a look at that. The other thing that people need to be aware of is that the Federation of State Medical Boards actually published in April of last year, a 12 page document in which it tells the medical boards, look, if you're frightened to go after doctors

because of first amendment issues, our lawyers have come up with some more things you can use to charge them with, such as not getting informed consent for experimental treatments, et cetera, et cetera. And they go into several pages about how the medical boards can abuse us. And the medical boards have been following this playbook.

You can still find it on the Federation of State Medical Boards website. Later, I can give it to you if you want to put it up. And there's also a document that's been published recently, which is a law review article from Seton Hall University, in which a law professor who was probably paid by the other side went into all the law that would apply to doctors spreading misinformation on COVID. And this law professor, Curtis Coleman, concluded that it was essentially impossible to get doctors to to to be able to Prove that they did something wrong through misinformation that the law protects us But what the boards are trying to do and the FSM be is scare everybody so they don't know that

They and people think information is truly a crime, but it isn't. He said, Curtis Coleman said, the only way you could do this, go after a doctor on this basis is if you could prove malevolence. If you could prove that they knew they were saying something that was a lie and they did it anyway in an attempt to be harmful. That is the only circumstance they could get a doctor. I wanna jump in a little bit if you guys don't mind, because I am not an enthusiast for the early treatment, and I don't see evidence that at work,

and yet I would categorically defend a doctor's right to do what he or she feels is the correct thing for their patient. And we are all the time using off-label sorts of interventions, and there are all sorts of improvisations out there in the medical world that I would not use. I'm not convinced are the right thing, but when I particularly see doctors trying things that I know for sure are harmless, what business is it of mine or anybody's what goes on between a doctor and a patient? In fact, when Joe Rogan received ivermectin for his COVID episode, people freaked out about that. And my position was, why is anyone involved in that relationship? And by the way, that doctor did much more outrageous things. He gave him NAD

infusions and all kinds of things that I thought, whoa, interesting. I wouldn't do that, but okay. That even might be harmful, but it turned out not to be. Good for them. That's between the two of them. Well, and you're making the point precisely, Drew, because here's the issue. It's not that we can claim that doctors used hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin instead of the other proven treatments for covid this was at a time when you were being told there is no treatment you just need to stay home and wait until you turn and by the way and do nothing that is the point the do nothing wait till you're hypoxic thing it it is and from my perspective it might have been Dr. Nass' good, caring attention that made the difference.

And when you prescribe a medication, you follow up on people. And I don't care what was happening there. There was medical care going on in situations where our peers abandoned their patients in ways that were just very, very bizarre. Right. And so, and so I think the issue number one is we had, we were using FDA approved medications, medications that the FDA has determined are safe for use in humans. Okay. What we choose to use them for is up to our own discretion. And we have a long and storied history of doing that in medicine, using medications. These are safe, FDA-approved medications. They don't become unsafe when you all of a sudden use them for COVID.

They don't all of a sudden become harmful when you use it for COVID rather than for lupus or malaria or intestinal worms. So I think the other really important thing I would point out to you, Marilyn, I would share with you is that I can guarantee there was a concerted effort to bring these complaints against physicians because three of the complaints that I got in different states were almost in a form letter. The wording of the complaints was almost identical. These individuals had clearly downloaded a form. They had been provided

the exact wording of this is what you should say to the medical board in your complaint. As I said, I was able to successfully defend myself on each occasion, but it isn't without cost, not only financial cost, because you have to take time off of work, but tremendous emotional cost, psychological cost. It isn't lost on me what you have been through for 13 months. The idea that you have been robbed of an ability to earn a living by this because they've taken your license is absolutely reprehensible. And people need to understand that this federation of state medical boards who seems to be, you know, giving the marching orders

to our different state medical boards is, as you said, it is an unaccountable organization. We don't even know who the hell these people are. Have you ever tried to find their address? You can't even look them up. There's no phone number. There's no easy access to who the heck they are. No, there actually is an address,

and the address is very interesting. They're in ULIS, Texas, and in the same building, and it used to have the same phone number, is the international organization. So the American organization basically controls the international organization of medical boards, and they've pushed this whole thing out all around the world. And so doctors in Australia, New Zealand, Europe, everywhere have been getting the same complaints and having their licenses yanked. Because I've given a couple of talks in um sweden and norway and the same thing

is happening same thing in canada so um it's it is an unaccountable organization they must have gotten uh money to do this and you know we don't know where the money came from exactly we know that the us government has spent five trillion dollars in its COVID response. And a lot of that has been to cement its policies, to cement the lockdowns, to cement the use of drugs like remdesivir. So if I can just change the subject a little. Yeah, please. Drew was talking about the not-your-patient relationship. Well the goal of the government in COVID was to restrict the drugs we could use and

to enforce what people got. So when you did wind up in the hospital, everybody got remdesivir. Why? Because Medicare paid a 20% bonus on your entire hospital stay if you got remdesivir. And whether it worked or not, and whether it's also an antiviral, you know, it shouldn't have been given late and people show up at the hospital late. And there's very controversial evidence of whether it actually works, you know, I mean, it causes harm and it may cause a little benefit and what the, you know, balance of that is, is unclear.

But the federal government decided what drugs we were to be treated with for COVID. And now with these new WHO amendments to the international health regulations, the WHO is asking for that same right. And they're specific in the language that they will decide what drugs and vaccines can be used for future pandemics. And they will tell you what drugs will not be, they will not allow you to use. So the entire doctor patient relationship right now is in the process of being rewritten. And I, you know, I hate to tell my fellow doctors who have gone along with this, but they're basically writing you out of the story. The government is going to tell you what to do and patients are

going to punch their symptoms into a computer and it'll spit out a prescription. They don't need you if all you're going to do is tell them to take what the government tells you to use. The doctor is unnecessary. The doctor is only necessary if you have an individual relationship with a patient and are making decisions that are designed to help that one individual patient. If it's one size fits all, why do they need doctors? No, and I was going to ask you, what was your experience, speaking of your fellow physicians, and I've been extraordinarily critical of mine, present company accepted, what was the response? What were you hearing in your home state of Maine? Did you, behind closed doors, you know, at the cocktail

party, did people say, I agree with you? Or were you pretty much left to hang, you know, hung out to dry. I think that understanding the pandemic is very emotionally challenging. And so, and I think doctors are, have been trained to obey orders and to be frightened. You know, what happened to me was designed to frighten them. And I think that 90% of doctors felt that their career would be ruined if they went against the narrative and they didn't really have choice. Some of the older ones could step out, but the younger ones who had, you know, had a mortgage and had school debt on their hands could not. And I include, I have a son who's a young doctor and he was in that position. He didn't

want the vaccine, but he took the vaccine because he would have lost his job if he hadn't. So I think I'm in a kind of a unique position because I've dealt with peoples who have been poisoned with cyanide, who have been attacked with anthrax. And what I see as possible in the world, as man could do to man, man's inhumanity to man, I think I have a broader view of that than most doctors and so I was able to see that you know unfortunately members of our own profession were willing to stop the hydroxychloroquine, the ivermectin and and vitamin D. Have you ever heard a federal official tell anybody to prevent or to treat COVID? You know you haven't. So all I can say is, you know, the human psyche is complex. We have a lot of fears. And I was older. I didn't have, you know, financial problems. And I was able to step forward when a lot of other people weren't.

I'm curious what your son thinks, since you guys come from two different generations of physicians. Does he admire what you're doing? Does he think you're off base? He disagrees strongly because he represents a different generation's point of view. Can you tell us his thoughts? No, I can't. I mean, I'm not inside his head. I think that he's struggling.

Here's the mother he knew who was always very sharp and I treated his COVID with hydroxychloroquine and it worked like a charm, but now he thinks that was just chance. I think the young doctors are struggling now as they realize this vaccine was not a good idea. It hasn't helped people. It's causing a lot of chronic illness and probably death.

And what can they make of that? I think it's a really hard transition and probably the doctors will be the last to make it. Well, cognitive dissonance is very, very, very powerful. And I think people have a hard time acknowledging that they were duped, particularly physicians. If there was ever a group that doesn't want to say, I was duped. I made really bad decisions. And while Drew is far more generous than I with regard to the powers that be, I'm not talking about your average hospital-based physician necessarily. I'm talking about the people at the helm of this. I disagree. I don't think they made mistakes in this pandemic. I think they lied. There's a difference. They weren't wrong.

They lied. And there's a difference. So we've known from the beginning of time that masks don't stop respiratory viruses. We've known from the beginning of time that lockdowns are very, very harmful to the vast majority and should only be considered for extremely short periods and in very, very limited application. We've never rolled out a vaccine with this paucity of safety data and on and on. So I don't think they made mistakes. I don't think they were wrong. They lied and there's a big difference when it comes to accountability.

That difference will be very important. I want to, you, like me, you have written about or exposed this issue of the sleight of hand with the FDA with regard to these vaccines. As we sit here today, whatever, March 8th, 2023, there is no FDA approved vaccine for COVID available in the United States. They're still only available under an emergency use authorization. Regardless, Comirnaty, the brand name is FDA approved, but they don't use that here in the United States. I find it interesting that no one seems to be even working on getting the vaccines FDA approved. They don't seem to be a one bit worried about that. They're still using them just under the EUA.

Where do you think this is going with regard to the vaccines? From your vantage point, where do you think we're going with these? Okay. So what's happened is that in fact, FDA gave a license to Comirnaty for adults and teens over 12 on August 23rd of 2021 and did not make any available. So in their approval letter, they said, well, we still have a lot of the EUA and so basically, we'll use that up. And the EUA product had a much more ironclad protection for both the manufacturer and the government officials who were involved in any part of the process of rolling out the

vaccines or mandating them. And so EUA product has basically been all that's offered, although the license exists. However, in the military, because the military have brought certain lawsuits that challenge on the basis that you're not giving us the licensed product. You see, it's basically against the law in the United States to mandate an experimental product. It goes against the Nuremberg Code because experimental products are experimental. You know, you're in an experiment. Whether or not they collect any data,

you're still in an experiment. And that has been made clear by Alex Azar and by Stephen Hahn, who, you know, the ex-FDA commissioner and the ex-secretary of HHS. So the government got FDA to issue a license in order to fool the American public and make them think they were getting a licensed product that had been through a normal approval process, which requires, you know, safety to be shown. But it didn't go through a normal approval process. The data were upvaked. The whole process was completely flawed and it was a foregone conclusion.

So the military anyway challenged this because there's even a stronger prohibition against making people in the military experimental subjects. And there is a law that says if the government wants to force an experimental product on military service members, the president has to say so in writing. And of course, what president wants to do that? They don't want to waste their prestige if product turns out to be a dud. So no president has ever used that rule, but it exists. And it means that that's the only circumstance under which you can force soldiers to get an experimental product. So the military eventually came up with a few vials that said they were licensed because they said Comirnaty rather than saying

they were the Pfizer product. People in the military have challenged that saying, we don't actually think this is the real Comirnaty because in Europe, the EUA product is labeled Comirnaty but not in the United States. It's not clear whether it's a European EUA or not. But anyway, be all that as it may, the FDA and CDC did a switch on September 1st of last year and went to bivalent boosters, which is half of the original vaccine and half of a new mRNA spike based on an Omicron BA.4, BA.5 spike. And what that, so they originally brought that in September 1st and immediately said you can't use the older vaccine except for the original two-dose series and that's it. All boosters now have to be bivalent boosters. And then recently,

the FDA said, no, we're getting rid of the old vaccine completely, and the original series, as well as all boosters, need to be bivalent boosters. And so we're back to EUAs because all the bivalent boosters are under EUA. So the government, again, gets this ironclad protection. And people in the military, the few who are left in the military that refused probably won't have to take any more. But the government has gotten away with a huge fraud on the public. I mean, it's so many frauds on the public. But this one is easy to prove that they told

people they were getting a license fraud and they gave them an experiment. Right. Right. Without question. And I think it was done very, very purposefully. They made a big ado about the fact that comorbidity was FDA approved now. And then they probably said, so now you can feel safe getting it. It's FDA approved.

But then people didn't connect the dots and say, yeah, but what you're shooting in my arm isn't the FDA approved thing. And there's no question that it, number one, allowed the vaccine manufacturers to use up a huge stockpile of product that they would have otherwise had to waste. And it allowed them to maintain that blanket liability protection. Now, they're working very, very hard and have successfully gotten the vaccine on the childhood vaccination schedule, which then now will transfer that liability protection because of the vaccine injury act that was passed back in whatever it was 1986, I guess, that allows blanket immunity to vaccine manufacturers for any vaccination that ends up on the childhood schedule, even if it's given to adults as well. So I think this is, I think the word fraud is, is perhaps too mild, I think for what,

for what we have witnessed i i gotta say i'm a little confirmed confused by the community thing if you look up community it says made by pfizer bio and tech is it substantively different than the one that's under the eua what they said was the fda said there are two discrete products we consider them to be fundamentally the same chemically biologically the same but they are two discrete products we are fda approving the one that says has comernity on the label the other one is only available under the eua so they're saying that they are the same, that they're labeled differently, and they're only FDA approving the one,

the one that has the fancy label that says Comirnaty. The only one that's a- Is there a legitimate reason we can concoct that they might've done that? You know what I'm saying? I mean, can we try to look at the other side of the table? What might they have been doing that was not bad? No, they wanted Pfizer to be able to use up the gobs of BioNTech non-comerity that they had,

and they wanted them to... I can't... Dr. Nass, can you think of any non-nefarious reason why they would do that? No. reason why they would do that? No, I think you have to go back to the beginning where everything about this was done incorrectly, not according to FDA rules and regulations, right? This whole business was done under Operation Warp Speed and they had certain people from the FDA

like Janet Woodcock who were seconded to Operation Warp Speed. And they had certain people from the FDA like Janet Woodcock who were seconded to Operation Warp Speed. And it was Operation Warp Speed that basically waved their hands and said, we don't need the FDA to regulate this product. And then there were all these different subcontractors that were making different components. Pfizer and Moderna were not making the vaccine themselves. They didn't have the facilities to do it. The other thing is that the lots are very different from each other. So there was no quality control on the product.

So what you got was very idiosyncratic. You just didn't know if you could one lot might have ten times more intact messenger RNA than another they also had a lot of degree we knew that even at the at the factory they were about 45 percent degraded roughly and in shipping there was gonna be more degradation and were there side effects due to the large amounts of degraded product within the vials? We don't know that.

No, I think the FDA did this whole thing in a very sneaky way. It was done by lawyers. And basically they said, as you said, discrete difference. They said legally distinct. So they're legally distinct. And then FDA said, well, some of the EUA product was manufactured under licensed conditions. So we're going to

sort of retroactively bestow a license on some of the lots, but the other lots were not made under licensed, whatever that means, because, you know, none of it had gone through proper licensing. And that would continue to be called EUA. But basically, somebody, whether it was the White House or higher than the White House, somebody gave the FDA their marching orders, and they went along with the whole scheme. And they have continued to go. Remember, they're they're the ones who didn't. When when a drug or vaccine manufacturer gets a license immediately, all the information that they provided FDA to get that license is supposed to go into the public domain. It's supposed to be available. You know, it's no longer proprietary. They're licensed. They can sell their product and you can find out all about it. But in this case, the FDA took Aaron Seary's law firm to court, wouldn't give up the package of information

that Pfizer and Moderna provided or any of the others. And remember, they asked for 55 years and then 75 years to slowly dole it out. I mean, how ridiculous can you get? Here's the FDA doing Pfizer and DOD's business, refusing to give something that by law belongs to the public. So, you know. I just want to point something out really quick. Dr. Nass, your original training was at MIT.

What was your training in? Biology. Biology. Yeah. And so, uh, people get a cue that this conversation we're having gets accused of being non-scientific or unscience, whatever the three of us have lots of scientific training. Yours, I had deep admiration for what's going on at MIT. I had a biology training it was was

classical scientific training deep biochemistry primarily kelly i know you became a psychologist but the point is amongst the three of us there's a lot of scientific training and one of one of the he sort of uh sort of um i guess i don to say mandates, but the requisites is skepticism and thought and not accepting things at face value and rethinking things and critical reasoning and mathematical sort of modeling in your head, if not explicitly. And so, you know, these ideas that you're suggesting to me make good sense. They may be right or wrong, but they're also not unscientific. They're very thoughtful and scientific.

And by the way, Dr. Nass, the reason this Wednesday show really came to be was a result of the kind of egregious censorship that you and I have suffered. Drew and I really have been using this platform to bring a voice to people and to bring these discussions, these robust debates amongst physicians, amongst scientists, out to the public. This used to be a cornerstone of what we did in medicine. Morbidity, mortality monthly. You sat in a room behind closed doors and you argued it out.

Who understood or misunderstood the study? And how did you interpret the data? And on and on. And that's been truly silenced during this pandemic, which I think is tragic. What you and I are talking about with regard to these vaccines, I fear is going to, has created a distrust of vaccinology, a distrust of medicine to the point where I'm not sure in my lifetime we will ever regain it.

I have a deep, deep public health background in addition to my three decades as a practicing physician, I have a deep science background. And frankly, I wouldn't fault people for looking and saying, I have no intention of listening to you people ever again, because you let us. But Kelly, I think Dr. Nass made a really chilling point at the beginning, which is the you people, we may not be around. There may be no physicians, just a bunch of algorithms. And they clearly, clearly when it comes to general medicine, that is clearly the intent, is to get the critically reasoning physician out of the equation, put algorithmic followers in and let's centralize everything and

see how that goes. That's going to be a catastrophe. And by, and by the way, and then by the way, that started well, well, well before COVID, um, quote, you know, well, algorithmic medicine, this, you know, evidence-based medicine that was algorithmically based where really, you know, you know, it's all based on drop-down boxes and has very, the nuance, we lost all the nuance in the practice of medicine a long time ago. We've been going down this slippery slope, as I said, since way before the pandemic. I do want to get back, you know, before we run out of time, Dr. Nass,

to the hell that you have been living at the hands of the medical board here. It was my understanding that they actually were requiring you to provide some evidence of your fitness to practice medicine, whether it's intellectually, physically, psychologically. I mean, this is stuff that is a la Soviet Union. What's going on with that?

That was very interesting that they had no shame about doing this. Nobody had ever alleged that I was demented, crazy, or anything else. But we have law. The medical boards are supposed to carry out the law in their state. And there are statutes about what a medical board is supposed to do and how physicians are supposed to practice. And there are statutes about what it takes to immediately suspend a doctor's license. They're not allowed to do it for nothing, as they did in my case. And so they needed a allowed to do it for nothing as they did in my case. Right, right. And so they needed a justification to do it.

Well, they didn't have one. You know, I hadn't, no one alleged substance abuse or, you know, raping patients or any of that. So what were they left with? They had to, they only had, you know, psychological or psychiatric or dementia. That was it. And so they ordered me to, they had made an appointment before they'd even had their meeting

about me and voted to suspend me. And at the end of the meeting, they handed me the appointment. Here's your appointment. You're going to see this guy, our guy, bring $2,100 with you, and he's going to do a neuropsych evaluation on you on this day. And by that, they hoped to gain the evidence that they needed to justify their suspending my license. The thing was that they can't get away with that. They made the appointment before the board had met, before the members had even heard about me.

These kind of tricks, you know, they thought they were clever. They thought they were clever. Okay. I was 70 years old and they figured this woman is never going to fight me. She's not going to spend hundreds of thousand dollars to fight. So all we have to do is suspend her and we're good. And that's it. She'll surrender her license. We make the poster child of her. The governor's happy, you know, everybody's happy. And luckily, you know, I was working with Children's Health Defense and Bobby Kennedy said, no, we will support your defense. So I didn't have to use my retirement to fight them. You know, Children's Health Defense has paid for my huge attorney's fees.

And that is the only way, you know, because it's really a game. You know, they weren't trying to protect the public. They were just protecting the narrative. And they thought that was important. You know, they're a bunch of non-scientific, non-thoughtful people who were going along to get along. And they've never seen anything like my case before. And I hope that by the time it's over,

they will never forget it. I mean, I wanna make it- You are the victim. I don't want them to do this. You are the victim. Sorry? Yeah. No, you are the victim of a Salem witch hunt.

Absolutely. So you were able to push back on that? Through legal means, say, no way, no how, you cannot do this? Were you able to push back on that? Right. So the only way you can push back is to say, no, I'm not surrendering my license, you so-and-sos. You're going to give me a hearing and we're going to put the facts out in front of the public. And the hearing has to be public. Okay. They can't hide the hearing at Children's Health Defense and at Epoch Times TV, and I had 180,000 people watch the first day of my hearing. And we've had many, many thousands watch the hearing. It's gone four days. And we'll continue to stream it. And everyone can see what a kangaroo court

this is. And then, as I said, I hope to charge the members of the board and the board staff with malfeasance when this is over. One of the things I have I have mentioned on previous shows when we're talking about these very issues, Dr. Nass, is that this isn't as it's terrifying for you, undoubtedly, as it was for me. But it should be terrifying to patients. It should be terrifying to think anytime you go to see your physician, if we don't fight back on this, you are left to wonder, is my doctor telling me this, giving me this advice, suggesting this therapeutic or this course of action, because he or she actually believes that that is what his experience and knowledge would lead him to conclude, or because he's just afraid of losing his license and doesn't

want to get sanctioned by the medical board. This puts patients in a really, really compromised position. You're absolutely right about that. I couldn't agree more. It's very important for patients to realize this battle isn't right about that. I couldn't agree more. It's very important for patients to realize this battle isn't really about doctors. It's about patients. It's about patients being able to access the care that they need. And let me just say that what my board did was there are two of us doctors, Maine is a small state, only 1.3

million people. And there are only two of us doctors who are out there treating patients early for COVID with hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and supplements. And they suspended both of our licenses. So they took away the opportunity for the people in the state to get the care they chose. And this is very interesting. So they deprived the entire state of this kind of medical care.

And I think people have to realize, this is what you may face in future. The government is going to decide what you can and can't have, and it might be the WHO who decides. It might be your state. It might be the federal government by giving incentives for certain drugs and not others. But if you think that it's worthwhile to have a doctor who's interested in your specific

needs and desires, who cares about you as an individual, it's critical that you join this effort and fight back. Do not put up with it. Or medicine as we know it, it's already on the way out. It will be gone. Give it another decade. It'll be gone. God bless you. As I said, I really appreciate you being here and having the courage to share your story. I certainly hope that you prevail because I think just as they have tried to

use you as the poster child for speaking out against the prescribed narrative, you can become the poster child. And I'm hoping you are the poster child for prevailing against this tyranny because I agree with you. We are on the way out, Drew, not only as physicians, but our ability. I don't want to practice if I can't, if I am just following the algorithm that's prescribed by the government. The reason I bristle so fiercely against standard of care claims is I was there during the nineties and 2000s screaming about the standard of care around opioid and opiate prescribing where pain was a fifth vital sign. Pain was whatever the patient says it was. You can't get addiction if you're in pain because literally the doctors would say

pain absorbs the addictive potential of the pain medication. It was the most insane period I've ever seen. They were killing my patients hand over fist. There were certainly hundreds, maybe thousands of people I had to witness die, were stable, treated, doing well. They're addicts. They go back to a doctor, and the doctor says, why do you let those people brainwash you? You need to take this the rest of your life. And as much as you want, whatever it is, whatever it is necessary, no assessment of the addiction

or the relationship with the addiction, the pain, and the opioid. And people want to blame the drug companies, but it was evangelical physicians and regulatory agencies who followed these evangelical physicians that did this, that created the opioid crisis. The drug companies blew wind into the sails. Believe me, they were duplicitous, but they did not cause it. We caused it. And so that kind of thing, look, psychosurgery, the guy that invented the frontal lobotomy got the Nobel prize in medicine. And it was a,

in psychiatry, it was a standard of care people. What's that? What's that? I just said, oh my goodness. I can't believe, I'm shocked. Oh no. There had been so many, there was a a first opioid crisis in 1890 to 1910. There have been periods, and it's the same playbook every single time, which is some evangelical. People accuse me of having a problem with evangelists. No, not religious evangelist, evangelizing about a particular clinical treatment or a process that they get behind and start advocating for it. The drug companies support them. They get the ear of the regulatory agencies, the VA, the Board of Medical Quality Assurance, the JCO, and it is on at that point.

And this was a very similar playbook. And not that there's a conscious playbook. I don't think that somebody is, you know, some, you know, master puppeteer is acting this out. This is one of the things we are prone to in medicine. And it is based on evidenced basis and algorithms when it takes hold. It's always something much like we're experiencing right now. So while I have questions about all kinds of things, I've not really made my conclusions about all kinds of things about vaccines and early treatment, all kinds of

stuff. What I bristle is exactly what is going on with Dr. Nass, where you have to follow something that is thus saith the Lord, and it's from the regulatory agencies, and I immediately want to push back because I've seen it kill, I've seen it harm, and it happens over and over and over again in this profession. And it's never the one-on-one physician and patient relationship that is the source of this. It's somebody evangelizing and then getting the regulatory agencies involved. And that is precisely it. Oh, please go ahead. All right. So OxyContin got licensed in 1996. And then by two years later, my state required all

doctors to have training in pain management. and the training was you have to give people as much Narcotic as they want, you know and etc The other thing that happened was after Obama became president in 2009 the policy in Afghanistan where at one point 93 percent of the world heroin came from, changed. And we stopped obliterating poppy fields then. And there was a tremendous surge of heroin into the United States at that point. And you can see that the deaths from overdose skyrocketed after 2009. The other thing was interesting, which was that fentanyl was considered a prescription drug until 2014 by the CDC. And so all fentanyl deaths were blamed on doctors for prescribing until then,

at which point CDC finally admitted that most of the fentanyl all along had been coming in illegally and that all these fentanyl deaths were not actually due to physicians over, some of them were, but many were not. Just something I explored at one time before the pandemic. And what I was going to say truly is that ultimately this patient physician relationship has to remain sacrosanct It is always an intrusion of a third party where things go off the rails all of us carry malpractice insurance for a reason if I have a patient who thinks that I have

Mistreated them that I have committed malpractice because I prescribed something or did something that caused them harm They have the right and the ability to sue me. And that's not what was happening with you, Dr. David. Your patients weren't coming back and saying, Dr. Nass gave me ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine and I want to take legal recourse against her for committing malpractice. It's somebody who was never invited into that exam room, who thinks somehow that their opinion is somehow pertinent, somehow germane to the treatment of that patient. It's a third party that was not invited in, whether it's the government or some nosy neighbor

or somebody who heard you speaking on a radio show who thinks that they should be able to control what you do in the confines of that exam room. And I find that beyond objectionable, it's dangerous. Right. It makes you question the whole third party payers. Sure. Oh, it all comes in.

It all started there. It all kind of came in through that. But let us kind of wrap it up there dr nass is there anything you'd like to share before we wrap things up no i think i've said everything i needed to i appreciate you giving me the opportunity to do it yeah all right well thank you for sharing your story we appreciate it very much. Thank you, Dr. Nass. Yeah. And because this show is called Ask, we always promise to take a couple of calls towards the end here. Kelly, willing to stay with me to do that for a minute? Sure. Sure. If my Labrador retriever starts barking that it's dinner time, we'll all know. Fair enough. We're going to give Josh a chance to come on up here and see what's going on. Anybody else, you raise your hand.

You've been streaming out of multiple platforms. Hey, Josh. Hey, Dr. Drew. I just wanted to say that it's too bad the doctor went out because my question is, it seems obvious, maybe it's ignorant, but is there anything that she could have done? I mean, you mentioned the word evangelical, and that's usually used in relation to Christian gospel. But what I would say is that if you're faced with that, and it does take you down, it does take you out, it takes your license. Is there a way to say, you know what, was there something I could have done differently? And again, I'm claiming my naivete on this, but is there something I could have done differently? And again, I'm claiming my naivete on this, but is there something in the face of that

that one could say, you know what, maybe I could have tiptoed around the issue or something, anything at all? So your point is always locating responsibility in the individual, and I fully endorse that. But I think she made a conscious effort to go at this, you know always locating responsibility in the individual and i fully endorse that but i think she made a conscious effort to go at this and she knew she had to have known there could be tough fights ahead would you say kelly yes and and i would say to josh's point yes and i have done i

have done the same and people have been critical of me saying, you know, why don't you just take it underground? Don't do these shows with Drew. Why do you have to be so outspoken about it? Don't do the radio interviews. I feel and I suspect Dr. Nass does as well that it's some I feel that I have a mandate to do this. Patients, individuals, people in the United States have the right to hear. First Amendment rights, and I've said this many times, First Amendment isn't just my right to speak, Dr. Kelly Victory's right to speak. It's the right for everyone else to hear alternative views, to be able to avail

themselves of this information. I don't think it's right for the government to limit the fact that you might hear that there are treatments or that there are people who believe there are treatments for this virus or whatever else it is. It doesn't matter if I happen to be pro-life, it doesn't mean that I believe that you shouldn't be able to hear about your options to terminate a pregnancy. It's not right to limit that. That's one of the reasons we live here.

So I think I'm guessing, I don't want to speak for Dr. Nass. I can speak for myself because I'm very much in the same position as someone who didn't tiptoe around it, suffered the slings and arrows because I put myself out there. But I feel that it's my mandate as a physician and as someone trained in public health to be out there speaking and educating the public about what I believe they need to hear. Would it be accurate to say you have an ethical obligation? I believe I do. 100%. 100%.

I would not have done it any other way what would you say to someone who said that no no you your thinking is off this is a medical ethical violation talking to people that have such outlying out uh opinions i think that we we have a rise i said i believe we are in a time of national crisis where people are dying people are scared becoming ill losing their lives and livelihoods. I, who have trained in this and have the ability to access the information, if I don't bring it forward and say, no, don't worry, we actually, look,

here's a study back to 2005 that actually shows we do have a treatment. Here's a study that shows, if I keep that to myself, that I feel I am complicit in, I have participated in the fraud. I have participated in and allowed, therefore. What if the treatments are, what if that is a wrong opinion? What if it ends up being inaccurate? What I'm aiming at is, don't we trust people to use information and by silencing

information aren't we making things worse let's say it turns out to be incorrect precisely right but I think people need to be able to access all of the information and then make their own decision if we are only giving them one side of it if we are only if you tell somebody your only option, as a physician, I would lose my license and so would you, Drew. If you came in and somebody said, you've just been diagnosed with breast cancer, and I tell that patient, oh, I'm sorry, the only option is radical bilateral mastectomy. That's it. We don't have any other. That's it. And I fail to tell that person. If I fail fail to say well here there's radiation there's

chemotherapy there's uh hormone rep uh suppression therapy and here are the pros and cons of each and here's what we know if i don't give them all of the options i am absolutely held accountable and that is malpractice it's a a breach of informed consent. People could argue, though, you shouldn't include in those recommendations things that aren't being proven to be efficacious. The problem, though, with that is the information flow of the last year has been so haphazard and so adulterated. I mean, as recently as yesterday, I was increasingly convinced that the wet market hypothesis had a really good foundation to it. Now a bunch of data was presented today by Dr. Redfield that shows pretty clearly lab leak seems to be the most likely explanation. I wonder if you want to comment on that information that came forward today.

Well, first of all, I could have saved you a lot of months of angst if you'd just listened to Dr. Kelly, because I've been saying it from the very beginning. Well, I reread the Nature article. I reread the Nature article, and I thought, I get why. The cumulative circumstantial evidence, I get it. But I'm sure there's other information we're not getting because China clamped everything down. And lo and behold, we found that out today. Right. And what Dr. Redfield is essentially saying is the non-scientific part of the argument about the lab leak, which is that they tried to suppress him. They disinvited him from the meetings. They did not include specifically because they knew that he did not agree with the singular narrative that this was

a naturally occurring virus that came from a wet market. So he essentially was exposing, as I said, the non-scientific part. We have gobs of plenty of scientific evidence, irrefutable scientific data that this was created in a lab. How it got out, I can't say. I don't have any evidence that it was purposefully released, but we know and we've known for the better part of three years now that it was a lab leak. But what Dr. Redfield has now divulged was that they fundamentally silenced him and they silenced anybody else who was going to push back on the prescribed narrative, which is this came from a wet market, people. And if you say anything else, you will be marginalized. What we really need, the proof, the smoking gun we really need is those

three cases in the late fall at the lab. We need to know what those were. I mean, that's just, the world needs to know what those were. We do, but you won't get them in all. I mean, we if you're counting on cooperation of the Chinese Communist Party as a way to get the definitive evidence, don't hold your breath. That is not going to be forthcoming. I think, again, this isn't just circumstantial evidence. We have overwhelming scientific evidence and we have, you know know things like the emails going back and forth between people like anthony fauci and peter days we have that we have the email traffic i i get it i i started listening to podcasts with interviews by the the members of the group there the evolution biologists that were um in that chain. You should take a listen to what's going on there.

They were just trying to figure shit out. And they came to the point, when they actually presented their data individually, the East came to the same conclusion based on the evidence that there was, all they had was stuff coming out of Wuhan. They really didn't have all the stuff yet on the lab leak. And I knew that would eventually come on out. But we have a caller here. This is Alpha.

You can unmute yourself lower left-hand corner. And by the way, I'm not arguing presently for the lab leak, excuse me, for either, frankly, because I feel like

more proof is going to be forthcoming. So Alpha, I don't know what your actual name is. There you are. I'm Thomas of Alpha Omega Energy. Excuse me.

Yeah, I was wondering why, what is your comment on this 685 protein in the furin cleavage site, which is stated to be homologous to cobra toxin, cobra venom, as according to the document on the NIH website. And then it's stated also that the source is HEK-293 cells, human embryonic kidney cells. How do you propose that this got inside of there? What animal made the decision to put that in there? Yeah, I don't know where the human, I don't have an opinion about the human embryonic kidney cells, but what do you say about the homologous base of the furin cleavage site? Well, again, without getting deep into the weeds on the science of this, what I would

tell you is that when you look at the sequencing, the genomic sequencing for those people who aren't scientific, of this virus, it is very clear this is not naturally occurring. The analogy I have made is that if you get a Word document where someone has cut and pasted portions into that Word document and they messed up and they didn't get the fonts just right, either one's in Times New Roman and the rest of it's in Calibri, or one of it's 12 point and the rest of it's 10 point, you can tell that it was cut and pasted. That is how the genetic sequencing, the genomic sequencing of COVID appears. You can see where pieces were spliced in from other viruses, spliced in from other areas.

And it is very, very clear this had to have been lab manipulated. It is irrefutable, in my opinion, it is irrefutable that it was lab manipulated. How it got out is unclear, but as Dr. Nass stated in the very opening there are over a hundred accidents per year that are that are reported but to the CDC out of these different scientific labs so the idea that of a lab error simply abject human error I think is is perfectly reasonable but there's no question in my mind that the virus itself did not come from a bat or any other animal naturally. And I was definitely of that point of view until I heard some evolutionary biologists speaking

about these things. And there are other potential pass-throughs that have been there, previous examples of it in nature. But we can go all day about it. The reality is that all of it at this point is circumstantial either way, and we're going to have some smoking guns soon, I think. It's going to be pretty clear what happened. And again, the interesting part of this, the reason we're even talking about it, is that people, for having an opinion, were vilified or told that they were conspiracy theorists, which is the insane part of this. And it's sort of why it's interesting to me because it's a model for how essentially everything

went in this pandemic. And it needs to stop. It needs to stop. The same thing applies to what we were talking about a few minutes ago about the ethics of allowing people to speak their mind and bring things out into the sunlight. It's the same phenomenon. And anything other than that is so profoundly anti-American, anti-constitution, anti-First Amendment, anti-science, anti-how-we've-always-done

medicine. It's beyond imagination. But we are through the looking glass, it seems to me. I agree with you. I agree with you, and I'm not sure how we get this righted, but I'm hoping that calmer heads, cooler heads will prevail here, and we will return to some semblance of what we had previously, because robust debate is important, and people have a right to be wrong. You have a right to come to the wrong conclusion uh is you know that's it's not illegal yet well kelly we're going to wrap it up here thank you for staying out taking a couple questions um tomorrow susan i'm back tomorrow yeah we're back tomorrow you're back tomorrow pedro okay

yeah i'm back tomorrow for this discussion on um really this pedro horrific yeah pedro gonzalez um on the uh on the toxic leak in east palestine ohio the train crash oh right and how that was yeah how that was managed very much in my wheelhouse with regard to again from a public health perspective. And then ultimately we've got Dr. for my shows on Wednesday, next week, we've got Dr. William Mackes, who is a Canadian oncologist, who's gonna be reporting on his data

on increased cancer rates following vaccination. And then we've got a great lineup for the rest of the month, including ending it out with a return visit with Bobby Kennedy, who's gonna be giving us updates on all things. lineup for the rest of the of the month including ending it out with uh a return visit with with bobby kennedy uh who's going to be giving us updates on all of him i want to talk to him about the um what he thinks about um dr nass and what he's doing oh yeah oh yeah yeah so that'd be interesting he just got back by the way he just got back yeah she's she's she's wonderful and I love her. There'll be lots to talk with him about at the end of the month. I remember, you know, we're becoming much like the way we used to do our HLN program,

where we would talk to people like Erin Brockovich, and there'd be spills and things, and she would come in with her theories. And people did not call her misinformation, by the way. Right, right. And it was interesting and entertaining and thoughtful. Most of what she said back in the time when I was interviewing her on HLN was wrong. It turned out not to be true, but it was still an important process, interesting material. And, you know, why would you condemn her today, Erin Brockovich, if she came in and said, I'm trying to save people from a toxic release?

You've got to think things through, everybody. So speaking of misinformation, I would like everybody to understand that if we ever get called out for misinformation on our shows, which we haven't had recently, thank goodness, we are on other platforms, and you can get all that information on Twitter, or if you join Locals, you'll get an email every day.

With information, we're on Rumble, we're on Facebook, we're on Twitter, we're on Twitch. And YouTube is, you know, you never know. Could happen to us. So, you know, if we get a strike, you don't see your notifications, go ahead and, you know, head over to Twitter or Locals or, you know, we'll put the

news out where you can find the show. With that said, thank you, Susan. Thank you, Kelly. We'll see everyone tomorrow at three o'clock Pacific time. Sounds good. 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.