Ask Dr. Drew - Dr. Peter McCullough & Dr. Kelly Victory on mRNA Vaccines & COVID-19 Heart Risks – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 113

Episode Date: August 22, 2022

Dr. Peter McCullough is a cardiologist with over 30 years of medical experience. In 2020, as a witness for the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Dr. McCullough criticized the United States' response to COVID-19 while supporting social distancing & vaccination. He headed controversial studies on treating the novel coronavirus with a protocol including "the i word" and HCQ. As a leading expert on cardiovascular medicine, Dr. McCullough has spoken widely about the heart-related risks that he believes could be attributed to mRNA technology, including myocarditis and adverse reactions in high endurance athletes. Follow Dr. Peter at https://PeterMcCulloughMD.com 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 rare. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.  Dr. Kelly Victory MD is a board-certified trauma and emergency specialist with over 15 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 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (http://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. SPONSORED BY • 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 GEAR PROVIDED BY • BLUE MICS - After more than 30 years in broadcasting, Dr. Drew's iconic voice has reached pristine clarity through Blue Microphones. But you don't need a fancy studio to sound great with Blue's lineup: ranging from high-quality USB mics like the Yeti, to studio-grade XLR mics like Dr. Drew's Blueberry. Find your best sound at https://drdrew.com/blue • ELGATO - Every week, Dr. Drew broadcasts live shows from his home studio under soft, clean lighting from Elgato's Key Lights. From the control room, the producers manage Dr. Drew's streams with a Stream Deck XL, and ingest HD video with a Camlink 4K. Add a professional touch to your streams or Zoom calls with Elgato. See how Elgato's lights transformed Dr. Drew's set: https://drdrew.com/sponsors/elgato/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today is another one of our special episodes with Dr. Kelly Victory, and we are joined by Dr. Peter McCullough. Of course, Dr. McCullough has been in the eye of the hurricane for having the temerity to try to step up and take care of COVID patients. Before we knew exactly what this was and how to best approach it, I always lived in an era when physicians were encouraged to improvise and do the best they could for their patients. This pandemic was sort of a different experience and quite shocking. Of course, Dr. Victory, who's with me here every Wednesday, is a board-certified trauma and emergency room specialist. 15 years of clinical experience. She also has, I believe, a master's in public health.

And Dr. McCullough, I believe, also has some epidemiological training. He has a new book called The Courage to Face COVID-19. He also has a long academic career behind him. He's one of the more published cardiologists there are. So we'll get into this. There's a lot to talk about. Yes, there's a new book, The Courage to Face COVID-19. Let's get right into it. Our laws as it pertained 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 help stopping, 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. We'll be right back. 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. A sportsbook worth a slam dunk. An authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your

gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. And we are here again today.

We are discussing issues that have been controversial. If we step on any problems, the fact is we will head on over to Rumble. But as we say, the CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce the risks of COVID-19. This program, we always feature medical professionals discussing sometimes controversial topics. Always consult with your personal physician before making any decision about your health. For me, I don't want to be in an environment where someone is just repeating what I know to be true. I could just sit here and lecture you guys. What I would like to do is expand my understanding of things, and particularly as it comes to understanding what we just went through with this pandemic.

If we don't do some sort of post-mortem, so to speak, if we don't analyze where we got it right, where we got it wrong, as we always do in medicine, we will live to make these mistakes again, as Winston Churchill's injunction warned us. So let's get right to it. I want to welcome Dr. Peter McCullough. He, of course, has a long academic career. As I said, he has a new book out called The Courage to Face COVID-19. You can read there about exactly how this went down for him. Dr. McCullough, welcome to the program.

Thanks for having me. How about now, Dr. McCullough? There we are. You betcha. Okay. You know, this was such an astonishing experience for me. I think we talked about this once before, but the fact that we told patients to go home until their PO2 went into the eighties and offered them no specific follow-up or no opportunities for certain kinds of care. And, you know, I, I accidentally fell into use of steroids because I had a patient with COPD who got an exacerbation. I thought she was just having her usual bronchitis and pneumonia. She did really well during her COVID episode.

And so I started using that. And lo and behold, there's some evidence that these things might have been useful. But we had these weird bureaucratic injunctions where physicians froze in place and were not allowed to practice medicine. It was very bizarre. Did you experience the same thing? It's true. It's the first time we've ever experienced this in our careers. I recently testified in the Texas Senate on June 27, 2022, and I told the Health and Human Services Committee, there's always been a community standard of care, which is defined by doctors who find drugs, like your example, they find them useful, and they begin to treat a condition. And community standard of care differs in conditions from place

to place, but it's always defined by practicing physicians and what they do, not defined by the CDC, NIH, or FDA, not defined by state medical boards. Yeah, it's funny. I was doing a nightly newscast during the sort of the darker hours of COVID. And the broadcaster there was a very bright guy, a friend, but he started sort of getting very aggressive with me. Well, what about what the FDA says? I said, I don't care what the FDA says. They don't determine how we practice medicine. They determine what drug companies are allowed to bring to market.

And they give us guidelines. But what I do for my patients is in the best interest of the patient, period. And if it means I step outside of the FDA guidelines, I'm taking some personal risk, but I'm doing it on behalf of the best interest of the patient. That's true. And, you know, the FDA really doesn't issue guidelines. And I know you're an internist with a heavy focus on psychiatric disease. You know, you're working with drug combinations where many times you could not actually get to a specific guideline or a specific even set of guidances to say, okay, this would be best.

But you found that for your patient. Do you have a theory about what happened to us, both the academic sort of infrastructure and medicines in generally? Is it just that so many of us are now our employees that they wait for their marching orders from a bureaucratic pathway from on high? No, I think it's something very different. You know, doctors are, you know, it's well known that doctors don't have love affairs with hospital administrators. They're always at odds. There's always doctors, you know, there's always a rebel doctor or surgeon who does his own thing. So suddenly to explain that doctors fell into line and they followed exactly what

administrators told them, I don't buy it. I think doctors were overcome with fear initially, and fear is a powerful emotion. And they quickly found that the most comforting place was to actually not treat patients, not confront them, not have the courage to face COVID-19, the topic of our book. And so many basically said, listen, you know, I'm protected, my clinic's protected, the NIH says I don't have to do this. Just let people get sick and go to the hospital. And it turns out it was a disastrous course for Americans. Oh, that's, I'm not really realizing. Do you have data to tell us that that's how the patient flow went? I do. I'm certainly aware they all ended up in the emergency room or some version of an emergency service.

It's true. You know, when I testified in the U.S. Senate on November 19th, 2020, we were basically on the upswing of that giant curve, the alpha curve, if you will. And that was really the end of the emergency. Early in January, you know, hospital admissions crested. They went down from there. They never were as high after that time. We never overflowed the hospitals. And the emergency, as stated, was over with January of 2021. But during that period of time, the message was to American from the U.S. Senate was that we can treat COVID and that doctors should treat COVID. Fortunately, telemedicine services kicked in big ones, 15 local ones, four major national ones. And they took over where practicing doctors were basically leaving patients high and dry. Yeah, that's what I was saying.

That was just, we froze in place and it was just, oh, I never seen anything quite like that. Well, it's interesting to me that the CDC and Dr. Fauci have all been in the crosshairs of people's concerns, but a lot of the excesses were really not from the CDC. Not that I really saw. A lot of the CDC sort of guidelines and things needed to change direction a lot faster than they did. That's the one thing I'm seeing is these bureaucracies cannot pivot.

They can't adjust course once they start doing something. But the real excesses happen in the state and even county-level public health systems where they seem to have become deranged. I mean, their level of their judgment was just astonishing. The level of incompetence on display. People weren't allowed to go outside. They were pouring sand into skateboarding pits. They were welding basketball courts closed.

They were telling us we could go to the beach but couldn't lay a towel down because, I mean, what the level of incompetence and those sorts of guidelines are just on full display. And that wasn't the CDC or Dr. Fauci. That was local and state-level public health officials. So I guess my question would be, do you agree with that, A? But B, what is happening with public health? Is the training gone sideways such that this is what they're trained to do during an emergency? Well, the first observation is the same virus and it's roughly the same threat everywhere. And it was actually from the very beginning.

So the fact that one part of the country would have severe draconian lockdowns and the other part of the country would be wide open, that should be the first signal that, wait a minute, is this the same threat that we're facing? And then I think, again, the overwhelming effect of fear in the media. If you look at fear porn, the dealer of fear fear in the media. You know, if you look at fear porn, the dealer of fear porn is the media. And, you know, one of the remarkable things that I remember is when CNN was showing a newsreel early on, and there was some fellow, he had his shirt off and no mask, and he was jogging on the Embarcadero in San Francisco and they had a camera on him and they said there he is that's the problem he's a super smoker yeah in fact there was a one

vignette where the guy's on a paddleboard out on the water a coast guard comes up to him and they they nail him for not having a mask you know these types of things where you see absurdity when you see absurdity there must be a false narrative behind it. Oh, my God. That's the stuff that got me. Then on CNN, remember when Daytona Beach opened up and CNN was on the beach going, these people are going to get, I can't believe what they're doing. We knew then that this didn't spread outdoors.

We knew it as a matter of fact at that point. When CNN did that report, there were two cases of outdoor transmission in the world. We knew it didn't transmit that way. And yet science very early on begged no issue. As you say, fear porn was what was being peddled everywhere. And why did the New York Times editorial board have a vote? Why did people that have no business just learn how to articulate the names of certain medications or articulate even the notions of the principles of epidemiology? Why would they listen to? Why did they get a vote? Why wasn't it the practice? Early on, I was just saying, listen to the CDC and Dr. Fauci. That's what we had always done. Now, they got a little adulterated along the way, but that's how we had managed things.

We did it with H1N1. We did it with HIV and AIDS, and that's how we managed pandemics. But suddenly, journalists had a vote. That was disgusting, and that was a mess. That's true. Actually, it's interesting that journalism and the media in general,

they actually took on a countenance where they, in a sense, they felt like they were some arm of public health, maybe the communication arm of public health. And they took that very seriously. But one of the great shortcomings is we didn't see a broad interchange of ideas. You know, as a cardiologist, we encounter illnesses where we don't know what's going on. And we call what's called Bethesda meetings. We meet in Bethesda, Maryland, the NIH, CDC, FDA, academia, industry, practicing doctors, and we have an agenda. We go over it. We never had Bethesda meetings on COVID-19. And when I

testified in the U.S., I published this later on. I said, listen, we should have had a broad approach. We should have had a team of doctors working on reducing the spread of the illness. That's the first pillar. Second pillar is we treat early to prevent hospitalization. That's the most important thing, stopping these hospitalizations and deaths. Third pillar is do the best we can in the hospital and improve hospital protocols. And the last is vaccination. But we never saw that broad approach.

We basically were told, lock down and wait for a vaccine. And how, just suggesting from a collegial point of view, that we continue to do morbidity and mortality reports and things the way we've always done them and have grand rounds on these issues, whatever it might be, as you're saying, the Bethesda meetings, whatever they are, that we go on doing medicine the way we always have, which is really always analyzing our choices rather than silencing everybody and going by fiat. That is one of the oddest things I've seen certainly in my career. We were trained around the same time, right? And I've never imagined anything like this.

That to me is the, and why aren't we having a large scale review of the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches that were taken and really analyzing dispassionately what states got it right, what states got it wrong, what things did work, what things didn't work. Shouldn't there be a large-scale sort of MMR review? Well, sure. I look back on it. This is such a big part of people's lives for the last now going on three years that we should have had monthly reviews. How come not a single local or national TV station had a review

on what somebody should do if they got COVID? We're our third year into it, and there's still no care plan. People are handed a test result and said, good luck. And you think we're three years into it, there would be a care plan of step one. This is what we should use. I've been a big proponent of the monoclonal antibodies for high-risk individuals. And from the very beginning, it was enormously difficult to access these findings, no messaging, no 800 numbers. I'll tell you another shortcoming is research. You know,

there was no access to research, no 1-800 numbers, no billboards to get people into COVID research. I mean, as if the human mind simply went blank in the middle of a catastrophe. Yeah, yeah, that's exactly, that's a great way of framing it. Cause that's exactly what it looked like to me. And yeah, monoclonal antibodies, I had alpha and then I had, I've had it too tight, at least twice now, uh, COVID, but the first one was nasty. It was alpha or Delta, one of those and, um, monoclonal antibodies absolutely kept me out of the hospital.

I, I, during the infusion, I felt better. It was amazing. And so I went on Instagram and did an Instagram live every night saying, hey, this is the experience I've had. You need to know about this. And what I got back was, oh, because you're special. I'm sure it cost $1,000. No, it was free.

Government bought it all up. It was free and available everywhere. Check with Caremark. Check with your physicians. Get this stuff out. You should have access if you are in any way at risk. And still people are underusing monoclonal antibodies to this minute. So let's take a little break.

Dr. Peter McCullough is with us. You can follow him at PeterMcCullough.com. It's on the screen there. McCullough spelled M-C-C-U-L-L-O-U-G-H. I'm sorry, PeterMcCulloughMD.com. You can follow him there. And one more time, the book is The Courage to Face COVID-19. We're going to take a little break, and we're going to bring Dr. Kelly Victory in.

We've got a lot to talk about. Here we go. I think we have found the holy grail of skin care. GenuCell has absolutely changed certainly my skin care regimen. I like that vitamin C serum, the under-eye creams, skin nourishing primer. Susan loves the eyelash enhancers, uses it on her eyebrows as well. GenuCell has everything to make us both feel and look amazing. Best part, the quality of the products.

Using pure ingredients like antioxidants, copper peptides, and a proprietary calendula flower base, GenuCell knows how to formulate products to perfection without irritation. For Susan, she hates that annoying dry area under nose during allergy season, like right here. She's tried everything, but no matter what, the skin is flaky and dry. Nothing seemed to help until she started using GenuCell's Silky Smooth XV Moisturizer. Soaked right into the skin, she was hooked after one use and now loves all of their products as well. I am a snob when it comes to using products on my face. The dermatologist makes a ton of money for me.

But when I was introduced to Genucel, I was so happy because it's so affordable and it works great. I was introduced to the Ultra Retinol Cream, which I love at night. All the eye creams are amazing. People notice my skin all the time, and I'm so excited because it's actually working. Right now, you can try Genucel's most popular collection of products and see what I'm talking about for yourself. Go to GenuCell.com and enter code DREW for 10% off. That is G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com, and the code is D-R-E-W.

There's nothing in medicine that doesn't boil down to a risk-benefit calculation. It is the mandate of public health to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population. This is uncharted territory, Drew. And of course, Dr. Kelly Victory comes on in with us. And I was asking Caleb, does that full screen you put up there with the QR code mean we have to go to Rumble or are we okay still? No, you're okay. I just put it there just in case I have to cut off the rest of the episode.

I see. So it's just in case. Just in case. Well, Kelly, welcome. I know you've got a lot to talk about. Okay. You have a lot to talk about with Dr. McCullough as well. I'll let you take it for a minute.

I do. Thanks. And it's so great to have you with us, Dr. McCullough. To set the record straight, I do not, by the way, have a master's in public health. I have more than three years of experience and a lot of history in public health and did receive postgraduate training at the Harvard School of Public Health, but I don't have a master's degree and I know that Dr. McCullough does. So just let the record reflect. Dr. McCullough,

when you and I first started connected and started communicating along with a growing group of practicing and very concerned physicians, I want you to take a trip down memory lane, go back two and a half plus years now to when we first connected and we were treating patients and people like you who have a long and storied career in academic medicine and as a practicing cardiologist, talk a little bit because I think it's helpful for the people listening to how it was that we started coming up with some of the therapeutics that we were using. You, by the way, I think were the first person I was aware of who was really, really pushing, for example, using inhaled steroids. I don't think people understand necessarily that we weren't just pulling things out of thin air.

There were reasons based on the symptomatology that you were seeing. So talk a little bit about those early days. You know, it's all in our book, Courage to Face COVID-19, the advent of treatment of a brand new novel coronavirus. But in March, you know, I dropped my current, my research program has always been focused on heart and kidney disease. And I dropped that and organized my team. I had three PhDs and a total of six non-PhDs and a fully funded research team, NIH funding and industry funding. And we focused on COVID-19. I received an investigation into a drug application with the FDA

to initially study hydroxychloroquine, had a big grant to do so. And then we conducted research in preventing COVID-19 and then working with community doctors showing that drugs in combination work. And there were a series of very important events. In May of 2020, Dr. Pierre Corey testified under oath in the U.S. Senate that corticosteroids work, but in fact, we need to use them at higher doses. Then myself, Harvey Risch, and George Reed testified November 19th of 2020, followed by Pierre Corey again, and Zhezhe Rashter, who had done the large ICON study of ivermectin in Florida. They testified December 8th of 2020. So we had actually three Senate hearings in 2020, bringing the message to America that we can treat COVID-19 early.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons put together a home treatment guide and helped organize that. That was in October of 2020. So in many ways, we were filling a giant gap where our CDC, NIH, and FDA were not addressing outpatient treatment. That's what Americans wanted. Americans said, listen, we can handle this as long as we don't end up in the hospital or die. Our agencies were focusing on inpatient care. And to me, what's most astonishing is that even today, the contemporary mortality of someone admitted to the hospital with COVID and truly has COVID respiratory illness is a mortality rate of 10%. It's 30% if they get in the ICU and over 50% if they're on the ventilator. I can tell you as a cardiologist, the most lethal heart attack that

I face in ST segment elevation of my mortality rate's only 2%. I'm telling you, it's far too late for people to be hospitalized. And you know what's very interesting? With 10 million US hospitalizations and the NIH guidelines as a base, do you know that no academic medical center has improved upon the NIH guidelines? There's no UCLA protocol or Stanford protocol or Harvard or Mayo. There's no center in the United States that claims to be a center of excellence for treating COVID-19. Can you imagine that? Nobody claims to be any good at treating COVID, yet they all want to say they're great at cardiovascular care or cancer care or others. I think it's astonishing what's happened to the academic mind when it comes to COVID-19.

And yes, and despite the fact that- Kelly, can I interrupt real quick? Sure. I want to interrupt real quick and just say that I feel like inhaled corticosteroids got a black eye merely because the press found it, as I recall the history at the time, because it sounded like a good treatment to me, but the press pulled up a guy from Texas

who essentially, a physician who said he prayed for an answer and God gave him this as the answer. And they pushed that then as the narrative behind the use of oral corticosteroids, which was obviously a non-scientific message and undermined the possibility of physicians using this. Well, let me pick up on that. That physician is Richard Bartlett, and his conclusion that inhaled corticosteroids worked is because of direct observation.

He was on national TV. He was later on, you know, remember everything starts with an observation first. Later on, the STOIC trial and other high-quality randomized trials showed inhaled budesonide, which is one of the stronger corticosteroids, clearly reduced the risks of hospitalizations in outpatients. And then the full complement of drugs we use, even though no drug was necessary nor sufficient, used in combination, it was powerful. My estimate is our 95% of hospitalizations and deaths going forward now could be avoided

with high- quality treatment. You know, monoclonal antibodies are now being phased out because, you know, our other methods are quite good. But what people need to know is that, listen, this should have always been treated. There should never have been a single case that required hospitalization without early treatment. And by the way, there's a paper by Huang and colleagues in Gemma, and it looked at people hospitalized and asked the question, did they get a chance at monoclonal antibodies? Dr. Zhu, you'd be interested.

They found out that 15% of people hospitalized did get monoclonal antibodies as an outpatient. And do you know what they did? Great in the hospital. They survived without being on a mechanical ventilator. Sadly, it was those that were denied monoclonal antibodies or didn't have access, they basically got into a cycle and they couldn't be saved in the hospital.

Right. So despite the fact that you- Caleb, there's a strange sound coming through here. I don't know if you guys are all hearing it. I think that's on Dr. McCullough's side, I believe. I think it sounds like a Skype or something might be open. Yeah, I need to somehow turn that off. So we'll see what that is. Kelly,'m sorry go ahead and continue no no so as i say so despite the fact that you and other practicing physicians were coming up with treatments that made perfect sense to try certainly oral steroids inhaled steroids antihistamines the cadre of well-known antivirals, which included things like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and other things, high dose zinc, high dose vitamin D, those sorts of things.

Despite the fact that you were coming up with a multifaceted treatment approach, there was this therapeutic nihilism, the idea that we cannot treat, there will be no treatment. And they allowed people to very quickly slip into extremis and end up in the hospital. And everyone should know by now that no therapeutic it does well if you wait until the person is essentially on death's doorstep to implement it. Well, Kelly, I published a paper with

Fazio and colleagues from Italy, and we showed the golden window for treatment is the first three days of the illness. And beyond that, we are progressively less successful. And, you know, I can tell you that, you know, having worked with all the drugs, I feel very confident now I could deliver almost anybody through the illness and avoid hospitalization death, including senior citizens, those in the 90s. And I've looked at all the reports of hospitalization and death in published studies. And 201, there was an opportunity to treat earlier at home. I think the hospitalizations, particularly in children, they're simply a product of not receiving ambulatory therapy. Well, perfect, perfect segue point. So let's talk for a minute about the vaccines. In order to have an emergency use authorization, which to be clear, all of the

available vaccines for COVID are still only available under an EUA, an emergency use authorization. In order to have that granted to you, you need three things. First of all, you need to be having an emergency. Second of all, you have to believe the manufacturers of these drugs, or in this case, vaccines, need to submit that they have every reason to believe that it is effective. And thirdly, you have to have, quote, no other available treatments. Those are the three requirements if you read about an emergency use authorization. And I would submit to you, number one, we don't have an emergency at this point in August of 2020. Number two, they know darn well and freely acknowledge

all the vaccine manufacturers and the FDA and the CDC, acknowledge that the vaccines do not stop people from contracting or transmitting COVID. And then perhaps most importantly, the point you just made, we have a host of medications, successful, inexpensive, readily available medications to treat COVID. How in the world are they maintaining emergency use authorization? Well, I've looked at the regulations carefully. It turns out that the vaccines would have an

indication to prevent COVID. Treatments, the very first EUA treatment was hydroxychloroquine followed by remdesivir inpatient treatment, and then bamalivimab. Remember, those three actually had EUAs placed in them before the vaccines. So they were all treatments. The vaccines came in with an indication to prevent COVID. Now, the vaccines have only had one indication, and that is to prevent the binary occurrence of COVID. The FDA has never granted them the claim that they reduce hospitalization and death or they make the

illness milder so we've had three false claims in the vaccine agenda so far that they stopped the infection they clearly don't in their spring the cdc had thousands of patients coming in hospitalized with covet 19. the cdc may first said we're going to stop tracking these breakthroughs it was like a dam had broken open the second false claim is that the vaccines reduced transmission. But once the papers poured in and vaccinated people were spreading to each other and the viral load was equal in the nose of the vaccinated, unvaccinated, that claim went down. And then the third false claim is that they reduced the risk of hospitalization and death, never had a randomized placebo-controlled trial with that as the primary endpoint, despite plenty of opportunity and funding to do so, to ever prove

that point. FDA never granted that point. And in my view, we've had really a cadre of biased and flawed papers trying to make that claim. And now even Deborah Birx, who was on the former White House task force, came out and said, listen, the majority of people sick with COVID are fully vaccinated. So where do they go from here? But they're still being used under the emergency use authorization. Where's the challenge to that? Well, as Dr. Drew started out, they're actually still under basically a moniker that they're safe and effective. Well, let's take safety. There's never been a safety review. We should have had a monthly safety review, a day safety monitor board, clinical event committee. I mean, this should

have been taken seriously. We're going to ask every American to take one of these every six months. We should have had safety reviews, safety analyses. We're a year and a half into this. There's been no formal safety analysis. And then in terms of efficacy, you know, when the vaccines came out, they were tested against the alpha and the wild type variant. The virus has mutated. Since they've been released, there's 25,000 papers on vaccines. There still hasn't been, Dr. Ju was saying about grand rounds, consensus conferences, other things to assimilate the massive data, nothing. No, and Dr. Ju and I talk about... Go ahead. Yeah, I'm traveling in November,

and we were looking at some of the other countries' needs, requirements for booster shots. And even though I've had COVID twice, I may have to get a booster. And I had a horrible reaction to the vaccine. I have a son that had a terrible reaction to it, and I'm really very, very concerned. And of course, if I'm going to do it at all, I'm at least going to wait till the Omicron variant is sort of covered by the vaccine. It makes utterly no sense to do it before that. Or maybe I'll just take Novavax and be done with

it, or maybe Covaxin will be around by then, and it'll be just a more standard sort of platform, but we'll do absolutely nothing. Maybe boost my T-cells a little bit, maybe, but against an illness that I've already had and I'm not concerned about. It's wild. And also, too, the fact that you've had an adverse reaction. Remember our principle in medicine, if someone's had a penicillin allergy, or if someone's had a contrast dye allergy, or previously had problems with vaccines, the last thing we do is give more of the same vaccine. We never do this. And you know, people in the military and large employers, they're being told to take the vaccines with no exceptions. Even if they have an anticipated fatal reaction, they're being

told, listen, die with this, lose your job, or get kicked out of the military. I've never seen this. Listen to this. Here's an analogy. We are so concerned about allergies, we've removed peanuts from the planes. Because one kid could have a peanut allergy, we're not going to have any peanuts on the planes. That's how concerned we are with allergies. But if someone has a specific allergy or reaction to a vaccine, nobody cares. Everybody has to take the vaccine. That'd be analogous to making every kid swallow a lump of peanut butter and see how many people die. The human mind is not thinking correctly. I can tell you right now. No. Can you think of any time in medical history, we all trained about the same problem. Can you think of any time in your history when we have recommended to give a therapeutic or an intervention to a group of people on whom it has never been tested.

Pregnant women, lactating women, people with autoimmune diseases, people with, you know, with who had had previous COVID. People who had had previous COVID were specifically eliminated from any of the very limited vaccine trials. So we had no idea. I can't think of another example of that. Yeah, we've never seen new products. Yeah, we've never seen new products released where immediately they're used off the inclusion and exclusion criterion of a trial. Pregnant women, women at childbearing potential can't guarantee contraception, COVID recovered, suspected COVID recovered. And now the same thing is happening with Paxlovid.

Remember, Paxlovid was not tested on fully vaccinated individuals. That's what I was going to say. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm a Paxlovid fan, but we really only know what we're doing with it essentially above the age of 75. Anybody else, we don't really know what we're doing with it essentially above the age of 75. Anybody else, we don't really know what we're doing with it. However, back to our original conversation about improvising, I have used it in young people to great success because it works, man. Paxivin

works. But I will tell you, I've seen a number of cases of rebound. Rebound is a real thing. It happens not that infrequently. But I'm a fan of the medicine because I know I can rely on it. I have a lingering concern. I will tell you what. My daughter had Omicron. Her doctor gave her Paxlovid. I thought, I don't know, I'm a little young to be getting that, but okay.

And one month later, or was it two months later, Susan, got Omicron again. So I'm wondering if the Paxlovid impairs the immune response to the virus such that you're prone to reinfection, which is kind of interesting, right? That's not been talked about anywhere, but this is what we would find out if we did the proper studies. So of course, we're not doing that. And Molnupiravir good well just had a chance to talk about it so uh you know paxlovoid is a nirmantralvir which is a novel chemis like three inhibitor plus ritonavir an older hiv protease inhibitor in the epic hr study it was actually tested in people age 45 it mean and uninated. So we had little data actually in the elderly and we had no data

in the fully vaccinated. And the CDC, because of these cases of rebound, which were serious, they put out a health advisory on Toxiboid essentially saying, don't use it in the vaccinated because we'll have rebound. The reason why we have been very open and integrative with the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin is because they had established safety profiles and there's never been cases of rebound described with hydroxy or ivermectin based approaches. So they became the community standard of care.

Hydroxy or ivermectin are the base drug in about two dozen government protocols and about 50 or so non-government organized protocols worldwide. So Paxilib is kind of the new drug on the block. And I've used it as well, but I use it according to what was done in the clinical trials. And in someone fully vaccinated, I wouldn't go against the CDC advisory. It's interesting because Borla, the CEO of Pfizer, who is reportedly four times vaccinated, meaning he received the first two shots of his own vaccine and then got two boosters,

now is sick with COVID and is taking Paxlovid or Paxlovoid, as you call it, which I prefer. He's taking Paxlovid, which would lead one to believe that he doesn't have a tremendous amount of faith in his four shots of his own vaccine, because Paxlovid is supposed to be given to people who you think may have a rough go of it and are particularly high risk. It's not intended to be given to people with mild cases. I think to Drew's point, I think the better evidence with regard to immune suppression is really about the immune suppression from the vaccines themselves. Whether or not Paxlovid actually does that or not, I can't say. There's clearly evidence and mounting evidence that the vaccines themselves suppress the normal immune response. Do you agree with that?

Yeah, there's more and more papers coming in. Just to finish with a peck of it, though, is that the cases of rebound, which some of them come out of the Boston VA and Harvard system, you know, they clearly were infectious with two big and personal infectious curves. So somehow the medicine alone, you know, reduces viral replication, but doesn't allow the body, in a sense, to finish off the virus. And that's the reason why, you know, when I devised the first paper on how to treat COVID-19, I said no way are we going to use a single drug. We don't do that even for a staph infection. There's no way we're going to use a single drug for a fatal infection. So it's always drugs in

combination. Interestingly, I checked American Journal of Medicine just recently. My paper is still the most widely read paper in that journal now for over two years. If that gives you any proxy of how interested people are in treating COVID because it's such a big problem. So we use drugs in combination. And we saw the mistake, by the way, it was made with big problem. So we use drugs in combination and we saw the mistake by the made, it was made with Fauci. It was made with President Biden and now Borla. So here they are off the inclusion exclusion criteria. They're not following a community standard of care. They, in a sense, and they become poster childs for if you take four vaccinations and still have a breakthrough, you know, the only consolation prize is maybe having a milder syndrome, but Omicron is mild as it is. So, and that claim, again,

this idea of it makes it milder, that claim is not substantiated. We've talked a little bit on this show in the past. Go ahead, Drew. Go ahead, Kelly. Sorry. No, no, you. I was going to say, we've talked a little bit about this new coined term of mass formation psychosis, Matthias Desmets. That's what I want to talk about. Yeah. Yeah. You know, theory.

I was a psychologist before I was a physician, and I frankly have really embraced his explanation. I assume you're familiar with it. There's been a lot of talk about it. And I really don't think there's any other credible explanation for what's going on. It's just sort of the whole world has gone mad. I agree with you that the fear factor is a very powerful component of that. But it's more than that. And I've said many times, the most disappointing thing to me of this entire pandemic debacle has frankly been the behavior of my own colleagues, people in our profession. Talk a little bit about that.

You know, I've read the book, The Psychology of Totalitarianism by Matthias Desmet. In fact, I wrote one of the inside cover comments on it that, you know, I do agree this idea that, you know, there's been a period of isolation. There has been, you know, things taken away from people that they used to enjoy to do, constant free-floating anxiety. And then the capper is to have, you know, an authoritarian entity pass down solutions like masking and lockdowns, vaccines, et cetera, that all the ingredients are there. Recently, Desmond has had a challenge from Peter Bregan, the author of Talking Back to Prozac,

also the author of COVID-19 and the Global Predators, We Are the Prey, and I wrote one of the introductions for that book. What Bregan is saying is, yes, Desmond has the right ideas but there's also something bigger than this that there actually is a complex of stakeholders that are really capitalizing on this almost like a psyop almost like a psychological operation yeah i somebody oh you know alex alex berenson said that to us uh kelly as he left i was like

i don't understand this and he said was, well, there's a lot of cognitive behavioral, a lot of behavioral specialists were deployed to manipulate the public. And I thought, hmm, I need to hear more about that. Let me just quickly, because I remember seeing a study about 65 plus year olds in Paxlovid and I just found it. There is a study, it's just not in a great journal, but there is some evidence that elderly vaccinated do benefit from PaxLivit.

Because I knew I was doing that from something I had read. And I can tell you from my clinical experience, it's taken some very high-risk people and worked. I mean, it's just that the point is that needs to be restated is that we're using it indiscriminately and we're not looking at the actual science. We're really just kind of going to town with it and there really are limitations. And we need to do those studies to really figure out what it is we're doing with this medication, which I could not agree with more strongly than that. the other thing that got me about uh desmond's construct is he said that the more that that as you move on through the mass formation psychosis people get engaged in rituals that are passed down from on high people using their voice to mandate these rituals and as the rituals get more bizarre and more detached from objective reality, the more people will cling to the rituals as a way of showing social solidarity. In other words, if you're socially disconnected, if you're having trouble finding meaning, you're free-floating anxiety, you will cling to that group that addresses the anxiety.

That group will begin prescribing rituals. Religion has done this for years. And as you start realizing that masks have no value, you start wearing the mask outside as a signal of your solidarity with the group, which is I couldn't understand why people were doing, engaging in these behaviors. It made no sense to me. And I thought, oh, there it is.

I think he's on to it. Dr. McCullough, you agree? It's true. I think so. You know, there. McCullough, you agree? It's true. I think so. You know, there's a couple more books. One's called The United States of Fear by Mark McDonald. He's in L.A. as a psychiatrist, and he has a new book out about how to deal with that that's going to be released shortly.

And he does focus on the mask because of the symbolism of the mask. You know, as many of you know, I'm a frequent contributor on many news channels, including the Ingram Angle or Ingram, and they always want me to get juiced up about masks. And I think they're never satisfied with my answer because my answer is, listen, I'm a doctor. I go into the operating room. I go into the cath lab. I wear a mask. If we have a patient who's had an organ transplant, you know, they wear a mask. I mean, because, you know, it's not just viruses, but also inhaled particles and bacteria and fungi and spores, et cetera. If I go to the dentist and there's water blasting all over the place, you know, everyone wears a mask and a shield.

So I think masking is appropriate given the context. People working at close range, have you, but you're right getting outside masking children who feel perfectly well uh so i've always thought masking masking could be appropriate for a subset i just flew uh just a few hours ago and there were a few people on the plane wearing a mask some looked elderly frail maybe they had medical problems perfectly fine and by the way even if it's not perfectly fine they just want to protect themselves because they're i don't know they have a wedding in two weeks and they don't want to get a fluid wear a properly fitting in 95 mask no problem but there's nothing about that that

screams mandate mandate is where the shark got jumped well and the other thing is i think although it made sense to me that the lay public, people who have no background in science, no background in medicine or biology, might believe some of this. The part that I had real issue with, Peter, was our own colleagues. It's, you know, I would run into people and say, I sat next to you in virology class. You know that this is a bunch of hooey. You know, the construct, for example, of social distancing, everyone, certainly the mainstream media glommed down to it, but people started throwing that around as if that is a well-established construct, you know, six feet apart, when there's not a lick

of science behind that. I mean, nothing. It doesn't even appear in a textbook of epidemiology or public health prior to 2020. The idea of asymptomatic spread, and our own physician colleagues didn't push back on that and say the truth, which is asymptomatic spread, we know that that has never been a driver of any respiratory virus. Why would it be now? What is it about, to this day, of our own colleagues, people in our profession that have adopted this pseudoscience? Yeah, I think people like yourselves, Dr. Drew, Matthias Desmet, Bregan, others, will have to solve it. It appears to be some type of psychological phenomenon to accept a false narrative blindly with no critical thinking. And you're right, it was only symptomatic spreading to asymptomatic. The Chinese published papers early, 85% of spread occurred within the home. There were no major school or hospital outbreaks.

It didn't happen. There were nursing home outbreaks and people transmitted it in the home. Then that's where largely where people didn it in the home. NS were largely where people didn't have these measures. It turned out the most effective prevention, contagion control measure was virucidal nasal washes with dilute hydrogen peroxide or dilute, far and away more effective than masks, more effective than any of the other prevention measures. We actually had Republican Congresswoman Macy have a press release and say, why is our government not teaching Americans how to do oral and nasal hygiene? It works for the common cold, the flu, and COVID-19. And not just poviadine or hydrogen peroxide, but also just straight up saline has an effect. And this was well known

early in the pandemic. And again, I could never understand why they weren't helping people mitigate risk, manage their illness when it occurred. Isn't that the mandate of public health to help to protect the public health? There was no care plan on America Out Loud Talk Radio. I have a podcast. We recently had a comprehensive one on this. And I learned in addition to normal saline, there's also colloidal silver and nitric oxide and all kinds of things, and xylitol. But interestingly, you know what? Dilute baby shampoo.

Dilute baby shampoo. I can tell you, I was called by the Martin Luther King family to visit them in Atlanta. I visited some extended relatives, and I was explaining this. She goes, Dr. McCullough, are you telling me that with the morbidity and mortality the African-American community had, that simply that brown bottle of hydrogen peroxide dilute or something similar could have made a difference? I said, yes. If we would have had an educational program, yes. Settle pyrodinia. And by the way, we could argue about which one is best and which one is problematic,

which one's best. We could argue all day about that, but we would have come up with something. It would have come up with something to help people. So my question is, Dr. McCullough, I keep looking at the behavior of some of the public health officials in some counties and some states. Now, some of them are not clinicians, so they have no idea about a risk-reward decision. Some of them, a lot of them are pediatricians because they're the ones that really are responsible for vaccine programs. And they really don't have good judgment when, I'm sorry, I have full respect for my pediatric colleagues, but I would not have good judgment on pediatric cases. They don't have good judgment on adult cases. They're very focused on neurological outcomes and things that are just transient, not going anywhere. And they're just panicked about that because if it were a child with that, that would be

a big deal. But an adult pushes right through and usually corrects. It's not a big deal. But the other, I just kept trying to understand what is it about their point of view or their training? Do you have any sense of, has public health training gone sideways or is the public health officials just not up, not right for this particular pandemic? It's been taken over by a singular priority. If you were to ask somebody, what really is the priority here? I think most of

these individuals would say mass vaccination. I really do. And I think if one adopts that viewpoint, that the sole priority is mass vaccination, anything else could be viewed as something that would promote or lead to vaccine hesitancy. So any discussion on treatment or nasal washes or anything else, the idea is the goal is a needle in every arm every six months forever in every human being. I really think people believe that. I agree with that. But let me say something. There is a supra concern even above that. People have forgotten how the vaccine rollout went. I couldn't get the vaccine. I wanted the vaccine. I could not get it because the hospital where I worked had an equity criteria that was really bizarre. And the window washers and gardeners were going to get the vaccine before the medical

practitioners who were taking care of. So part of what I think I'm seeing is that equity uber alice, safety uber alice, safety Uberalice, vaccine Uberalice has completely clouded their ability to make good judgments, considering those things, taking those things in. But with those three priorities are the only thing you're concerned with, you lose track of a lot of other things that are important as well. I would agree with that. I think it was a vaccine first, vaccine only strategy. Even the medical literature speaks to that. You know, our White House task force have never really discussed treatment or contagion control. I mentioned the lack of innovation in the hospitals. You'd think the Mayo Clinic, somebody would want the protocol. You'd think a hospital would want to be the go-to hospital to treat COVID. Where's the bravado of American medicine in treating the illness? There seems to be only interest in one thing, vaccines. Right. And I have been extraordinarily pro-vaccine in my life. I've been a vaccine zealot or referred to one in the past. But let's talk about these particular vaccines again.

Nothing will drive vaccine hesitancy going forward, Dr. McCullough, more than the debacle that we've witnessed with these vaccines and the number of vaccine injuries. When you look at vaccination adverse events, and certainly, you know, as a cardiologist, you are seeing them perhaps more than anybody else, Where do you see this going in terms of treatment of adverse events, the vaccines getting pulled from the market on the basis of the mounting adverse events and those sorts of things? Well, World Council for Health, which is an international body, on June 11th, 2022, did recommend they pull them off the market for safety reasons. From the four big international safety databases, the U.S. CDC, VAERS, UK Yellow Card, the EU

UDRA, and the WHO Vigisafe, over 40,000 deaths within a few days of taking the vaccine fulfills the epidemiologic criteria, the Bradford Hill criteria, that the vaccines almost certainly played a role. And then we've just had a deluge of medical literature, over a thousand papers on vaccine injuries, 200 papers on myocarditis, including fatal cases. The regulatory agencies agree the vaccines cause myocarditis and blood clots and other problems. And so we have a situation where the vaccines do present real risks. And at the same time, there doesn't appear to be any allowable discussion on these risks.

People are told to take them. And they'll say, listen, I already have heart failure. I already have heart damage. If I sustain heart damage, it could be fatal. And their employer is telling them, sorry, take the vaccines. So it says, you know, there are even heart transplant candidates that are told to take the vaccines or they it says, you know, even heart transplant candidates that are told to take the vaccines or they can't get a transplant.

I can tell you as a cardiologist, I would never administer a potentially cardiotoxic agent to a cardiac patient. If they got COVID, I would treat them. Yeah, I'm of course, I'm a little more on the vaccine side. I definitely am giving it

to my elderly patients that are with multiple risk factors and things. But I would like to see more data. I would like to see it. I have my eye on the myocarditis and the POTS stuff. I think all the POTS data is all myocarditis, just not properly identified. And I'm very, very concerned about it. But I can't tell yet what the risk-reward is. I can't.

The data is not. I mean, if you rely on VAERS, you could, okay. And there are people running around pulling data all over the place. But I've not seen good data to help me make these decisions. For instance, like I said, we're traveling in November. We may all have to take a booster depending on what countries we're going to. If you're 50 or over. Oh, it's just 50 or older? I think. Good. Well, November. We may all have to take a booster depending on what countries we're going to. If you're 50 or over. Oh, it's just 50 or older?

I think. Good. Well, good. What vaccine should I take? If I do, should I take Novavax? I had Johnson & Johnson, and I woke up. We don't want to do it, though. Dr. McCullough, I woke up with a completely spontaneous raccoon's eye,

which is the presenting manifestation of transverse sinus thrombosis. And I looked in the mirror. I thought, oh, my God, I'm going to be the only male with the transverse sinus thrombosis. And I looked in the mirror. I thought, oh, my God, I'm going to be the only male with the transverse sinus thrombosis. I felt terrible, but it resolved. Thank God. I'm very worried about the vaccine. But you had COVID since you had the vaccine. And I had it twice.

Yep. So I don't really want to get the vaccine. So what would I do? What should I take? Everyone has their own threshold. I personally wouldn't take a vaccine to travel. I just wouldn't travel. I just wouldn't take that risk.

I've seen the myocarditis lead to cardiac death. Obviously, we can't recover from that. The blood clots, I have them in my practice now. They're not going away in over a year. I mean, it's really a disaster. The neurologic damage, I think a lot of that does recover. I've seen too much. A recent Zogby survey, representative survey, showed that two-thirds of Americans have taken the vaccine. Of the two-thirds, 15% have a new medical problem due to the vaccines, at least the people perceive.

We have 1,000 papers in the medical work. I feel like I do too. Right. We have 1,000 papers in the medical book. We have a thousand papers in the medical book. It doesn't look good. I feel like I do too. I'm getting weird infections and stuff that I've never had in my life. I was just like, this is so weird. It's hard to know. What Dr. Drew is pointing out is our agencies owe America a comprehensive safety review. Who's getting these problems? What can we do about it? If a patient has a blood disorder, do they have a higher risk of blood clotting? My intuition says they probably do. But without the data, it's impossible to know. And, you know, people are,

you know, there's so much tension out there on these vaccines. And, you know, given the reduction in efficacy over time, you know, many would consider that the risk benefit isn't there. You know, an elderly patient, I'd much rather just treat them through Omicron than end up with a vaccine complication. But it's my personal view. Well, as of last week, Thursday of last week, the CDC came out with their new guidelines and they free. They are no longer differentiating, distinguishing between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. They're applying the same guidelines regardless of vaccination status. And furthermore, if you look at the support document, the summary document for how it is they came to these new

guidelines, they freely admit, their words not mine,, that the two shot vaccination regimen provides, quote, minimal protection and that even two boosters provides transient and minimal protection. So it really begs the question. You look at people who are getting kicked out of the military, losing their jobs, can't go to school or whatever else. They now really, I I think have strong legal standing to say this should never have happened to me now that you acknowledge the vaccines don't really work they don't do what you told us they were going to do well it's not as though every person gets the vaccine that it's not as though every person gets vaccine has side effects right i mean some people tolerate it just fine and seem to be getting some benefit from it the the question is

you know how do we we can't do the risk reward analysis properly without the data that that's my thing it's like i'm really concerned i'm very concerned about young people getting and i'm very concerned about it and and to be fair you, there was a fog of war early on. There was. I get it. I get it. We were doing the best we could. We were feeling our way through.

But for God's sakes, let's adjust course. Let's pivot. Let's do the science. Let's do it. Well, if you go back to 1976 when the swine flu vaccine was rolled out,

if I recall, that vaccine was pulled from the market after there were 25 associated deaths. 25, it was pulled from the market. Yet, what did Dr. McCullough just say with this one? We have in the tens of thousands of associated deaths that have been reported from these COVID vaccines, and they are still not only promoting them, they are mandating them. It's one thing to say, this is available, do your own risk benefit analysis. If you think it's right for you, take it. That's a big leap from mandating something and threatening somebody's job. Kelly, I would not be taking it

if the, I would not be taking it for travel. That is for sure. I would not be doing it, but it but i but there may be a country that man and what's weird about this another thing that's weird about this entire situation it's easy for us to take aim at our public health officials and our cdc and whatnot but this has been a worldwide mass delusion worldwide that's the i'm surprised by a lot of things but that's one of the most surprising things. Dr. McCullough shaking his head. Yeah, it was simultaneous and worldwide. And it started even before the vaccines. I did a lot of work internationally and it was clear somehow the human mind just just started to think in a very bizarre and off kilter, off axis manner. And it persisted through there.

You know, there was euthanasia that was done in some countries with the elderly. There was denial of treatment worldwide. When I published my paper in the American Journal of Medicine, I got multiple letters to the doctor. They poured in from other countries and they said, Dr. McCullough, you can't treat COVID. You can't do this. I said, yes, I can. Overcome your fear and join me in trying to help these patients. It was as if they were paralyzed and they didn't want a single doctor to be able to say you could treat COVID because it meant that it would draw them, I think, potentially into personal danger. I think a lot of it, Dr. Tristram. I really want to understand, though, how this happened.

I mean, have we moved? You know, there are predominant personality styles that come and go. And, you know, we've seen narcissism come on. I wonder if histrionics has creeped in here somehow, the histrionic style. I never expected that. Narcissism I get, but histrionic disorders worldwide, it's, whoo, I don't know. We've never had any, collected any real data on that now or before. But it is very mysterious to me.

How, as you say, you're saying it exactly correctly. Or has education failed us? Somebody's got to figure this out. Because the human mind, as you're saying it, is not operating the way it should or used to, it seems. And I want to know what people, and people that, let's say people that got mad at us for today's conversation, I want to know what they're thinking.

I want to know why they're upset. I want to know why it's problematic. I don't, I want to understand it because we're just having a conversation about what we might've done, what ought to do, how to do it better, and why that is problematic to people other than the vaccine who Alice position, which I get that might be part of it. But why would the average person have any issues with us just talking about this, Peter?

Well, you know, I think the doctors play a key role. And I think we should look back in history, we're looking at we're working on a second book. Now, one of the examples we're looking at is the first great cocaine epidemic. And the first great cocaine epidemic, you know, or in the early 1900s, it was among doctors. And the most widely used drugs were cocaine derivatives. Pfizer and Merck, their first products were cocaine. It was in Coca-Cola and Chianti wine. All the research was doctors extolling the virtues of cocaine. You know, it took a few decades before I realized this is a disaster. But the point I'm making is doctors drank the Kool-Aid. Do you know 96% of doctors took the vaccines with no critical thinking? They didn't really ask what's in them,

how do they work? They just took them. And I have to tell you, doctors drank the Kool-Aid on the vaccine. I think it's a big part of the problem. The cocaine, but you need to go no further than the opioid epidemic, which I struggled against mightily. Yeah, there's cocaine tooth drops. But the opioid epidemic was another mass delusion. That was a mass delusion that we perpetrated on the public. Let's be clear. There was never any good.

I literally, I would get papers from the California Medical Association would say, so far, we have absolutely no evidence that opioids are useful in the control of chronic pain. So let's talk about how to prescribe them and dose them. Like, what? That's delusional. In our book, we actually bring up the opioid pandemic and the book that came out in 2021, House of Pain and the movie Dope Sick, we bring that up in our book. I think the examples are the great cocaine epidemic. Believe it or not, smoking and tobacco. You know, doctors were fully engaged in smoking. They were on cigarette ads. And in Mukherjee's Pulitzer Prize winner, The Emperor of All Maladies, you know, he describes how doctors would refuse to acknowledge that smoking causes lung cancer.

Even the surgeon, the most famous surgeon taking out the lung cancers, he himself was smoking, and then he died of lung cancer, still refusing to acknowledge the connection. It was about 40 years from when Sir Austin Bradford Hill had the criteria. I said, listen, smoking is causing lung cancer. To the time medicine reconciled, it was about 20 or 25 years with the opioid pandemic and another 25 with the cocaine. I'm telling you, with the vaccines, it's not going to be quick where the doctors realize that they've drunk the Kool-Aid and it's not headed in the right direction. Kelly, I'm sorry I've been rolling over you a bit. I know you're trying to say something. No, I just was thinking, I'm seeing the same thing happening now that the fear is somewhat dissipated with regard to COVID. They're trying to amp it up again with monkeypox. Once again, acting as if this is something that everybody should be afraid of. Let's act as if everyone is at equivalent risk rather than identifying the actual risk categories and coaching those individuals and how to best

protect themselves. Instead, we have to have equity and risk, which is ridiculous because it doesn't exist. We are not all at equivalent risk from monkeypox, just as we were not all at risk from COVID. We never were. We knew that from the very beginning. Yet they are trying to ramp up the fear again by suggesting that this is the next new scourge on the horizon. Yeah, I agree with that. I'm going to have this be my last comment since I have to get on stage here in a minute. But let me say that. Okay, sorry, Dr. McCullough. I think America has been overdosed on fear. We've been overdosed on fear with COVID-19 and now monkeypox, even polio and what have you. And we've got to get back to normal. Doctors can handle these illnesses.

We've got it. Right. That's exactly right. Let us do our job. Let us do it. We don't need the press to help us. Let's just do it. And yes, Bob, but let's say Dr. McCullough. Look at those three faces.

Listen, they have got it. Look at them. Look at those smiles. Susan's very excited about what we're doing today. But let's mention the polio virus. If the fear caused you to not get your kids vaccinated against polio, please do this. This is a really serious illness. This is the one I'm scared of is the destroying children's lives. That's just too

much. You're not supposed to spread fear. Right. Dr. McCullough, thank you so much for joining us. Kelly, stay with me. We're going to keep talking. Dr. McCullough, good luck tonight on your presentation and we hope we'll stay close to you and get the book and we'll promote it further. I can't wait to read it. God bless you. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. McCullough. Talk to you soon. Thanks for being here. So Kelly, I think where we ended up was exactly the right spot, right? I mean, that is exactly the issue,

right? And I woke up this morning thinking about the opioid epidemic, and he brings up the cocaine epidemic. And by the way, if you want to see a great rendition of how the cocaine epidemic swept across the early 20th century to physicians, watch the series, The Nick. The doctor there, did you see that show, Kelly?

It was my favorite TV show, The Nick. No, I did not. Oh, it's fantastic. This very bigger-than-life bombastic surgeon develops cocaine addiction. And interestingly, at the end of the first season they he gets psychotic and everything is usual with cocaine happens and um they take him to a place that uh there it's a very familiar looking environment for me and the language they're using is very familiar we understand this is now a brain disorder we thought it was a weakness now it's a brain thing and we

have absolute treatments for this we can take care of this this. There's the Nick. There it is. And don't worry, we'll help you. And they give, what's his name? What is the actor's name? Can you read it there, Caleb? Clive Owens. They give Clive Owens an injection and you see him just go, oh, I felt he stops the mania. He feels so much better. And they pull back. What's the injection? Heroin. And we're still doing that to this day. We're still substituting one for the other.

And that's what they did. They used heroin for treating addiction. They used, we had insanity going at all fronts. And I think that's a good point is that when we get collective like that and get these sort of ideological sweeps, we hurt people. And it's really back to the individual physician using his or her best judgment for the patient without being swept into these big movements. Right. Well, I'll also inject the concept of cognitive dissonance here, Drew. As I said, I was a psychologist before I was a physician. It is very difficult for people to accept once they have bought something, hook, line,

and sinker, particularly out of fear, and they've become part of an entire community of movement, as you said, that solidarity with wearing my mask and bathing in Purell and social distancing. And they've done that and they've gone out on a limb and said to others that they should do it too, then when faced even with overwhelming evidence that they were wrong, overwhelming evidence that they were duped perhaps,

people do, that's a really tough pill to swallow. And rather than taking that and saying, "'Wow, I can't believe how gullible I was "'or how wrong I was or how easily manipulated I was. They instead double down, triple down. They just won't buy it. Every reason from Friday, why that's a bad study, why that should be debunked, why whatever. And people dig their heels in.

Cognitive dissonance is alive and well and living in medicine right now. Oh, boy. And let's be super clear. All humans have some degree of cognitive dissonance, some more than others, but it's not just a glitch. It's a feature of our cognitive systems. And that's why I'm always seeking to get different points of view. I want to, where my cognitive dissonance kicks in, I kind of want to look at it and be aware of it. And, you know, obviously it kicks in a little bit around vaccine. It kicks in a little bit around Paxlovid. And my answer to that is science.

Science is the treatment for cognitive dissonance. That's why I keep saying I want the science because I will absolutely drop my dissonance at the point at which the evidence is convincing. Absolutely. And, you know, I have some framed 1940s advertisements on the wall of my office with physicians, you know, promoting camels and, you know, filterless cigarettes and talking about, you know, the menthol hitting the T-zone and how they were so awesome. So there's no question, as Dr. McCullough points out, that physicians have sometimes been the great promoters of these things. But there's, you know, there's a fine line between playing a practical joke on someone and someone being the butt of a practical joke, then someone all of a sudden coming to the conclusion, the overwhelming realization that they were duped,

that they did things that were nonsensical, that they participated in something that actually didn't have good science behind it, that they didn't employ critical thinking skills. When I ask some of my own colleagues, physician colleagues, people I trained trained with I'll say when have you ever given a therapeutic to somebody on whom you know a group of people that it hadn't been tested on when have you ever heard of a vaccine without 24 month 36 month 48 months safety data ever in the history of mankind and they get angry they get angry it isn't a reasonable discussion. We don't end up having a discussion on the science.

It instead becomes ad hominem attacks and it's very much what happened certainly to me and to others when I was kicked off social media platforms. It wasn't about saying, you've misinterpreted this study, Dr. Victory, or you don't understand the epidemiology here, you misinterpreted the data. Instead, they are ad hominem attacks that you are trying to kill grandma and you should lose your medical license and you're a heretic. That's the first sign really that something isn't scientific because we have always drew embraced vigorous robust debate think about every you know people don't know that every month in medicine you have you know a

meeting called morbidity and mortality and you sit behind closed doors with your fellow physicians and you argue it out you hash it out sometimes you hash it out. Sometimes, you know, really emotionally, why did this happen? Why didn't you try this with that patient? Did you consider X, Y, and Z? And you really hash it out. All of a sudden, come COVID, we aren't allowed to have these debates.

No, and it's crazy. Like I was saying earlier, we need a giant consideration, a meeting of some type, to look at those strengths and weaknesses of how this has gone and how to avoid this kind of stuff in the future. I remember ZDogg has characterized the two groups as Covidians and Covidiots. And both have religious fervor and language. The language. I forget what you just said about how you were attacked and ad hominem. Well, you're a heretic, you said.

And that's absolutely, again, it's the language of religion. You're dirty, you're sinful, you're a heretic. These are the way these sort of, these phenomenon are played out. They're played out just like a religion. And that, that is not science. That is not science, everybody. That's all I'm saying. phenomenon are played out. They're played out just like a religion. That's not science.

That is not science, everybody. That's all I'm saying. Well, listen. I think I have a couple of questions lined up here if you don't mind. Do you want to take a couple? No, I'm good. I'm always good for questions. There's a lot of people. A lot of people are lined up here. Let's see what this is.

Mimi, I think it is. is maybe you had a question for us uh your mic is still muted there everyone everyone who comes up that i pull up to the podium remember to turn on uh unmute your mic it's in the lower left hand corner no speaker phone no speaker phone please as well susan that, did you get a lot out of this conversation? Yeah, it was interesting, right? Just talking about this. I know. And you and I, I think the two of us are going to talk to Naomi Wolf soon.

And she has a new book out called Bodies of Others. And I disagree with a lot of some of her conclusions laid in the book, but to read her story of evolution, of how she was attacked by her peers, was breathtaking. It was just breathtaking. And so we'll get a chance to talk to her about that. Because when we look back on these things, it's not maybe as it appeared. So I'm having trouble getting the speakers up here. Hang on a second. Sorry, I'm having a delivery.

And Dr. McCullough and I just, in the meantime, Dr. McCullough and I share a website along with some of the others he referenced, George Farid and Paul Alexander and Harvey Reich, earlycovidcare.org. And it's really a repository, amongst other things, of COVID care.org. And it's really a repository amongst other things of scientific articles. If you're looking for something to educate yourself or to look for the background, we have, for example, over 200 articles about masks and the spread of respiratory viruses, lots of protocols for the treatment, not only of COVID, but of post-COVID injuries, long COVID vaccines, and those sorts of things. So I would recommend that people go there. If you're looking for some of the science behind what we all are talking about on these

shows, you can certainly find it at earlycovidcare.org. I was listening to Lex Friedman. I like his podcast. And he said something interesting that we all ought to consider. He said, you know, we could use some engineers problem solving in this as well, like the. Mimi, you've got your hand up, and I've called you up. You have to unmute your mic in the lower left-hand corner of your phone. And when you do that, you'll be speaking. And I don't know if Mimi is your actual name. That's all I've got, MJ, MTJ.

Lower left-hand corner, you'll see a mic with a red line. There you go. Mimi, what's up? There you are. what's happening um i just wanted to talk to you about um some stuff in medicine i was one of those um i'm a military brat and i remember i had the chicken box back in the 80s and i remember there was no vaccine now mind you when I went to school, I remember my parents. I'm a military brat. They gave us all

I think it was four. Never had no vaccine. Never had a flu shot. I'm 48 years old. In the meantime, Drew, I had the shingles. I just got out. My body is like coming down to it. It's like having chicken pox all over again, being older. Um, it's real. Yeah. No kidding. I got the shingles vaccine. The vaccine's

no fun either. I got to do that. Yeah. But I don't want shingles, man. I've seen some catastrophes. No, I had it. I'm good. I never got a vaccine. Drew, thank you for letting me speak to you. You bet. I can tell you my story. I just want to go back to medicine. And I remember back when I was born, I'm a military brat. And I remember all my cousins, all of us had chicken pox.

It never closed down schools anything and here i am i never took a flu shot drew um i'm 48 never i'm like i can do a call for whatever i don't know i'm did you get did you get the polio vaccine no well that that may become probably that may become an issue for you that may become an issue i already had the shingles hold on let me finish shingles is not polio my dear shingles is not polio i'm afraid i didn't say polio yeah i already got over like my body i had a bump on my arm um drew and i was, this was back in seven months ago. It was a little bump on my arm. I would say the

forearm was the part of the, it was a little bump. I'm like, damn. I love, I'm into self-care. I watch my body, pay attention. And then all of a sudden I had a little bump on my arm. I said, husband, this is weird. And then all of a sudden, had a little bump in my arm. I said, husband, this is weird. And then all of a sudden drew my whole body, my torso.

And let me see where I had it. On my backside. Right. It goes along. It was a whole bunch of chicken pox all over again. It goes along a dermatome. That's shingles. And the shingles outbreak by itself is painful, but it's not as big a deal as the post-herpetic neurology. But I've treated it a

million times. I'm glad you got through it. People do get through it. Polio is a whole other matter, and it worries me. Meningitis B worries me. These things worry me. So what's up, Kelly? The interesting thing, well, I was going to say the interesting thing about, because you're right, you were of the, before the chickenpox vaccine was available. Interestingly, the chickenpox vaccine and this is a classic example was FDA approved in 1996, but it didn't become mandatory in schools until 2003. Okay. For another seven years. So we had seven years worth of data, Drew, before they made that a mandatory.

Oh, no. Listen, when my kids, my kids, we normally treat back. I understand. My kids were recommended to take the chicken. I agree. And I, I was,

my kids were recommended to get the chicken pox vaccine. I didn't, I didn't let them have it. I, they got chicken pox and that was that. I did too, but I didn't have it back when I was growing up. I'm sorry,

but measles. No, it wasn't. They didn't have it back when I was growing up. I'm sorry. But measles, having seen kids die of measles, encephalitis, I have a very different feeling about measles. Well, and now I am a strong proponent of children getting vaccinated for chickenpox for the exact reason that Mimi's suggesting. Because if, you know, chickenpox by itself is a relatively self-limited and mild disease in most children, but it puts you at a lifelong risk of developing shingles down the road and shingles because the varicella virus, the chickenpox virus lays dormant in your spinal cord after you recover from it. It never fully goes away and it can rear its

ugly head in the form of shingles later on in life. And it can be very, very debilitating, extraordinarily painful, and it can lead to, you know, people end up with chronic neuralgia following it, chronic pain following it sometimes. So it's a no laughing matter. So I'm a huge proponent of people getting chickenpox vaccinations. My only point was we normally have far more safety data and experience with a vaccine before we start mandating for people to take it. Yeah, that's what I said. That's why I didn't let my kids get it.

We didn't have enough experience with it yet. I heard of some adverse events coming out of Japan. I was like, no, it's we'll get we'll get through this but yeah back to the shingles shingles can occur up here in your uh cranial nerve and it can destroy your eye and i've seen actually people get such bad horrible neuralgia that they develop lifelong akathisia which is a horrible syndrome uh so it can be devastating it can be but it also can be mild like in mimi's case uh this is antoine let's get antoine up here i would probably get that i have to get that damn shot you should yeah you should get it you don't want you only get a big rash on your face that

scars your face up i know but i have to find time when i don't have anything to do on a weekend and do it yeah it's two-parter it's a two-shot a two shot series. Yeah. Yeah. It's not, it's not both times. Kick the crap out of me. Could I ask you still muted there? Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah. So I, obviously I got the Pfizer shots and the booster and I have all sorts of surgeries and health issues and immunosuppressants and all these other issues from just my whole life. So why didn't I have a reaction to it when there's so many other people that are? Do we know any answers of why certain people have it so bad when they get, especially mRNA, I guess is what I'm talking about. It's a great question, Caleb.

And the answer is no, we don't know why some people. I brought up in our show with Alex Berenson last week, the fact that there is some very, very strong evidence that the majority of the people who had adverse reactions came from a relatively small group of batches of the vaccine itself. There's actually a website called How Bad Was My Batch? because it doesn't seem to be equivalently equally distributed. So we don't necessarily understand why some people have a worse reaction than others. We knew early on that people who had had and recovered from COVID seemed to be at higher risk for an adverse event when they got vaccinated subsequent to having COVID.

But there just isn't enough data. And this is what I'm talking about. Normally, these are the sorts of things that get sorted out during the prolonged testing period, say six to eight years, where you start to understand who are the folks who are at higher risk for myocarditis, for neurologic complications, for allergic events, those sorts of things. We just don't have that data with these vaccines. Well, we have some data on young males who get the vaccine, the two-part series.

As recommended, we know that if they spread apart or just take one vaccine, they're much less likely to get myocarditis. And those, the young males, like under 30, particularly under 20, we are, I am very concerned about because there is data. Now, what the prevailing wisdom is, is, well, it's the same as the incidence of myocarditis from COVID. I don't think so. I don't think so. And so I'm very worried about that.

No, and for example, we don't. So although you're absolutely correct, Drew, we knew for, we know, for example, that young males between 13 and 18 are at far higher risk of myocarditis from these vaccines than other people. But what we don't know again, for lack of safety data, lack of testing is it for young males for example who have a BMI of over 18 is it is there something are there other confounding factors is it associated also with taking certain medications is it people who have an underlying you know there are lots of things that other than just male between 13 and 18 that I would like to sort out? Is it related, for example,

to body mass? Because we know that obesity itself puts people at risk not only for a worse outcome from COVID, but for all kinds of inflammatory things. So we just need more time. And that data is not in yet. Right. I think that's a huge deal is the fact that we don't have the data. They didn't have time to do the studies or to look into this. So there is no answer, An. Right. I think that's a huge deal is the fact that we don't have the data. They didn't have time to do the studies and look into this. So I like, there is no answer on Stu. I was so confused because literally it was into February to March of 2020. I was literally in the hospital, the sickest I've ever been. I had to spend 10 days in there getting surgery. And I go into the hospital, never heard a thing about COVID while I'm there. I'm watching the hospital TV screens as that cruise ship wasn't allowed to let the people off because they didn't know what this respiratory

thing was going on. When I left the hospital, that same exact day I left the hospital, they had people set up at the doors, checking people's temperature. Like the world had changed in those 10 days, that one period of time. Now you go through that. I had to go back to the hospital six months later, all of this stuff. I was on immunosuppressing medicines. I did not get COVID. Somehow I did not get COVID that entire first year and a half. I didn't get COVID until a year and a half later and I had moved and I had gotten all of the vaccines and everything. And now I'm not, I'm not a doctor, so I'm not, I don't know anything about the risks or benefits of MRNA, but it was so odd to me that I did not catch it at all. Los Angeles, epicenter of all this stuff until a year later after I had gotten the vaccine and I was much healthier then.

Yeah. Well, it's very interesting to, uh, to what Dr. McCullough intimated that, that, or said full out that even for people who have allergies or are predicted to have a bad outcome, they still were suggesting. I was in the hospital during the early, right after the vaccines came out, I had a bad orthopedic injury and needed surgery. And you know, Drew, when you go in the hospital, if you have an allergy, they put it not only on your wristband, but they emblazon it across the front of your chart. So I had these two big red stickers

on my chart that I want to see allergies. Number one, to tetanus, to tetanus toxoid. I have a life-threatening allergy to that. And number two, my only other allergy is polyethylene glycol, PEG, which is a key ingredient of the vaccines. Yet despite these two things emblazoned on my record, I had no less than 50 people coming into my room and telling me, you really need to get these vaccines. You really need to get these vaccines. You know, you're in the hospital. And I'm saying, have you looked at my chart?

I have an allergy to two things, another type of a vaccine and to one of the key ingredients of these vaccines and i did not get vaccinated for for many reasons not the least of which was these allergies but i found it fascinating that physicians and nurses and everybody their brother was was desperate for me to take something that i had every reason to believe I would have a severe allergic reaction to. Yep. Antoine, you are up. If you unmute your mic, we will be able to speak with you. But it does not seem to be happening.

All right. We're going to see. The wonders of technology. I am the last person who can help. I're going to see. The wonders of technology. I am the last person who can help. I'm the techno idiot. Candice, let's see if we can get you set up here. Go ahead, Candice. My question was, why do you think so many women are miscarrying after they get vaccinated? Well, I know that uh kelly has

some strong feelings about this let's remember that the majority of pregnancies end in the first trimester by by spontaneous termination that's a very very very common phenomenon so to try to say there's more going on you have to start to look at the later trimesters probably, I would say. What do you say, Kelly? Okay. Well, I wouldn't say that most pregnancies do. About 18% of pregnancies do end by spontaneous miscarriage in the first trimester. So you're right. It is a large number. Many, many women don't even know they're pregnant at that point. They just chalk it up to a heavy menstrual period. They don't even know that they were pregnant. But you are quite right, and I believe that the data are overwhelming.

We just have a Pfizer study that came out that showed that 44% of pregnant women who received the vaccine during the relatively limited testing that they did late in the game on pregnant women, 44% of them suffered from spontaneous miscarriage. And that is, even if you're willing to compare that to the 18% that happen routinely, that's a huge jump. I had concerns from the very beginning about this, primarily because there is a similar protein in the spike protein on the virus to a protein called synctin-1 that's required for the formation and implantation and development of the placenta. And I was concerned that if people who are pregnant or trying to get pregnant got vaccinated, they would, as they developed antibodies to that spike protein, they would also be therefore creating antibodies to the

placenta itself. And they would therefore have an autoimmune attack on their own placentas. I think it's a very legitimate concern and something that needed to be really investigated and requires more investigation. Agreed. I've heard that theory and I agree. Let me just defend myself on this, where I got the 50% data. Here's the study I was quoting. Over 53,000 women admitted to labor delivery. 43% reported having one or more first trimester spontaneous abortions. 27% had one.

10% had two. 4% three. 1.3% four. 0.05% reported six or 16 spontaneous first. And oftentimes there's genetic issues in the people who haven't repeated first trimester problems. Where's that article, Drew? I'll post it up on the website. I think it is.

Yeah. It's a British medical journal, I think. I'll get it for you. Okay. Anyway, that's the stuff I was seeing. And I've seen that kind of thing come across my desk before, that it's very, very common. I mostly have used it to make women feel okay

when they have these things in their first trimester because they often feel like it's an exceptional experience when in fact these are rather commonplace experiences so it's important people to know that um let us let us wrap this up we you've been very kind with your time uh we appreciate you being here as always we will be back again next week let me see who the the uh object of our affection is going to be. We hope it's Dr. Malone. Anybody know? We hope it's Dr. Malone. I've heard Malone.

I don't know if he's confirmed, but the invitation was to Dr. Malone. There it is. It's Priyanka Wali, then Clifton Duncan, and then Dr. Naomi Wolf. There will be others. These are just ones that are confirmed. Yes, we're looking at the 24th next wednesday yeah clifton i just intended me to talk to i don't know

if he's on a went on a kelly day so no he's not the next wednesday is the 24th and that's and okay that's the next week put that up against that's all of next week. I see. I see. Let's put that up again. Okay. There we are. So it's not up there. So there you go. That's what we have coming up. So hopefully it'll be Dr. Malone. And I suspect Dr. Malone will be as engaging, if not more so, than Peter McCullough. And Dr. McCullough is really one of my favorites.

I just like his even, dispassionate, just trying to make sense of all this. And he went through it. I can't wait to read his book. Both of us need to read that book because it's going to be very, very interesting, I'm sure. He is a warrior. Kelly, anything before we wrap this up? Yes. No, just another great conversation. I'm so grateful for this platform and the ability to actually have these robust discussions that I

keep talking about that have been sorely lacking throughout. Oh, we haven't confirmed Dr. Malone yet. That's what it is. Right. And then it is a possible he hasn't been confirmed. We can always squeeze Steve Kirsh in here. But we're waiting. We're waiting. Steve. No. We'll find. Don't worry. I mean, I love Steve.

Don't get me wrong. I love Steve and I'm glad he's there and I'm glad he's doing his thing. We're a week away. So we don't want to like, you know, rebook somebody else and then he comes through. So we're waiting. Steve very much. I'm hoping Dr. Malone. Yeah, me too. Steve very much wants to speak to

heather mcdonald maybe we can arrange that on our platform and get that conversation together if that's because he's heather had a reaction that we think is related to the vaccine had a pot syndrome essentially cracked her head yeah and uh i think that's more common than people realize i think that's that's a common bob saget may have died from it too. Well. But, you know, no one's going to talk about that. Yep. Kelly's agreeing with that. I wouldn't.

Well, I am. Well, I am. I think they're the same exact thing. Well, there are an awful lot of people. Kelly? Again, as I said, you can never claim that any individual death is related to the vaccine. It's really looking at this like an epidemiologist would, Drew, and saying, why are we seeing a huge uptick in certain things, whether that certain things is blood clots, sudden cardiac

dysrhythmias, POTS, whatever it is. We certainly, no one can deny, I think that we are seeing a disproportionate number of previously young, healthy athletes that are having strange events. And it just, it deserves really deep analysis. And the group whose job it is, I will remind everybody again, to do that deep analysis is the CDC. That's their mandate. Yet not only have they not delved into the data, whether it's data reported by health insurance companies, life insurance companies, the military, whatever, not only have they not delved into that data, they have really turned a blind eye to it and sort of been very dismissive of anyone who's tried to bring that data to the fore.

And I think that that's really reprehensible. And Dr. McCullough gave us a little theory as to why they have been so defensive, that vaccine uber alice and it begs no alternative. And anything that goes at that policy is considered undermining and dangerous and problematic, etc. All right, Dr. Kelly victory, uh, follow, uh, put all of Kelly's stuff up there so they can follow her wherever they, there you are early COVID care.org. Is there any social media you want to people to follow? Yes. Well, I'm, I'm on getter at Kelly victory MD. Uh, and I'm pretty active there having been

permanently, um, kicked off of Twitter. Uh, I, I't fight that, unlike Alex Berenson and some others. I did not fight that because I decided it simply wasn't worth it to be on a platform that is currently at least as much propaganda as they are. I'm hopeful that if it changes hands, perhaps to whether it's to Elon Musk or to whomever, that it will once again become the great platform that I think it was for open debate. It certainly isn't that now, but I am on Getter at KellyVictoryMD. And as I said, the website as well as a resource. Kelly, we will see you next week, three o'clock Pacific time. Thank you so much. We'll see you all then as well. Thanks. 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