Ask Dr. Drew - Dr. Peter McCullough: New Research on Bell’s Palsy and Lethal “Turbo Cancer” Appearing Soon After mRNA Vaccination – Ask Dr. Drew – Ep 313

Episode Date: January 22, 2024

In a medical paper coauthored by Dr. Peter McCullough, researchers reported evidence of “turbo cancer” – an “aggressive, infiltrating, metastatic, and ultimately lethal basaloid type of carcinoma” appearing soon after mRNA vaccination for COVID-19. The world-renowned heart health expert says the mRNA shots “should be off the market completely.” “We have a lot of information suggesting these are no good for the heart…” Dr. McCullough told Real America’s Voice. “Now we have data… of the heart change in almost everybody who took the shot, at least for six months or longer…” [ Dr. Drew is a board member of The Wellness Company, and TWC is a sponsor of Ask Dr. Drew ] Dr. Peter McCullough is an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and the Chief Scientific Officer of The Wellness Company. As an expert on cardiovascular medicine with over 30 years of experience, Dr. McCullough has spoken widely about the heart-related risks that he believes could be attributed to mRNA technology. He is the co-author of “The Courage To Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex.” Follow Dr. Peter at https://PeterMcCulloughMD.com and at https://x.com/p_mcculloughmd 「 SPONSORED BY 」 Find out more about the companies that make this show possible and get special discounts on amazing products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors • COZY EARTH - Susan and Drew love Cozy Earth's sheets & clothing made with super-soft viscose from bamboo! Use code DREW for a huge discount at https://drdrew.com/cozy • PROVIA - Dreading premature hair thinning or hair loss? Provia uses a safe, natural ingredient (Procapil) to effectively target the three main causes of premature hair thinning and hair loss. Susan loves it! Get an extra discount at https://proviahair.com/drew • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get 15% off your first order at https://drdrew.com/paleovalley • 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. Get an extra discount with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at https://twc.health/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 Portions of this program may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. Always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health. 「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician with over 35 years of national radio, NYT bestselling books, and countless TV shows bearing his name. He's known for Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Teen Mom OG (MTV), The Masked Singer (FOX), multiple hit podcasts, and the iconic Loveline radio show. Dr. Drew Pinsky received his undergraduate degree from Amherst College and his M.D. from the University of Southern California, School of Medicine. Read more at https://drdrew.com/about Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome, everybody. I am privileged to be joined today by Dr. Peter McCullough. I think by this point, most people know Dr. McCullough. He is an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, chief scientific officer for the Wellness Company. He is widely published, and he's been an editor of major journals. And he's co-author of The Courage to Face COVID-19, Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Biopharmaceutical Complex. He's been very outspoken in recent years, and he's co-authored a new article. We're going to dig into it and all the implications of it.

We might also get into this disease X thing, this thing that kills mice so effectively that is, I believe, a coronavirus, and many other things. Who knows where we'll go we always uh cover a lot of territory so let's get into it our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre the psychopaths start this right he was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography ptsd love addiction fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous. I'm a doctor for f**k's sake. Where the hell do you think I learned that? I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people. I am a clinician.

I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all 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 are you one of the millions of american women and men dealing with premature hair thinning and hair loss or maybe you're scared about inheriting that thinning look because it runs in your family

start 2024 with a real solution that delivers results without the harsh side effects or unwanted chemicals and no need for prescription. Provia uses a safe natural ingredient, Procapil, to effectively target the three main causes of premature hair thinning and hair loss. By supporting healthy scalp circulation, the delivery of nourishing nutrients, and healthy hair follicle anchoring to your scalp, Provia guarantees more hair on your head than in the shower or on your comb. Right now, new customers save over 50% plus free shipping.

Every introductory package includes a full 60-day supply of Provia serum for daily use plus the Provia Super Concentrate for faster, more noticeable results. Don't wait. Order now to save an extra 10% and get free shipping at proviahair.com forward slash Drew. That's P-R-O-V-I-A-H-A-I-R, proviahair.com slash D-R-E-W. I think everyone knows the next medical crisis could be just around the corner. Whether it comes in the form of another pandemic or something much more routine like a tick bite, you and your family need to be prepared.

That's where the wellness company comes in. You know the wellness company. We have their physicians on, like Dr. McCullough, frequently. The wellness company and their doctors are medical professionals you can trust. And their new medical emergency kits are the gold standard when it comes to keeping you safe and healthy. It's really, it's a safety net.

It's an insurance policy that you hope you're not going to need, but if you need it, you sure as heck are going to wish you had it if you need it. Be ready for anything. This medical emergency kit contains an assortment of life-saving medications, including ivermectin, Z-Pak. The medical emergency kit provides a guidebook to aid in the safe use of all these life-saving medications. From anthrax to tick bites to COVID-19, the Wellness Company's Medical Emergency Kit is exactly what you need to have on hand to be prepared.

Rest assured, knowing that you have emergency antibiotics, antivirals, and antiparasitics on hand to help you and your family stay safe from whatever life throws at you next. Go to drdrew.com slash TWC. That is D-R-D-R-E-W dot com forward slash T-W-C to get 10% off today. Just click on that link. And of course, Dr. McCullough is the chief scientific officer for the wellness company where I serve as a board member as well. And it's been a privilege to be a part of it. It's been very interesting. And we're trying to come up with strategies for empowering patients to help you help yourself and your family freedom to do so with things like that emergency kit which dr mccullough and i will talk about because there's some things maybe coming along our way and um you know you want to be ready for it as i said dr mccullough has published widely he was an editor of major

journal he has written the book the courage to face to Face, or co-author, The Courage to Face COVID-19, Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Biopharmaceutical Complex. You can follow Dr. McCullough at petermculloughmd.com, petermculloughmd.com. Twitter is McCulloughMD. And again, his website is as I said. So please welcome Dr. Peter McCullough. Thank you. Welcome, Peter. So I don't even know where to start. Let's start with the new article. Well, do me a favor.

Would you do me a favor? Before we do that, would you run through your pedigree on the journals you published in and what you used to edit? Yeah, I was a former editor-in-chief of Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine for nearly two decades. And then my research focus was the heart and kidneys. So I was the second editor of the journal Cardiorenal Medicine after Dr. James Sowers at University of Missouri. And I authored a textbook chapter in Bronwalt's textbook of cardiology, considered the Bible of cardiology for over 20 years.

And I'm coming up on 700 peer-reviewed papers and listings in the National Library of Medicine. The average professor of medicine would have about 25 or so. So I've been very productive. And average professor of medicine would have about 25 or so. So I've been very productive. And part of academic medicine is to contribute back to the field and through teaching, lecturing, programs like this, but also in the peer review publication space, which is probably the most rigorous of all the things that we do. And yet it seems like, I guess we've had this

conversation over the years, but that whole space has become adulterated. It's hard to believe what's happened to our profession. It's been the weirdest, oddest experience in 2019. Let's just get your thoughts before we dig into your more recent article. You know, what a lot of people don't realize is that publications, the vast majority of peer review publications come from physicians at major academic centers and medical schools. Those centers have publication policies and approval processes. So once we got into the pandemic and there were new rules that were followed for the pandemic, particularly the vaccines, if someone at a medical school, for instance, had a paper questioning the safety of

the vaccines, it would never get approved for that to go out the door to publication. So what we've seen is a heavily biased literature, you know, analyses and conclusions where, in general, the author sprinkles this in several times, saying that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks, and they go on to describe a problem. So we have a very biased literature not giving us really a fair balance on this issue. Yeah, it feels like, I didn't realize there was that layer. I thought it was the editorial choices made by the major journals, which also seem to go only one direction.

I get it. If you're someone who's read the literature 40 years like I have, you're used to the back and forth of positive and negative results and sort of a consensus develops. You can kind of see where it's going. It's never one way. It's just one thing. It's just never that way. No, it's not. And if you were to pick up New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA or Lancet, there's not a single paper that really questions the vaccines. You're right, it's one way. But if you picked statins

or you picked the back surgery or antidepressants, you'd get some sense of balance. I did a Twitter poll, Dr. Drew. You'd be proud of me. I asked a question, would you trust a manuscript that came from vaccinated authors

at an institution that mandated the vaccines on the workers and potentially, you know, the patients and others? You know, would you trust that or would you be suspicious of bias? And the answer was 98 to 2. People are suspicious that these papers now are not trustworthy because how in the world could a doctor who took the vaccines, advised their patients to take it, had their families take it, their institutions mandated, suddenly reverse course and say, wait a minute, there's a question here. Well, you know, it's the mandate part that creates the liability, it seems to me. I mean, as someone who used the vaccine, recommended, worked with my patients on it, I would have no, in fact, I have changed course. I, you know, the further boosting, I'm saying no. And, you know, it's just, it's just part of the evolution there. Where I was working on something the other day where I was thinking to myself,

wow, this is really, we have changed how we manage these problems. I can't think of what it is now, but the changes that happen relatively rapidly as information comes in, both clinically and through the medical literature. But clinical judgment has been expunged from the equation, which is the most horrific idea ever. Usually the medical literature follows physician experience. Usually we kind of know what's going on. And if we have a sense of what's going on, we look to the literature to confirm it or refute it. And if it categorically refutes it, of course we will change our opinion. But if it just seems to go the wrong direction as compared with our clinical experience, we just keep watching. We don't necessarily change what we're doing because, I mean, that's gone now. The electronic medical record and the centralization of authority in medicine,

there's overlords telling you what to do. Clinical judgment, I wonder how people are going to develop clinical judgment. You know, there's certainly great concern that, you know, in medicine, medicine is both an art and a science. And with the pandemic, you know, the rapidly emerging threat and information, initially, it was really all about the art. Who had the best feel of things? Because the data followed. You know, I'm the only public figure who questioned the vaccines before they came out in writing.

I published an op-ed in The Hill. Scott Atlas and I were asked to write op-eds in The Hill the first year. And I wrote an op-ed in August of 2020. And the title of it was The Great Gamble of the COVID-19 Vaccine Development Program. And when you look back and say, listen, who else actually really questioned that? I have that as a marker. And I questioned it because the vaccines were new genetic technology. We didn't know really what they were going to do in the body.

And they were coding for the dangerous part of the virus, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Right. That's the part that bugs me. So let me just, again, back to clinical experience. I've been using the RSV vaccine on my elderly patients where RSV confers significant risks. It was worth the risk of the platform, in my humble opinion. I mean, of course, each physician can make their own decision like that because there should be no mandates. There should be a decision between a patient and a doctor. But in my case, I've been

recommending the RSV vaccine. I have seen zero side effects from that particular vaccine. I cannot say that about the mRNA vaccine that's producing the spike protein. I really think this spike protein is a profound problem. And so let's kind of break down the history. So we know that this platform of the mRNA directed at the spike protein was ready to hand. For some reason, they had a ready-to-hand spike protein directed mRNA platform that was really ready to go that they refined and put out to market. Okay. It was an emergency. I get it.

How they knew that that particular spike protein was going to be an issue, I've just got questions, but okay. Somebody was doing something with gain of function, clearly, but okay. Then now we roll it out, and it was, I think, helpful at the beginning. And now we're way down the line here. And what's clear is the spike is the problem. The spike is pathogenic. There are better immune responses to other proteins that that virus presents, like the nucleocapsid protein, where if you get a vaccine against nucleocapsid, and by the way, natural immunity, high levels of nucleocapsid protein is associated with more rigorous immunity sustained over time. Why are we continuing to demand that people go and use the spike protein brand and not looking at other things like Covaxin or Hovirus vaccines if we really want to get into other things?

Why this one platform, Uber Alice? There was a paper published in British Medical Journal by Lalani, the first author. And what I try to do on interviews, if you notice, I will try to anchor it with the first author. And I found that to be very useful. Yeah, I just testified in Congress on Friday. And I mentioned that. I saw that. Congratulations.

I mentioned that to the panel. And I said, I bet Anthony Fauci didn't cite a single paper. And they just looked at me and shook their heads. No, he could not cite a single source of evidence. But Lalani published that messenger RNA research started 1985 in the United States. The United States government has poured billions of dollars in this. Western countries that it's really been a darling in the biotech space for a very long time. There's a paper by Lee and colleagues summarizing over 9,000 patents on messenger RNA. The big patent holders, most of the individuals are in Europe and they work for these big companies like Sanofi and CureVac, BioNTech.

Actually, the fourth biggest patent holder is the U.S. government. So in 2012, our DARPA, our research unit of the military, had a program called the ADEPT3 pre-program. It's still on their website today. It says we will end pandemics in 60 days using messenger RNA vaccine. So I can tell you, the idea didn't start with Operation Warp Speed. It started a long time because governments have had a love affair with this. The idea of having a genetic code that the body could take and then produce really any protein that one wanted to make is very attractive from a biotech perspective. Yeah, and I understand why they initially had the spike protein ready to hand, but why they can't switch direction and look at

whole virus or nucleocapsid or other things. It's very concerning, especially when we are increasingly clear that the spike is the source of so much of the pathology, both in the brain and in the heart and in the vascular system. It's just, and in the ovaries, there's more and more and more stuff coming in. So you've co-authored an article recently. Tell me about what you discovered. I assisted Anthony Karagoklis, who is a physician in Greece, became aware of a case of a man who was in a kind ofid tumor that was invasive in both the facial and trigeminal nerves. He originally had a Bell's palsy, but it was a very aggressive tumor.

It went right into his face, his maxillary area. I want to slow down and really be careful with our terms. You say there is a picture of the poor gentleman with his presentation. Also, would you put the scan up too, Caleb? Because that's what that scan was of the tumor itself hitting into the sensory and motor nerve of the face, the fifth and seventh cranial nerves. Right. There we go. Is that this one?

Those articles are, yes. And the arrows are pointing towards the tumor there. I don't know if people are used to reading that, but can see that's a pretty pretty large tumor for that area especially uh especially you know days after a presentation with uh paralysis so basaloid that's the first question i want to i want to sort of define is it basaloid in the sense that it looks like its source is the basal layer of the skin, but that it's so anaplastic, it's so aggressive, that you can't really identify it as a basal cell tumor? Well, in this case, that question was asked on the histopathologist,

not connected to the basal layer of the skin. And in this region, a likely source of this was actually the salivary gland. So basaloid, I'm not used to that term. It just happens to look like a basal cell? Go ahead. Yeah. So it has features of this, but it's been described, listen, it can come out of salivary glands. It can come just out of the subcutis, the layer of tissue deep beneath the skin. It's come out of adnexal tumors in the pelvic region. So it's a cell type. Okay.

But the point is, you know, four days after the shot, he starts to have symptoms. It's odd, right? And it makes you, like any of these symptoms, it makes you go, hmm, I wonder. And it's interesting to me, though, that I've seen a marked uptick in cranial nerve palsy, and particularly facial nerve in Bell's palsy, and myself. And how can you miss it? I mean, Justin Bieber had it, and he blamed it on Ramsey Hunt without a rash. No, no, no rash from, from Zoster, from shingles.

And the doctor just said, oh, it must be Ramsey Hunt. It's like, wait a minute. When that happened, I was like, wait a minute. I've seen so much Bell's palsy lately. Why aren't we- Wait, didn't his wife get it too? She had a patent foramen of valley and had a stroke, tiny little stroke. It's a very

different thing. And I mean, whether there's some coagulation issue there and why it showed up when it did, I don't know. But patent foramen ovale is a different thing. But he had clearly just a Bell's palsy that was painful, that's all, which is not uncommon for Bell's palsy to be painful, not in my experience. So it's just, isn't it interesting that that area is sort of in the mix here? Did you make anything of that? Yeah, well, no, I agree. Let's just, for our listeners, distinguish Ramsey-Hunt from Bell's palsy. So Bell's palsy is the seventh of the facial nerve, but it's away from the ear. And so it paralyzes the face.

As you can see in this picture of this man, you lose the crinkles of the forehead. Justin Bieber in this case. So, yeah. Now, Ramsey Hunt has a telltale rash actually in the ear. And it's actually the rash of the reactivation of varicella zoster. Ramsey Hunt has pain in the ear and it's actually the rash of reactivation of varicella zoster uh ramsion has pain in the ear and about 50 of the time it actually involves the auditory nerve as well so it's not just the seventh nerve it's actually the the nerve that is a hearing so there's a problem with hearing and pain and so uh the interesting thing with rsey Hunt, though, is when it spontaneously occurs in older people who have not taken the chickenpox vaccine, about 90% resolve with treatment.

And we use just a simple combination of drugs. So Ramsey Hunt ought to resolve. And about 10% are permanent. Bieber's now, I think, two years into not touring and I presume his face is not back. Ramsey Hunt has been described after COVID-19 vaccination, but as you point out, Bell's palsy is far more common as a facial nerve abnormality. And no rash. One of his interviews, he went, oh, they didn't see a rash, but they still say, look, I'm going to tell you for sure. I deal with a lot of Bell's palsy and it's very

common for it to be painful, particularly the outset. It's just very common. I don't know why, but it's a common thing. And I've seen other things ringing in the ear and stuff like that. Remember the seventh nerve goes through there. And so,. And so they call it Ramsey. Anyway, but the point is, that is one of the things that has been, for sure, has been associated with the vaccine. Now, the other thing I want to define thoroughly is this term that's flying around. By the way, there's a lot of craziness out there these days. I mean, people are going berserk on all sides. So I want to make sure we are really careful in defining our terms and what we're talking about. This term, turbo cancer, which is a term that has shown up lately. What do you imagine people mean when they

talk about turbo cancer? I think people are thinking of rapidly progressive cancer or a reactivation of a cancer that was in remission. Okay. So it's a made-up term. I wondered if they were talking about the fact that people seem to be, and I've not seen this documented, that oncologists were, I'd heard them saying, that young people in particular, by young, we're talking about under 60, when they presented to the oncologist, they tended to have more advanced disease. In other words, stage three, stage four, as opposed to earlier, okay? And so the speculation was a more aggressive tumor, which is why they were showing up with more advanced disease. That still needs to be documented if that's true, right?

There's sort of hints of it here and there, but it's not been well documented. And my fear is they're not looking into it because they're fearful of what they're going to find. What do you think? To be fair, there's this idea of detection bias, too. So, you know, through the pandemic, people got behind on mammograms and colonoscopies and things of this nature. And remember, these are things that are not done with, you know, an intense frequency. So someone, you know, literally could just be two years off on a colonoscopy and then be behind on a colon cancer. You know, I saw a patient today. Correct.

Colon cancer. Absolutely. You know, so that's part of it. The point of this case though, and I wanted to emphasize this, is that he started to have symptoms within four days. Now I can tell you any mechanism of cancer, it just doesn't happen in four days. So what we were almost certainly dealing with is that the cancer was there already, maybe arising from the parotid gland. And the vaccine and the inflammation associated with the vaccine and its predilection for the facial nerve area, trigeminal nerve, it allowed detection of the cancer. And then all the eyes were on it. Oh.

Do you see what I mean? Oh, incredible. Yes. There's a detection bias. There's a paper actually from my former medical center here in Dallas. The same thing is true for breast cancer. So women would get an injection in the arm. There can be some discomfort, swollen left nose. Then there would be a concern potentially. And then there's a drive to investigate breast cancer. And so if it is there, it's more likely to be detected. So part of this is actually what we call detection bias. Which is not a bad thing. That's okay. Well, I'll take it, right? I mean, the problem is though,

and I think the question you're bringing up is whether or not the immunological shifts associated with vaccination are somehow allowing this to grow more rapidly. Is that one of the questions you're asking? Right. So there's a paper that just is fully peer-reviewed now and published. The first author is Anguus. The second author is Bastillo. And there, the title of the paper is The Multi-Hit Hypothesis of Oncogenesis After COVID-19 Vaccination. It's a hypothesis.

But 1984, Sutherland and Baylor published the multi-hit hypothesis of cancer saying, listen, if something causes cancer, it's not going to be by just one mechanism. It's usually multiple mechanism. And how this lays out for the vaccines, particularly the messenger RNA vaccines, is Chinese have shown that the messenger RNA may impair DNA repair within the cell. And that's a way we can defend against cancer. A paper from the University of Pittsburgh by Singh and Singh demonstrated that, using modeling, that the S2 segment of the spike protein, which one does get with the vaccine and does not get with the infection, the S2 segment would likely impair the P53 and BRCA or BRCA tumor suppressor system. So we have some natural tumor suppressor systems. The S2 segment may put a drag on those systems.

And if there's already a loss of function mutation in one of those systems, one could be at risk for cancer progression. Remember, a BRCA mutation is actually a relative loss of function of the BRCA tumor surveillance system. That's for women, breast and female reproductive cancers. The third and final mechanism is what Dr. Joe Ledapo, Surgeon General of Florida, has brought up, is what's called DNA process-related impurities in both Pfizer and Moderna. It has not been shown in Janssen or the other vaccines. And what I mean by that is E. coli is used with a genetic code in a circular piece of DNA called a plasmid,

and the E. coli multiply rapidly so that plasmid has the code for Pfizer and Moderna, but it also has an antibiotic resistance code gene in there, and then something called SV40 or simian virus 40, which has a promoter and enhancer and was called an origin of insertion. SV40 fragments are for sure been identified in Pfizer and Moderna. These are known activators of proto-oncogenes.

And what Ladapo pointed out to the CDC and FDA is that, listen, unlike messenger RNA, DNA actually gets into cells very readily. Naked DNA does. And if these are taken up, if someone has a proto-oncogene, it's theoretically possible that through this mechanism, we could have the initiation of cancer. So I've got a bunch of things I want to get to before we go to break, but one is, what was the name of that biologist from South Carolina who brought this up, was one of the first to sort of present it to his state legislature, and he was doing research on it, and then he just disappeared. It was really odd to me. He just was raising the question. He was

like, this is not, I know, I've detected it. It's not good. There's all sorts of concerns. Do you know what happened to him? No, he's been pretty quiet. He testifies, Dr. Buckhalter, he testified in the Carolina Senate. But remember, David Spiegel from Canada has found it, Kevin McKernan, molecular biologist and a doctor, I believe, Koenig in Germany. So we have four separate labs. Now, there are tolerances. By the way, the FDA has guidance on this. There's tolerances in terms of the quantity of these DNA fragments and the size of the fragments.

And some of the samples exceed these arbitrary tolerances. And then the Spiegler paper, it's the ratio of these fragments to the messenger RNA dose that's related to adverse events. And that's the real concerning thing here is that, you know, at least one study shows it's related to safety. And when Ledapo wrote the FDA, he said, listen, you listen, I want to hear your response. The FDA didn't volunteer to do an inspection, to look into it. They basically brushed him off. And that's when he said, that's enough.

That's the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm going to call for them to be removed. And Joe is somebody I know. He's a very bright man, an excellent doctor. He's just raising questions. We all just want to get it right. We may have differing ideas. We may have stronger opinions on one side of this or another. We're all trying to get this right. That's all, trying to get it right. In order to do so, you must ask questions. That's the way it works. And this has all been such an astonishing experience.

Okay. So I want to just come back, swing back around before the break here. And oh yeah, Dr. Latipo is going to be on the show on January 31st. He'll be back in a couple of weeks

or less than a couple of weeks. The DNA repair mechanisms, Caleb, I'm going to ask you something terribly unfair and you may not be able to deliver on this, but there are a ton of videos out there on DNA repair, just the mechanism of DNA repair, little cartoons about how it works. Your DNA replicates, it produces proteins, but it also replicates, that's how cells divide. And when it replicates, it makes mistakes. It's

spectacularly complicated, replicating DNA. And they have a whole set of machinery that run by and do the repairs. You can have deficiencies in those systems. BRCA is one of those. I think most people have heard of BRCA1 and BRCA2 of breast cancer. I have something called Lynch syndrome, Dr. McCullough. And there are six different types of Lynch, if I remember right. And Lynch is a genetic, my sons have it. It puts me at risk for colon cancers or GI cancers and prostate cancer,

which I have. And if you add something else to make that DNA repair mechanism less efficient or another hit of the DNA repair mechanism, I'm in big trouble. So these are not simple concerns. These are legitimate questions. And Lynch is not that uncommon, nor is Braca that uncommon, nor are 30 other of the more common DNA repair abnormalities and another couple hundred unusual ones. These are common things in the human biology. And so if we impair that further, it's just a terrible thing to even have to think about. And yet no one will ask the questions about it except you. Well, you know, it was probably about a year or two ago, there was a wonderful image demonstrating the spike protein.

Now, remember, we get the spike protein from the infection as well as the vaccine. It was basically, you know, inside cells. A lot of people don't realize this. Most of the spike protein is inside cells and it's attached to red blood cells. But it was inside cells, basically right on the nucleus. So if the University of Pittsburgh paper is right, these DNA repair mechanisms could be impaired by spike protein, almost certainly by the messenger RNA. But products like messenger RNA, Pfizer and Moderna, they fall under the genetic transfer technology regulatory guidance by the FDA. And I mentioned this at my congressional testimony. This calls for a five-year window of safety observation and concern. People have asked me, like, is it over with? They took the shots. I said, no, you know, for genetic products,

it's not over with. We've got about a five-year window. We don't need to be alert. Yeah. And again, the thing we're all sort of questioning now is I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that there was an emergency. They did what they could. It interrupted things. It had some utility for elderly patients for sure, maybe some risk, but in my opinion, worth the risk. But what are we doing now? What are we doing now pushing these things forward?

And particularly to children and pregnant women. And there've been some data recently that Steve Kirsch was pushing out that was very disturbing. I don't know if it's accurate or not, but I can't rely on the medical literature anymore because it's so adulterated and it's very hard to know where to go to get good information. So we're going to take a break and we're going to talk about that.

Oh, look, here's the DNA repair. I don't know if this is what you're talking about. I'm trying. This might show what you're looking for. It's a DNA damage response. The DNA damage is a little different. That's different. The DNA damage is a little different. That's different.

The DNA has to, that's different. That's a damage. Maybe it's about to show. It's the same system that comes, that's damage, right. But it's the same system that comes along and repairs it. No, no, but Caleb, you're nearly there. It's the same system that comes along and repairs it. So it's just that it happens naturally in the course of it. Wait, the animation, now it's showing something repairing.

Maybe it's this, wait. Yeah, it's showing something repairing. Maybe it's this way. Yeah, it's the same system. Yeah, there it is. And it's the same kind of system that's PARP. There we go. And so, yeah, this is a little different. This is going to make a case for a cancer drug, frankly. But it's all the same idea.

All right, let's take a little break. When we come back, we back when we talk about where we get good information. I want to hear more of your thoughts about the DNA contamination, concerns about that, and then Caleb's going to find us a good video. Be right back after this. Ladies and gentlemen, let's make a resolution that's easy to keep and delivers immediately on its promise. With GenuCell Skin Care, you can turn back the clock and look 5, 10, even 15 years younger. And right now, GenuCell skincare is celebrating 2024

with its New Year's sales event. Save over 60% off all of our favorite GenuCell products with one of our customized skincare routine packages. Say goodbye to those fine lines in the forehead and around the corner of your eyes,

sagging jawline, dark marks, skin redness, even under eye bags. Leave them in 2023. GenuCell works for women and men. It's safe for all skin types and perfect for skin of any age. Plus, with its immediate effects, GenuCell promises results that will make you smile, guaranteed or 100% of your money back. Start your new year look off right

with one of our custom GenuCell skincare bundles right now at GenuCell.com slash Drew. Use our special code Drew at checkout for extra savings off your order today. And remember, every order placed is automatically upgraded to free shipping. Don't wait. That is GenuCell.com forward slash Drew,

G-E-N-U-C-E-l dot com slash d-r-e-w. Well, most of my career I've been urging people to kick habits, change habits. Well, this time I'd like to suggest getting into the habit of adding Paleo Valley grass-fed bone broth protein to your daily nutrition regimen. Here's CEO Autumn Smith. It's made from cows with 100% grass-fed and finished and bones. They're bones rather Rather than the hide, most bone broth or collagen powders are made from hides or hooves, but ours is actually made from

the bone. It'll contain additional nutrients. Bone broth is a way to bring back those nutrients, those minerals, and there's glucose aminoglycans, and then there's collagen, which helps us prevent wrinkles and joint pain and actually heals our gut. There's gelatin and there's just all of these ingredients that the modern diet has kind of left by the wayside. Susan and I have been mixing the chocolate-favored bone broth literally into our coffee every morning for months. And we've noticed a difference in our energy, appearance of our hair, skin, nails. Susan's particularly very happy with this. The bioavailable protein also helps us feel satiated. That's the part I'm happy with. Paleo Valley Bone Broth also comes in vanilla and pure

unflavored and can easily be added to your coffee, smoothies, yogurt. Go to drdrew.com slash paleo, P-A-L-E-O, for 15% off your first order. Again, that is drdrew.com slash paleo. We all know the value of a good night's sleep. We feel better, look better, have more energy to spare, but you could be missing out on all of those benefits if you're sleeping on sheets that are too hot or too cold or just plain uncomfortable. I have the solution. Cozy Earth Bedding.

Cozy Earth is the softest and most comfortable sheets, blankets, loungewear, and more. They use premium viscose from highly sustainable bamboo, and we sleep in them regularly. I wear their t-shirts. Susan wears their pajamas. Cozy Earth Bedding comes with a 100-night sleep trial, which means you have up to 100 nights to sleep on them, wash them, try them out. If you're not in love, just return them within 100 days for a full refund. Susan and I love them. In fact, we have Cozy Earth sheets on our bed right now, and they made a huge difference in our sleep. If you've never tried Cozy Earth,

we have some awesome news. You can save up to 35% off Cozy Earth right now. But hurry, this offer will not last. Go to CozyEarth.com, enter my promo code Drew at checkout for up to 35% off on your first order. That is CozyEarth.com, promo code Drew, C-z-y-e-a-r-t-h cozy earth.com code d-r-e-w and we are back with dr peter mccullough whom you know and before we uh bring our guests back susan yelled something to me during the break what did you yell at me i had the bone broth chocolate bone broth before the show no coffee though because i haven't been able to sleep at night doing that so with the. But we love all our sponsors and want to give them a shout out. Well, speaking of that, I want to talk to Dr. McCullough, let's bring Dr. Pellick right back

about being ready for things as they come. That's why you and I like working with the wellness. One of the reasons we like with the wellness company in that they help patients be prepared, get access to things they should freely have access to without a lot of encumbrance. Maybe we should address what readiness looks like. That's a great point. You know, you and I probably can be viewed as being critics or dissidents or what have you. But, you know, from the very beginning, you and I have both been trying to provide solutions and solutions by improved knowledge. I published the first multidrug treatment protocol, which incorporated the Operation Warp Speed drugs as they came along, including Paxlovid, Molnupiravir, the monoclonal antibodies.

But I was trying to bring people an approach on how to treat COVID. The same thing is detoxification after the vaccines. That's basically a proposal, all published in the peer-reviewed literature. Well, this company has kits now. They have a medical kit. It's an aqua blue color. It's a very broad and diverse medical kit. It can handle everything from a urinary tract infection, a fungal infection, a bronchitis,

things that will come up with a guide. If there's any questions, people can, via telemedicine, get their questions answered and get on the right track. But it's basically an at-home formula. For the first time, people, instead of being held captive by an urgent care or by a doctor's office or an ER, they can actually do this themselves at home. Right. You can get these right now, not have to worry about reaching a doctor or spending a fortune

at an urgent care. And as you have now found out during a crisis, things can shut down. It can become very difficult, which is why you want to have things ready to hand. And we are going to have more available through TWC too. We've got a lot of interesting things underway that I think are going to be fantastic in terms of empowering patients to do what they need to do. These things have been around a long time now, so it's simple. People understand these things. They understand how they work. And with a guidebook and backup of telehealth, you can really do a lot on your own

without having to interact with an expensive system. You really don't. It's just, that's my two cents. So- Drdrew.com slash TWC and check out everything they have. See what jumps out at you. Oh, it's odd to me that, by the way, Peter, people go, oh, it's a supplement company. It's like, no, no like no no no yes they have excellent supplements and by the way susan and i take

several of them but but no this is going to be is this is the process of something so so so much more for patients it's true you know they have one wellness which is unlimited telemedicine and supplements some you know patients who have limited insurance or just have that catastrophic version of insurance and they have diabetes, hypertension, they just need to glucose monitoring, drug changes, things of this nature. It's very affordable and can provide a great backstop. I think it's almost essential for people

without healthcare insurance in the United States. A lot of self-employed contractors and others are still in this. They fall in that gap. One Wellness or just membership in the wellness company, getting that access to doctors is key. They also have a great medical education. The nutraceuticals and supplements, telemedicine,

will have actually their first brick and mortar clinic, a dental division. It's really an alternative healthcare approach that people can have as a supplemental. Some use it mainline. The company has done a great job. It's been now around for about a year and a half and steadily growing. Yeah, I've been delighted to be a part of it.

And the supplement world is kind of interesting. For those of you who watched yesterday, we talked to a neurologist from, he was a, he was geneticist and did a lot of work in Alzheimer's and he was a, I forget his name, was he a cardiologist? I forget what his underlying training was, but he was talking about lithium orotate for protection. Some of his Alzheimer's research suggested

that lithium orotate were protecting against a bunch of influences on, particularly the hippocampus. So Susan and I started that today, and I want to get the wellness company into that. So that's how these things happen. Take that for amazon.com, right? That's how these things happen. So let's go back to where to find literature that we can trust. Where do professionals go even? Let's start with that. Forget the average person who must be just terribly confused.

How do professionals navigate the literature these days? Well, you know, we have the National Library of Medicine PubMed, P-U-B-M-E-D. So that is the historical search engine for basically everything from the beginning of peer-reviewed publications. It goes back a considerable distance.

So if you typed in any subject and you typed in review, it would bring in basically a summary paper on a disease topic. So for instance, in preparing for this interview, I reviewed Ramsey-Hunt and Bell's palsy. I assumed you were going to ask me. I reviewed the source of basaloid tumors. Now, that's all through PubMed. Professionals can do that. There's other sources out there, Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic.

They try to, you know, provide resources. There is UpToDate. That's another commonly used resource by physicians up to date to me feels like it's just collated uh materials from what's the major journals are publishing but but mayo i agree mayo is an excellent source for people and then let's talk about uh and and some of the other pubMed, of course, these other things you've mentioned, but in terms of institutions, you can't go wrong with Mayo. Talk about the DNA contamination. What are your concerns about that?

We sort of laid out what the biology is and what the issues are in terms of regulatory tolerance. What do you worry about with this? My single greatest concern is that the US FDA and the manufacturers will not do inspections or issue independent inspections. You know, Tylenol gets inspected, consumer products, foods that we eat get inspected. We're three years into the vaccine campaign, and we don't see inspections for things regarding concerns. And the concerns are the quantity of messenger RNA per vial, because we know the safety events vary according to batch. And now these DNA process-related impurities.

I did see inspections by the FDA in 2022. I did see them. They came through a Freedom of Information Act. And for instance, Moderna, by the way, the companies don't make their own vaccines. They subcontract this out. So for Moderna, it was Catalan. The company Catalan does the final fill and finish. There was an FDA inspection, but it was only for visible impurities. They literally just looked at the vials and told Moderna, we see precipitate in the bottom of the vials. There was nothing complex about these inspections. There's enough concern that our FDA should issue broad inspections.

They are returning many, many vials because people aren't using them. So there's plenty of vaccine available to study to see if there's a quality assurance problem. Well, I remember talking to, was it Sasha Latapova? Caleb, help me out. I think that she was one that raised questions about the way the manufacturing was done in terms of the batch size and whatnot.

And then we had the, I believe she was Danish physician that read that article that showed that early in the pandemic, early in the vaccine distribution, 90% of the adverse events were accounted for on the basis of 10% of the vials on a small batch of vials. And it took her two years to get that published. They wouldn't publish it. That's insanity. And so now this is sort of the next layer of that, whereas they refuse to do the review of the process that

they are charged with doing. Let me do something. Caleb, throw up my survey that I put out yesterday. I just put up a quick survey. Again, Steve Kirsch was all over me yesterday. Please, please put the survey up. So I did it. And when I say asking for a friend, I was quite serious about that. It was for Steve Kirsch. And I got 63,000 responses. It was a simple question. It didn't parse out what kind of reactions people got. It was, did someone, you or someone in your household have an injury from the COVID vaccine? Yes or no. And the third category was no one took it. And Peter, I'm sure you can see this. That 22% seems a little high to me in terms of vaccine resistance. But 17% of 60,000 people had something they called an adverse reaction or an injury from

the vaccine. And it's odd to me. It's really interesting. And many of us had vaccine injuries and don't even think about it. I had a vaccine injury and I had a terrible reaction to the vaccine with a sudden raccoon eye developing and all kinds of things. And I never put myself, there's my eye, I never put myself in the vaccine injured category because it just passed and I was okay in the long run. But it's true, I was vaccine injured category because it just passed and I was okay in the long run. But it's true, I was vaccine injured. And when you ask the question, you get 17%. That means around 20,000 people in that simple sample had something they considered to be a

vaccine injury. If it had been 1% in days of yore, meaning prior to 2019, that would have had a vaccine pulled or at least examined very carefully. And instead, when I got a lot of Twitter, there were a lot of people reporting horrible things, which was sad to see. And then the other side was people saying, somebody adulterated this survey. It's not that high. But 1%, would you agree? Even 1% five years ago would have been enough to get a vaccine, at least pulled temporarily. Right. I mean, you know, American College of Cardiology, for instance, you know, different topic, but considers low, moderate, and high, let's say for side effects with a surgery. Low is less than 1%. Moderate is 1% to 5%.

And high is more than 5%. But high risk for a complication is more than 5%. Let's just take that as a working axiom. We know that the CDC V-safe data, which was the cell phone application that people voluntarily could do to tell them, it reminds them to take a vaccine and they report their side effects. 7.7% of people in the V-safe system, over 10 million Americans, got so sick with the vaccines, they went to urgent care, the ER, or were hospitalized. 7.7%. The Danish paper you cited by Schmeling and colleagues, the number was about 4.2% of vials was accounting for the side effects. And then the neuro COVAX study from Italy, 17,000 people, it's about 30% that had some

neurologic side effect. There was a Zogby survey in the summer of 2022. They settled at about 15% were reporting some problem. So let's take it at face value. It could be serious things in 5%, maybe as much as 15% with side effects. I mean, this is a very toxic vaccine. This is one that people are going to remember for a long time. And so the pushback I'm hearing is, well, COVID would have worse data, okay? Which may or may not be true. There is a third category, which is COVID plus vaccine, maybe the culprit even, I don't even know. How do we sort these three categories out? I've been asking for it for two years and no one has done anything, certainly not prospective,

but I can't see anything that really sorts that out. Could it be that is the COVID really that really answers the question? There's lots of anecdotal stuff and people have opinions about it, but I've not seen one solid study that really teases these three categories out. Well, there's three early papers, Ra, Kramer, Mathudius. They all showed that if one had COVID first, then they took the vaccine, the side effects were much higher. So that was known very early on.

In fact, when those papers came in, said boy uh you know it is really going to be ill-advised to tell somebody who recovered from covid to go ahead and take a vaccine so in 2020 i'm sorry peter i gotta pull that article what were the names again that three authors separate papers raw r-e-w the next one i believe is uh crramer, C-A-R-A-M-M-E-R. And the last one is Mathudius, M-A-T-H-O-U. I should be able to find that. Yeah, you can find them actually on America Out Loud News. I summarized those early on.

So those were key papers. So the question is, in 2020, who got COVID? Now, I know I did. And there's a paper by Daniels and colleagues, very important paper. It was from the NCAA Big Ten athletically. And they were actually looking for myocarditis in 2020, looking for it. And so any athlete who got COVID, they did multiple blood tests and EKGs and cardiac MRIs. Thousands and thousands of individuals. Now,

they came up with about 36 putative cases with some abnormalities, nothing adjudicated, no hospitalizations, no deaths. So we knew from that paper that community COVID was not causing significant myocarditis. But in that paper, the answer was 30% of the athletes and the students got COVID in 2020. When you actually look for it. So I got to tell you, a significant number of young people already had COVID in 2020 before the vaccines. Then the vaccines roll out and the papers predicted, wait a minute, if you already had it and you start taking the vaccine anyway, wait a minute, if you already had it and you start taking the vaccine anyway, you're going to have more complications.

So we have that as a baseline. And then a paper from Germany appeared this year, Diexner and colleagues first offered 48,000 Germans. And it's looking at long COVID. The conclusion was if you had taken a vaccine, long COVID is way worse, not better, way worse. The people who end up the best are those who never took the vaccine and their first episode of COVID is Omicron. Oh, that makes sense. That makes perfect sense to me because the durability of immunity to the actual virus and the multiple antibody responses to the various proteins that

the virus presents clearly have an advantage clearly last longer clearly are more durable in most cases not in all cases but in most cases that's very interesting uh gosh there was something else ringing in my head that uh because my hippocampus has been shrunk by COVID and the vaccine. I can't remember what I was going to say. Maybe it's that new supplement. But let me just add to that, that the natural immunity was so impressive. There's a paper by Chin and colleagues, New England Journal of Medicine, October 2022. U.S. prison system, this is a great study, 59,000 prisoners, 17,000 staff. Once somebody had been through the Delta or Omicron variant and they got another infection later on with another Omicron, zero risk of hospitalization and death. Zero. Right. I've seen data like death. Zero. I've seen data like that.

Yep. I've seen data like that. That keeps coming around. Right. So the point is prisoners are highly motivated to be hospitalized. They want to break from prison. I know this. I've taken care of prisoners before.

And they just couldn't get sick seriously a second time. So when people call me with COVID, and I do have patients with COVID, the first question I ask them is, have you had a well-documented case before? That's the most important question now in risk stratification. It just makes you shake your head. And yet the continued extreme pressure for babies and children and young adults and pregnant women it's just i i i get it for the older population that you know again it's a risk reward that's a totally different diathesis than a 22 year old male but the continued push what what what happened at the cdc is it just that the people in the higher positions of

authority really aren't great clinicians? They're just bureaucrats who are just political appointees pushing agendas? I don't get it. It's mystifying to me. You know, one theory is, unfortunately, it's a sociological theory, but that widespread corruption is set in. You know, Rand Paul sent a letter to Rochelle Lewinsky, who was in charge of the CDC at the time. And Pfizer and Moderna had an installed marketing unit in the vaccine center, Weber-Shandwick. So I was always wondering, why does the CDC push messenger RNA as opposed to adenoviral DNA or the antigen. Right. I still wonder that.

Right. So the marketing, he said, listen, you can't do that. It turns out CDC was paying Weber Shanwick about $50 million for their marketing efforts. So you have that going on. Robert Califf, who's the commissioner of the FDA, somebody who I know personally for a long time in cardiology, he's out there actually promoting vaccines. Now, we can't have an FDA commissioner promote vaccines. The FDA has to be unbiased.

They have to be a watchdog on safety. He's out there tweeting, promoting the vaccines. The FDA cannot be an extension now of the pharmaceutical industry. We've lost our regulatory compass here. I know what I was going to comment on. You were talking about long COVID not being reduced by vaccination. There was a good study out recently that shows the same thing from Paxlovid, that it does not increase or decrease the potential for long COVID.

And that fits my clinical experience. It can sometimes really rapidly resolve the acute infection. There is rebound, period. It's well-documented in some cases. And there is no reduction in long COVID. So it's an interesting medication. I don't think we have anything like that for Molnupiravir. So, Peter, what happened to white lung?

What? Oh, my God. Oh, my God. White lung. White lung was coming. Oh, wait a minute. It's monkeypox. No, wait a minute.

It's disease X. They keep trying to throw. They're just addicted to hysteria is really what it is. They are absolutely addicted to hysteria. really what it is. They are absolutely addicted to hysteria. I don't know why. It must feel good to people to be hysterical. Don't worry, you can get hysterical about politicians and other things. There's plenty to be hysterical about everybody. You don't have to come into our domain. I guess it's time to talk a little more about Disease X. What do you understand about what was going on there, where that came from, what the risks that poses us?

You know, vaccine developers have been talking about disease X for years. Peter Daszak at the EcoHealth Alliance, who had a hand actually in the Wuhan Institute of Virology and with the NIH and Ralph Baric in the whole origins of SARS-CoV-2. He wrote a piece, I believe, in the New York Times in 2018 on disease X. Disease X is not a real disease. It's a concept of can scientists use gain-of-function research and make a serious

disease in the lab and then make a vaccine to it. So it's a strategy. And what Dasik says is we want to get ahead of nature, try to anticipate what nature is going to potentially evolve, and then create this new pathogen in the lab and have the vaccine ready to go. Today, the World Economic Forum actually has a whole session on this about disease X. And what people are really worried about, and by the way, none of these sessions have anything on it about improved biolab safety.

What people are worried about is creation of all these pathogens in these labs and then having another security breach, and then we're off to getting the world sick again. And the disease X that has hit the headlines lately is a, as I understand it, if I remember correctly, a modified coronavirus that affects brains and was shown to kill mice quickly. Is that what I'm hearing? This particular disease X of hand lately? Well, yeah, it was a modification of a coronavirus. And again, back to Peter Daszak,

the EcoHealth Alliance employs dozens and dozens of scientists. They're funded by the U.S. government. He's just been funded again. He's not taking the research projects to Wuhan, but he's going to Duke University in Singapore to work on bat coronaviruses, to actually do more coronavirus research. And we know the gain-of-function research is done outside the United States. It's not banned in the United States. It's just the federal funding for U.S. institutions is banned.

So there's foundation work and independently funded gain-of-function in the United States. And then it's a gain-of-function bonanza outside the United States. And I think, if anything, our world leaders ought to look at gain-of-function research and really ask a question, is this wise to do? We've already gotten the world sick once with this. Is this going to be a repeated problem? Yes, I agree with you i i want to state that restate it and state it out loud which is that somebody ideally in positions of authority uh need to examine this systematically in a large setting with lots of smart people i don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water on one side people are saying it's a crime against humanity that we are doing this

kind of gain-of-function research. On the other, they believe they are actually helping people prevent these pandemics of the future or be able to respond to them. I'm wondering if there's a middle ground. I wonder if I don't know don't know that, in crime against humanity, the folks that say that, I would want to see some motivation that people are actually trying to hurt people. I don't think people are trying to hurt people. I think they have a point of view.

They're forging ahead. There's all kinds of secondary gains that they get. They believe they're doing good. I just don't know if it is worth the risk. Wouldn't you agree with Dr. McCullough? You know, we don't hear about nuclear warheads and missile defense systems anymore. The new normal now is these biolabs, biological threats, and then countermeasures. Countermeasures are vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, and therapeutics.

And this is the new normal. It's a very rich environment now. In our book book we define this biopharmaceutical complex it's this syndicate of these ngos richly funded gates foundation rockefeller foundation welcome trust the who you know they're all they're not elected organizations they're ngos they're funding each other You have the pharmaceutical companies closely tied to them. And the investments are very rich. Remember, if there's another pandemic, the government is buying all the products prepaid.

Can you imagine? You know, a blockbuster drug used to earn a billion dollars in its first year. And the companies would spend half a billion or more in research and development. Now, the vaccines, the new normal is a hundred billion, and the government pays for the research and development. One of the, still the thought, the question marks over my head is why monoclonal antibodies weren't pushed more or why people weren't educated about monoclonal antibodies and and to that same point when i i went out on a bunch of instagram lives when i was sick and i tried to tell people about i had a marked response to monoclonal antibody back

when it was bamlanivimab and uh and i was saying you need to we should be educating people how to respond to covid not to not how to hide from it, how to get well. It was something I know you were very involved with. And the first pushback I got was, oh, you can afford it. It's like, no, it was free. The government had already bought all the monoclonal antibodies, and they will send somebody to your home to do the infusion. The government pays for it. And was it that it was too expensive?

The government was fearful of incurring all that expense, but it was the oddest thing in the world to me. And I understand we had to come up with new monoclonal antibodies as the virus became more responsive, less responsive to them. But why do you think public health, why public health didn't educate about public health? What was going on through all that? It was an epic failure.

You know, I used the monoclonal antibodies probably hundreds of times and consistently safe and effective, pulled people out of it. And as a paper in Medical Economics in 2020, you know, they were all pre-purchased. We had enough monoclonal antibodies to treat every American. And what the FDA did is based on modeling, not based on clinical outcomes, but modeling, they quickly pulled each one off the market saying, oh, the virus changed. This monoclonal antibody can't possibly work. We don't know if they're right or they're wrong. But when the analyses have done retrospectively, they had a massive decrement in mortality.

And the shortcomings were, I had a patient today who got really sick with COVID in 2021. He's a diabetic, obese. He's had strokes. And he goes in and he wants monoclonal antibodies. And they said, you know, your O2 saturation is just too low to get them. And it was modest. Maybe it was, yeah, it was maybe it was 88 or 92. Was he at heart failure and they couldn't handle the fluid? What is going on here? There were protocols saying if the O2 saturation was low or if the patient was going to be an

inpatient, they couldn't get it. And those are the exact people who needed them. So I made the case, Dr. Drew, I made the case that every patient in the ER who was sick enough to go to the ER should have gotten a monoclonal antibody infusion. And you know, there's a paper written on this. It was about 15% of people actually did get the monoclonal antibodies. Once they were admitted, they almost all survived. It's those who didn't get the monoclonal antibodies who passed away. It could have been used as a preventative if there was somebody at high risk in the home with somebody with COVID. It could have been just, it could have taken care of everything, but we were in such a weird hysteria. And I remember, if you remember, this is one of the most disturbing chapters of many bad chapters, was the governor of Florida was doing exactly what we're talking about.

I believe it was when there was a dual-agent monoclonal antibody and had vans that was going out and distributing it throughout the communities. And the government pulled the monoclonal antibodies from the state of Florida. Right. Right. Right? Right. You know, when you think about it- That was criminal action as far as I'm concerned. Now, they claimed they had to distribute them elsewhere. I want evidence of that. That looked criminal to me. Yeah. No, I agree. When you think of it, if I was running the operations, I would have had all the nursing homes with a monoclonal antibody infusion program.

Oh, yeah. Either stock them or rapidly deliver them. The home infusions were great. All the ER patients should have gotten them. They were always safe and effective. There's actually not been a single analysis showing that they failed in any way. And we're talking about outcomes of hospitalization and death. The monoclonal antibodies were a winner.

And there was even this dual combination that can be given as a depot intramuscularly. And they provided protection for about six months that could have protected our immunocompromised and transplant populations. It just was a travesty that they weren't leveraged. So again, this stuff goes by pretty fast. I want to make sure we make notice of this stuff. There was several studies on an oil-based dual agent that was used to prevent COVID in people who are high risk and were even exposed in the household.

Now, as I recall those studies, it was not 100% effective, but it significantly reduced transmission in the home for Now, as I recall those studies, it was not 100% effective, but it would significantly reduce transmission in the home for people at high risk. Yeah, for sure. And I use that in my practice. Yeah. Oh, no kidding. It's therapeutically or as a prophylaxis or both?

As a prophylaxis, it can be used in a dialysis patient and you can get it every six months and it provided wonderful protection. Even if they got it, it was very mild. So the point we're making, Dr. Drew, is not everything from Operation Warp Speed was bad. That wasn't the case. It's just that our public health response couldn't sift through this and get things operationalized and people suffered. Well, you're being kind in sort of saying it that way. They had two or three messages, and they couldn't get off them, and they were the only messages,

and anything else that could help people and save lives, you were literally crushed if you brought them up. It's just, I was, again, there was so many misadventures as this thing rolled along. And my fear is that there are continuing to be. And certainly if our history is any lesson, it's worthy of contemplating that there could be things afoot because they've made huge mistakes in the past.

Let's just try to get this right. That's all we're all trying to do. We're trying to get this right. Dr. McCullough, going forward, are there things you have concerns about? And then we'll kind of wrap this thing up. The greatest concern is that, you know, I just testified in Congress. We had some frank conversations. You know, it was the opinion of Senator Ron Johnson and even others on the congressional side that we don't have enough public will, believe it or not, to pull the vaccines off the market. We certainly don't have the will in Congress. The FDA is not going to do it. There are five congressional oversight panels over the FDA.

They have very loose and powerless oversight, but they can't even muster up the impetus to actually write a letter calling for the vaccines to be pulled off the market. We've got one surgeon general. We have dozens of them across the country. That day, Friday, January 12th, a Rasmussen poll came out. 53% of Americans do think the vaccines are having serious side effects leading to large numbers of deaths, 53%. But that means 47% don't. So the conclusion was we do need more public awareness that these are going to continue to roll. We can't rely on the FDA to safeguard Americans. And there we are. Whatever your concerns are, whichever side of the argument you land, our job is to make the best decision for

each patient that sits in front of us. That's it. To use our best judgment, that's it. That's our job. And no one from on high should be determining what we recommend, but it is important that we all carefully read the literature, carefully try to assess the science and assess the risk reward for the given inpatient in front of us. Dr. McCullough, it's always a privilege to talk to you. And it's always a pleasure to serve with you on the board at the wellness company. And I'll see you on friday morning see you then all right dr peter mccullough everybody get them at petermcculloughmd.com mc mc c u l l o u g h md.com uh caleb did you ever get me that video on dna repair i don't want to necessarily i tried to find it i i found some and then I thought I closed all my tabs

so it's gone now Khan Academy has some good if anybody wants to see it, Khan Academy has a good one just put DNA repair replication so again, DNA replicates itself when you have two complete strands of DNA but there are errors

in it and so there's systems that come in and repair all that there's a system that surveys it for errors or multiple systems, and then a system that comes in and repairs those errors once they're identified. It's crazy, though, DNA. If you understand biology, you're used to hearing these sort of stories about how cells work. It's not like these things have central nervous systems or brain. This is strictly thermodynamics. It's proteins that have folded into a certain way that will, because of the forces of thermodynamics, come in and do this process. Not because somebody has preconceived it. It's the laws of physics and physical chemistry that determine the behavior and it looks like a a um like a conscious organism

you know it looks like something something uh that that's you know is doing its thing in a thoughtful way but this is just the laws of physics operating in chemistry susan you're leaning in what what do you think interesting it's interesting right and when you see when you use your hands to talk okay where I strike back. What do we got coming up here, Caleb? Let's see what's happening. We have, yeah, Royce Weiss tomorrow running for Senate. Got a heck of a story.

And we're going to bring Paul Alexander back. There was some weird vaccine stuff swirling around a couple days, I guess yesterday, and we want to get everything straightened out. Jim Brewer, Joe Latipo, as we said. Roseanne coming up February 7th, and hopefully you'll be here with us. Do sign up at our Rumble page. We love having more subscribers there, if you don't mind.

And do check out the page for our sponsors. What is it, Susan? DrDrew.com slash sponsors. You can get all the codes and all our great sponsors. Yeah, a lot of good

discount codes there. Yeah. So I was thinking about something too that people don't really think about. You know how we're all worried about climate change, right? And it's really cold. It seems really cold everywhere.

But I was thinking about bombs. When bombs go off and things catch on fire, that causes a layer of smoke around the universe, right? That cools the earth off. Yes, but it also releases more carbon in the atmosphere. So it's, I don't know. I don't know enough about climate sciences to do that math. I took a class at UCLA and I remember something about that. Volcanoes make it better. Volcanoes.

Well, it makes everything worse. So why don't we just tell everybody to stop burning down each other's countries? Ooh, there you go, stop wars. But I would tell you- I mean, they want us to stop lighting our fireplace with wood. Here's the thing right now. If it snows more than usual, people go global climate change. If it snows less than usual, they go it's global warming. If it snows less than usual, they go, it's global warming. If it snows the usual amount, they go, that's suspicious. So there we are. That is hysteria. That's not thinking. That's hysteria. So don't fall victim to that thinking. Weather changes. I'm not making a comment on climate change. I'm just saying because it's cold and snowy where you are,

doesn't mean a thing. It means it's cold and snowy where you are doesn't mean a thing it means it's cold and snowy where you are and that's that and uh we have lots of variability in weather on a regional basis that can't be translated to a global conclusion not saying anything about global climate change what do you got there oh it's just just comparing the annual co2 emissions of the united states compared to just china yeah i know i know other countries are making china definitely getting it worse china always has to get the last word all right everybody i do not want to get into this topic so we will we will leave it be and uh tomorrow do check in we'll be here at three o'clock Pacific time. Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky.

As a reminder, the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment. This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only. I am a licensed physician, but I am not a replacement for your personal doctor. And I am not practicing medicine here. Always remember that our understanding of medicine and science is constantly evolving.

Though my opinion is based on the information that is available to me today, some of the contents of this show could be outdated in the future. Be sure to check with trusted resources in case any of the information has been updated since this was published. If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, don't call me call 9-1-1 if you're feeling hopeless or suicidal call the national suicide prevention lifeline at 800-273-8255 you can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at drdrew.com help