Ask Dr. Drew - Dr. Vladimir Zelenko & Steve Kirsch Discuss COVID-19, Dr. Fauci, Vaccines & More - Ask Dr. Drew - Episode 37

Episode Date: June 28, 2021

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko & Steve Kirsch join Ask Dr. Drew to discuss COVID-19, vaccines, Dr. Fauci, coronavirus origin theories, and more. [Originally broadcast on 6/9/2021] Dr. Zelenko explores the latest studies on hydroxychloroquine and its potential use in treatment of COVID-19 symptoms, despite the efforts of social media platforms to restrict discussion of HCQ and other widely available medications like ivermectin. Steve Kirsch -- a tech entrepreneur who founded multiple billion-dollar companies and is an inventor of the optical mouse -- has become an outspoken critic of Dr. Fauci and the United States' response to the coronavirus pandemic. Kirsch recently appeared with Bret Weinstein and Dr. Robert Malone to speak out on his research into the potential dangers of spike proteins. Steve Kirsch believes that repurposed drugs and early treatment are the fastest and easiest ways to end the pandemic, but fears that the financial priorities of pharma companies are blocking research and discussion of any alternatives to their vaccines. Dr. Zelenko, who received medical degrees from the University at Buffalo School Of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences and has practiced medicine for over 20 years, was even banned from Twitter for discussing his methods, despite seeing great success in patients who follow his treatment protocol. Dr. Drew mentions a recent Merck deal for an existing Ebola / HIV drug that can be repurposed as an mRNA vaccine for flu-like illnesses, and discusses other potential treatments for COVID-19 long haulers. Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation ( https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/FirstLadyOfLove). THE SHOW: For over 30 years, Dr. Drew Pinsky has taken calls from all corners of the globe, answering thousands of questions from teens and young adults. To millions, he is a beacon of truth, integrity, fairness, and common sense. Now, after decades of hosting Loveline and multiple hit TV shows – including Celebrity Rehab, Teen Mom OG, Lifechangers, and more – Dr. Drew is opening his phone lines to the world by streaming LIVE from his home studio in California. On Ask Dr. Drew, no question is too extreme or embarrassing because the Dr. has heard it all. Don’t hold in your deepest, darkest questions any longer. Ask Dr. Drew and get real answers today. This show is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. All information exchanged during participation in this program, including interactions with DrDrew.com and any affiliated websites, are intended for educational and/or entertainment purposes only. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

BetMGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long. From tip-off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with the sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with BetMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM. 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. Our laws as it pertains to substances are draconian and bizarre. Psychopaths start this way. He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction. Fentanyl and heroin, ridiculous. I'm a doctor for.

Say, where the hell you think I learned that? I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people. I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat. You have trouble, you can't stop and you want help stopping, I can help. Thank you so much for joining us. We are gathering on Clubhouse.

I see the audience there as well. And those of you on Clubhouse who raise your hand, I'll bring you up to the microphone. Just look at the New England Journal of Medicine pre-print. Actually, it's the active print right now. June 10th, New England Journal, SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced thrombocytopenic, thrombocytopenic purpura. Actually, thrombotic thrombocytopenia. They now have a good mechanism in place for this, which is the platelet factor 4.

So antibodies against platelet factor 4, PF4, have been thought about as a main mechanism in inducing some of the clotting problems we're seeing, probably with COVID and with the vaccine as well. So there we do. We have the mechanism, and it's not an easy thing to treat. It's something that's very, very difficult to treat. Yes, I see you all on the live chat on Restream as well. Clearly, I'm going to be tongue-tied today for some reason, so I apologize for that.

I'm seeing you guys. Andrew Ashkazvili is first to the deck here and he says it's hot as F in Texas today, so that's important information. Thank you, Andrew. And what else did he say? I'm sure it's free. Yeah, free Zelenko. That's always what he opens with. He opens every chat with free Zelenko. And luckily, we might be able to do that. All right.

Fair enough. So we're going to be taking your questions from the clubhouse. And I think I'm going to start with that. If that is a thing that people are up for platelet factor for everybody, it's a treacherous little mechanism. That's going to be difficult to treat. That's for sure. Um, look at your guys, uh, restream comments here while we wait for somebody to come up. I've got more hands up here.

Oh, we, uh, actually have, well, we have a special guest in here. for somebody to come up. I've got more hands up here. Oh, we actually have a special guest in here. Let me bring him up. We have a couple of interesting people ready to... Dr. Zeb Zelenko, thank you for joining us. Hi, Dr. Drew. How are you? Where are you?

I'm in Florida. I moved down from New York next to Boca. Your cancer treatment, how's that going? It's going well. I feel really well. I need to do a PET scan soon to make sure that everything's fine. But I feel great, and I've had some ups and downs. Actually, I don't know if you know, I got COVID not too long ago, a few months ago. As a side effect of chemo, my bone marrow got suppressed, and I had almost no white count, and then I got very sick. I ended up with my one lung having pneumonia on both lobes, and that was a very unpleasant experience.

I'm certain. You're somebody that's been through a removal of a pulmonary valve sarcoma, and this was a bad experience compared to that. Yeah, I got a new respect for this virus. I have to tell you, it just knocks life out of you. And fortunately, I was taking prophylaxis before, and I had very competent care.

But even with all that, my oxygen level was in its low 80s on 10 liters of oxygen. So I was about to get intubated, actually. But fortunately, with the steroids and the pulmonary, I did a lot of pulmonary rehab and sent a spirometry in but you know what really helped me I was also very sick too not like that but I was actually interacting with you when you were sick and I will tell you as one of the features of COVID

is it knocks your memory down pretty good and so I understand if you don't remember those interactions I remember how out of it I was when I was sick what's your name again? right exactly don't, the long hauler stuff will wax and wane and give you questions like that yet months ahead from now. But did you get monoclonal antibiotics? Does that really help me? I did. Yeah, I actually got it at home. I was able to arrange Regeneron at home. Right.

And that was, again, it was very powerful, very effective. But with my situation, being on chemo and immunosuppressed and one lung, I think that it's an absolute miracle that I lived. And, you know, I think you understand the mortality rate it could have been. So I'm pretty happy with the outcome. I'm talking to you right now. Are you all back? I moved to Florida. Long hauler symptoms? Any long hauler stuff? No, I don't feel that.

It took me around six, five weeks to be able to regain my stamina. I was on oxygen for three weeks after discharge. And then slowly and slowly, like last week, I walked four miles. Yeah, so I'm getting back to my sleep. Well, we are glad you are well. You must have seen the study today on intubated patients on the use, I forget where it was published right now, but it was, it's not a major journal, but it was an interesting study on hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on intubated patients on the use, I forget where it was published right now, but it was, it's not a major journal, but it was an interesting study on hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on intubated patients showing a 200% improvement in survival. Did you see that study? Yeah, of course. And I actually saw it not as a study, but firsthand experience last year with

my patients, mostly in the pre-hospital setting and in the context of getting them better before they needed to go to the hospital. But even in the hospitalized patients, especially in Lenox Hill Hospital, I had colleagues that were ahead of the curve, and they were using this approach, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, they were using zinc and steroids. And these patients were, even in, let's say, March of last year, where the other hospitals like NYU and Maimonides, Mount Sinai, were having death rates of over 80%, we were seeing in the ICU at Lenox less than 30%. So I knew right away that this stuff works. You have to be aggressive. You have to be, it's much better not to get into the hospital.

It's much better to treat early in the pre-hospital setting, obviously. But I knew this stuff works. And when the vilification and the false narrative started and the academic fraud, it became very clear to me that there was a organized effort to suppress pre-hospital treatment in lieu of hospitalized treatment and the vaccination approach. And that probably, in my opinion, led to the death of, let's say, over 500,000 unnecessary Americans. Now, the academic part, I've seen Dr. McCullough from Texas talking a little bit about this. Again, I'm somewhat, I'm a sideline observer. I don't have a strong opinion on this story, but I do believe the story needs to be examined. He was talking about

malfeasance, academic malfeasance. Is that what you're talking about? And if so, what was that? What was happening? Sure. So he's actually a mentor of mine. He testified in the Senate hearing on Homeland Security, and he credited my work as the basis for his. But I learned a lot from him. He is probably the most honest academic physician I've ever come across. So what we're referring to is the following. It's very simple. In April of last

year, the VA published a study from Virginia that hydroxychloroquine killed people in the ICU setting. Well, maybe that was true, but they forgot to mention that those patients were on a ventilator already for 17 days. They didn't use azithromycin. They didn't use zinc. And so the conclusion was it didn't work in that setting. And I agree with that. However, what they did was they extrapolated to the pre-hospital setting and concluded that this hydroxychloroquine approach would not work in the early stages of the disease. That's the nefarious component. Because how can you make a conclusion and derive a potential clinical treatment or lack of treatment from

end-stage disease to the beginning stages. Completely not honest. Then there was the recovery trial sponsored by Oxford, and they concluded that hydroxychloroquine killed people. That was also true, but the one thing they forgot to mention uh is that they used uh homicidal lethal dosing for example i was advocating for 400 milligrams a day of hydroxychloroquine they were using 2 400 milligrams a day that's crazy there's enough to kill an elephant they had a mortality rate of 25 percent wow so all that study proved was that if you poison someone with homicidal lethal dosing, they're going to die. Well, I could have told them that.

It wasn't a hydroxychloroquine thing. It was murder. That's what it was. And then the best study was the Lancet study that published data from Surgisphere, which was a meta-analysis of 96,000 patients. It was also printed in the New England Journal of Medicine, the two top journals in the world, right? And they concluded that hydroxychloroquine kills people. The only problem with that study, it was based on data that didn't exist. It was completely fraudulent. And it was the biggest scandal in the history of peer-reviewed journals.

And The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine had to retract that study. Now, the damage had been done already because the WHO put a global moratorium on research using hydroxychloroquine in treatment because of this study. Now, after it was retracted, they didn't make any adjustments or noise about that. And here's really what hurts the most the fda revoked the emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine and they use as the basis for for revoking the emergency authorization the study from lancet the fraudulent study but after it was already retracted now can you explain that to me basically it, it's worth a toilet. Well, that's why Dr. Mercola seemed to imply malfeasance,

which is awareness of lying. Yeah, but what was the malfeasance? It seems to me to suggest a motivation. And I don't understand the motivation. I don't get it. Were they just in such... Have we been through such a period of hysteria that literally physicians and academic physicians

became histrionically preoccupied to the point where their medical and clinical and academic judgment was so profoundly impaired that they couldn't see what they were doing? Or were they motivated by something more sinister? And I can't imagine what that really would be. Well, I'll explain it to you. It's very simple.

I got my hands on internal FDA documents that give the criteria, checking forward to you, by the way, the criteria for how a drug or therapeutic can get an emergency authorization. Now, emergency authorization is a goldmine because it circumvents the usual 10-year process to bring a drug to market and all the expenses associated with that. So under emergency situations like a global pandemic, the FDA has a mechanism in place that allows to go straight from development to human use because there's no other option. That's the key. There has to be no other therapeutic available and only that's one of the criteria

to get an emergency authorization. So here's the problem. If a 20 cent a pill drug, a hydroxychloroquine was proven to be effective, which it was, and now that data is coming out, it's obvious to everyone that it's effective. So that meant that other therapeutics, like, let's say, remdesivir or vaccinations, would not be eligible to get an emergency authorization. So look, if you look at the timeline very carefully, the emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine was revoked. And four weeks later, remdesivir got an emergency use authorization. And what was the basis for remdesivir's emergency authorization was one study. There were three studies, but only one

showed a reduction in the hospital length stay by a third, from 15 days to 10 days. Not that I'm knocking that, that's fine, but they didn't show any survival benefit. And based on that, the remdesivir got an emergency authorization. One thing I have to tell you, if anyone looks at the package insert at remdesivir, 6% of the patients that use it get AFib, 23% get liver dysfunction, 15% get kidney dysfunction. Again, in certain settings, I do advocate for its use. But to revoke a known, cheap, safe, effective drug in the pre-hospital setting, which has proven to reduce hospitalization in the right context in high-risk patients by 85% in lieu of an inpatient therapeutic that has no survival benefit except decrease in length of stay, that's a little nefarious to me.

Well, let me, I get the associative links, the narrative you're following, but here's where it breaks down for me. If those academics that rushed not only lied about the data, what was the name of the company again? It was actually like a political polling. What was it? Surgisphere? Yeah.

Yeah. That would mean that Gilead would have had to have influenced not just the Surgisphere, let's call them what they were, nut jobs that rushed the data to publication, but also the peers that reviewed it and the publishers of both the Lancet and the New England Journal, that Gilead would have to have had its fingers in all of that to motivate this scandal. But I can't imagine how that could have happened.

Well, we have to be a little bit more imaginative, I have to say. But I have to tell you, for example, I got put into Facebook jail two days ago for what? But I put a link to a virology journal article in 2005 that showed, authors were from the CDC, that chloroquine has incredible therapeutic effects against SARS and prophylactic efficacy. And I was thrown into Facebook jail for 30 days for putting that article up. Now, this is a published peer-reviewed journal from 2005. Could you tell me why Facebook would throw me off? Well, I've been, what have we been jailed from, Susan?

We've been jailed from YouTubean we've been jailed from youtube and uh they what they send you and our algorithms are all screwed up if you had an experience that i had they send you they go you violated our policies or whatever they call them and here they are and so i read them all carefully and i the only thing i could find that i got near violating was you were in their policies. You're not allowed to discuss immunity from SARS-CoV-2. And I discussed it. I discussed my actual objective immune profile against as a survivor of COVID. That's the only thing I could find that might have been the thing that put me in jail. And they wouldn't tell you how to appeal, what to appeal to

or when you're coming out. It's just all of a sudden you're out again. Right. And YouTube does the same thing. And Twitter completely deplatformed me because I, what did I say? I wished the president a recovery. And I advised him to, when he got diagnosed with COVID, I advised him to start early pre-hospital treatment. That's all I said. And I was deplatformed from Facebook.

I had my tweets were getting 10 million impressions. So you have to realize that there's a coordinated, at least in the social media world, coordinated attempt to suppress discussion and different opinions about treatment approaches. It makes you raise your eyebrows and say, why is that? It's one of the most bizarre experiences. I've been in practicing medicine since 1984, been in training since the early 80s, and

it's just one of the most bizarre experiences I ever had. I feel like I'm through the looking glass. But this is the medical side. I've got someone who just stepped up to the platform here to speak, our buddy Steve Kirsch, who knows very well the social media side. Steve, did you hear the conversation we're having here? I have, yes. And so Zev and I were shaking our head like, what are their policies?

What are they doing? Why are they doing this? Is there motivation behind this? Is there some intent? What is going on? Why are they doing this? Is there motivation behind this? Is there some intent? What is going on? Well, they're clueless, right? They look at the WHO and NIH guideline and believe that that is true. And so it's evidence-based medicine in reverse.

Evidence-based medicine says the least trustworthy source are the expert opinions. So what do YouTube and Facebook, they use the least trustworthy source, which is the expert opinion of the NIH. And did you drop this? The level. And I have proved to them that with my $2 million offer, that the NIH is absolutely

full of shit. And that, I can say that here, right? Yes. Welcome to Express Your Opinion. Listen, my goal, I have realized that, you know, both you guys know that I'm sort of agnostic and I'm just interested in conversing about these things and trying to arrive at the truth as best we all can. But I realized my other role is to give people a place to speak who have been silenced, who have something to say. Yeah. Well, you know, I can't go into a room with these docs, these COVID docs who are saying that ivermectin doesn't work and hydroxychloroquine doesn't work. Because as soon as I talk, they say, well, you know, thank you very much. And, you know, this has been disparate, you know, and they cut you off. So it's nice to be able to actually

talk about this stuff. So it turns out that ivermectin, there was a, everybody knows about the BIRD panel, the systematic review. So it turns out that systematic reviews and meta-analysis are the top of the evidence-based pyramid. And when you have something that has passed peer-reviewed and is about to be published in a journal, then that is the highest level of evidence in evidence-based medicine. So if you play by their rules, this trumps everything. So I wrote to YouTube, to my contact at YouTube, who's in charge of health and safety. I said, look, you need to remove ivermectin. I'll do hydroxychloroquine, by the way, later, but I just want to do one at a

time. And I said, look, you need to remove the ban on ivermectin from your policies immediately. You should also apologize to the American public for all the deaths. And I mean, untold deaths because you have suppressed that information. You need to restore these videos for ivermectin as soon as possible, all these videos. And I told them this vaccine that we have is dangerous. It is killing people. It is killing massive numbers of people. It is a thousand times more deadly than the flu vaccine. I'm getting like 3% of people who say this thing, I am still suffering. And it is really debilitating from this vaccine. And I said, so you need to add to your policy that anybody who says that the current vaccines

are safe and effective, those videos need to be banned. And I said, you need to do this immediately or you are jeopardizing lives. And you know what they said back? No, I'm listening. What did they say back? Nothing. Nothing. And I went to Anna Eshoo's office. And when I, when I said this, you know, same stuff, you know, I had to go back and go up level. And then I got a response back, which is almost like a form letter saying, hey, we're responding to your questions. And I'm getting the narrative. The vaccine is safe. There's said that they've analyzed the various data and they found no excess stuff. This is all bullshit. You know, let me chime in here. I'm going to say something.

In my opinion, the vaccine has killed between 300,000 and 500,000 Americans already. And I can justify what I'm saying. How? Because according to the VAERS database themselves, they're admitting to 5,000 deaths. Correct. In 2009, Harvard study showed that only 1% of actual adverse events are actually reported. Right. I don't know if it's 1% or 10%, but it's definitely- Well, I'm going to call that analysis out because if we had 500,000 new deaths in the last six months, that would have showed up in the excess death camp.

I'm getting there. All right. And also, there have been around 2,000 people that I know directly, whether physicians or family members of people that have lost relatives to the vaccine within two weeks of getting the vaccine, who attempted to make a VAERS report, and their reports were rejected due to technicalities. They were not able to actually report this stuff. But guys, it doesn't prove it.

It doesn't prove it. You have to show that that's just us. Senator Ron Johnson, I'm in contact with him, is planning to, he is currently actively looking into the underreporting issue in this country. Let me just say, this is a more dangerous vaccine than the flu vaccine. Check. I don't think anybody would argue with you on that. The VAERS reporting is not great.

Check. I don't think anybody would dispute just that general statement. What needs to be assessed is two things, it seems to me. One is, given that it's a more dangerous vaccine, what really is the given risk reward ratio for a given individual to take or not take the vaccine? And what is the risk to the population of large by people sitting on the sideline and not taking the vaccine? In other words, there's two considerations. One is the individual risk benefit.

The other is many thousands of people not taking it, creating the potential for a reservoir of replication that could be a source of a variant that comes back in and sweeps across the land. Those are two concerns. And let me just finish with one last thing. Part of that diathesis is being honest about the data and age-related risk factors so that people can make what's called informed consent. Informed consent is not being provided, unfortunately. And that's a major, major, major, major concern of mine.

Oh, yeah. No, it's illegal. We're experimenting on human subjects. It is illegal. You guys jump to extremes. I'm just saying to have informed consent, you have to have the informed part. You have to have the information. And we have distorted the risk. So people literally believe their risk of dying is 50% when it may be less than 1%.

And we have obscured, maybe not intentionally, but the VAERS data is somewhat obscured. So on two fronts, people are not making informed consent. I say take the vaccine, but I don't say obfuscate informed consent. Make sure you give informed consent. And that, I think, everybody could agree on is a major, major problem. Well, let's go through informed consent from that perspective of medical necessity. Just because I have accessibility doesn't mean I necessarily have to use it. Let's go through informed consent from that perspective of medical necessity. Just because I have a disability doesn't mean I necessarily have to use it. Like a surgeon who operates on every patient that comes in is a butcher.

It's not a doctor. So you need to have medical judgment, medical necessity before we do something. Yes. Right? Yeah. That's the category I was telling you. You need to have age-related risk assessment that's realistic, and you have to have proper risk of vaccine per given individual. And the risk to the population.

Let's go through it in a very systematic, intelligent way. If you look at the data from the CDC, anyone who's 45 years or younger and healthy has a 99.95% chance of recovery from COVID with no treatment. That's CDC data, not my data. The number is much higher even for 18 and younger and healthy. It's 99.998. That's as close to 100 as any condition will ever get to. So here's my question. Why would I vaccinate someone with an unapproved mRNA gene code that we are not fully yet aware of the safety and efficacy profiles into a population that has a near 100% chance of recovery with no treatment? You'd only do that if you're nuts.

And it's worse than that. It's worse than that, Zeb, because we actually know it is very, very harmful. That's the second part. I'm going to get to that. The vaccine is harmful? Is that what you're saying? Oh, absolutely. Okay, but Steve, you guys can't.

You're comparing apples and oranges. You can't just look at the morbidity data, the mortality data, and not the morbidity data, and then bring up the morbidity data of the vaccine. You have to compare morbidity versus morbidity. And morbidity of this virus, the actual illness, is pretty bad. I'm here to tell you. It's about probably one, yeah, it's like a thousand times more deadly than the influenza vaccine. Yes. Again, you're jumping to other data.

But the morbidity of SARS-CoV-2 is maybe 10% to 20%, even in that under 45-year-old age group. And we don't know fully the impact of that morbidity yet even though it's not mortality it is morbidity zeb it's a very complicated issues i just want to go through it systematically and not confuse things because um i'm looking strictly medical necessity all right but i'm going to even assume that the vaccine is completely safe and efficacious okay but let's look at medical necessity. Yes. Now, look at the demographic of people that already had COVID. Yes.

There's plenty of studies now coming out that the natural antibodies that are developed through your immune response are much more effective in preventing other future strains of COVID than the antibodies generated by... Not just the antibodies, but also the cellular immunity, the T-cell, B-cell reservoir. That seems to be a true statement. So why would I vaccinate someone who already has antibodies and make more antibodies? Because that would be called an unnecessary medical procedure. That'd be the same thing as taking out somebody's appendix when they didn't have appendicitis. Okay, fine. The third question is a little more delicate, but I would say the following. There's a high-risk category of patients, let's say over the age of 45 or those with medical problems. Let's quantify high risk in this country, 7.5% mortality. That means out of 1,000 patients, 75 will die if left untreated. Now, with proper pre-hospital treatment, what I'm about to say has been reproduced by dozens of studies from around the world. And I'm not even talking about hydroxychloroquine.

I'm just talking about high-risk patients receiving early intervention within the first few days of symptoms. The data shows an 85% reduction in mortality and hospitalization. So we can reduce the death rate, strictly mortality, from 7.5% to less than a half a percent. So even in the high-risk population, there is an approach that I can advocate for and make an argument that we don't really need the vaccination, that it's not medically necessary. And Zev, that is what has been driving Steve to distraction, that it's not medically necessary. And Zev, that is what has been driving Steve to distraction, that you're zeroing in.

Am I getting that right, Steve? That's the thing that really troubles you. Oh, yeah. I mean, look, the early treatments are far safer, cheaper, and more effective, and can be rolled out instantly versus vaccination. I mean, it's not even close. I mean, it's at least an order of magnitude better than the vaccine.

Well, you're about to have, though, Merck just made a deal today. You guys read about this? This is an Ebola HIV drug that's being repurposed as an RNA virus vaccine for the flu-like illnesses. And I've been watching that data. It looks amazing. And $1.2 billion of that was bought today, I believe, to be rolled out as an early treatment for COVID. Now, what scares me is they're going to require a positive test or something. And this is an intervention that must be used in the first three to five days. I didn't convert until the fifth day. So God, even this is going to have controversy attached to it, but this is going to, it's going to change everything on the conversation

of early treatment, because now people are going to be looking at a protocol of early treatment of which this antiviral is sort of going to be the ultimate intervention. You guys familiar with what I'm talking about? I am. And I actually, I'm just going to tell you that there is a new technology coming out that will give you ultra precise, quantitative, real time viral load data for COVID-19, which can be used to guide treatment on not clinical grounds, but rather objective data. In other words, you don't have to guess. That's great. We're going to be able to follow viral loads and adjust treatment based on that.

That's great. That's a big deal. That's an amazing thing. Again, I'm a little surprised these things are taking as long as they are to roll out, but I don't know. Something seems a little slower than it had been. But Steve, let me go back to you. Are you getting – I still don't know that I understand what the people on social media are thinking other than they are – you could use the word clueless.

I would call that kind. A, and B, are you making any progress? I mean, and those of you who don't know, Steve has been very active on the fluvoxamine research. Fluvoxamine pulled me out of my long hauler syndrome. It's clearly a useful drug in early treatment as well. Steve, I'll ask those questions of you. Yeah. so I'm going to be on Brett Weinstein's podcast, the Dark Horse podcast tomorrow. It'll be like 9 a.m., 10 a.m. Pacific time. And so Pierre was on like a week ago.

Pierre Corey. Pierre Corey, yeah. And so I'm going to do the takedown, and I'm going to embarrass the NIH, the CDC, Congress. I mean, these guys are all asleep at the wheel. I don't know how Anthony Fauci is still in his job. You know, after all that's come out, I mean, there is like, I mean, Fauci is the most obvious thing in the whole picture. I mean, this guy single-handedly enabled SARS-CoV-2 to exist, and it was an accident that it got released from the lab, but Fauci tried to cover up his tracks,

and he got caught. And this is like, you know, that people aren't harping on this and bringing these guys in front of Congress. I mean, that is unbelievable to me. And that they've been ignoring the fluvoxamine data and the ivermectin data. And I put out $2 million to anybody in the world who could defend these guys. And there were no takers. And I've gone on Clubhouse and I've said to the Clubhouse moderators, hey, you know, like challenge me, I will take on anybody one-on-one into a debate and let's do a live debate on Zoom and let's record it and I will tear you to shreds. And I don't, you know, I will debate anybody from the NIH, the CDC, the, you know, you name it, WHO. I mean, those guys are the worst. You know,

when I talked to them about early treatment, they told me, stop emailing us. When I told them fluvoxamine should at least be on your list of drugs, they said, no, we're not interested. I said, you should have an early treatment protocol where you're doing early treatments, not just these hospitalization trials. And they said, no, not interested. I mean, the W and there are these guys, this Gavi alliance who are taking their two point four billion dollars and running anti ivermectin ads all over the world. You know, and these guys are doing like they're not saving lives or killing people. And and and all these people are donating billions of dollars to, to these

companies. It is on fucking believable. So Steve, do me a favor. So, so Zev and I are internists, primary care practitioners been out in the world, practicing medicine for a long time. Who is Steve Kirsch? What's your pedigree? How did you get involved in this? Oh, um, yeah, I'm a serial entrepreneur, a high-tech entrepreneur. I've started seven high-tech companies, $2 billion market cap companies, InfoSeek, Frame Technology. And I was just minding my own business when this pandemic came along and closed my business. And my wife was making masks, and she said, so what are you doing? So I talked to my wife, so I talked to my medical friends and they said, look, repurposed drugs and early treatment is the fastest, easiest, cheapest way to end the pandemic. You probably, you know, do it for like 20 million bucks. So I went out and tried to raise some money. I put in a million dollars of my own money and then tried to raise money and found out nobody in Silicon Valley would donate to me. None of the

corporations in Silicon Valley would donate. No government None of the corporations in Silicon Valley would donate. No government would donate. You know, they were all like focused on the vaccine and telling me to go away. But, you know, I persisted and we ended up funding the fluvoxamine trial. So the phase two trial we funded had 100% success rate. David Seftel then replicated that 100% effect size in his trial, where 77 patients, which included eight crossover patients, had a 0% hospitalization rate and a 0% long hauler rate, while the no treatment group had 12.5% hospitalization rate. One person ended up dead. And 60% had long-haul COVID. So when you

look at 0% having long-haul COVID versus 60% in the other group, that is a p-value of 10 to the minus 14, which is 10 orders of magnitude greater than what the p-value is for the vaccine. So I have something that is proven to work that nobody can explain how it doesn't work. And I have an NIH which puts on the fluvoxamine. We'll give it a neutral. And oh, that quasi randomized trial, it wasn't fully randomized. And I'm going like, these guys are full of shit because they don't understand that in a quasi randomized trial, the sick people opted for the drug. Right? So it's better than randomized. And so it is I am, I'm living. I get that. You're immobilized. Can I chime in here? Sure. I believe

in empowering the American public and the world public with information that can save their lives. Because we can debate all day, but people need practical solutions. And in April of last year, Cuomo made an executive order to ban access to my patients for hydroxychloroquine.

And the mechanism of action of hydroxychloroquine is a zinc ionophore. So that's basically to get zinc into the cell. So I was looking for other options. You know, there's a saying, you don't go to war with army you wish you had, go to war with army you do have. They took away access to hydroxychloroquine, so I needed to find another option.

And I didn't know, so I started Googling, I started looking at trials, and I found an NIH trial that said that quercetin, and I think I told you, Drew, Dr. Drew, about it. Early on. Quercetin, together with vitamin C, is a zinc ionic. To be honest, I never even heard of quercetin together with vitamin C is a zinc ionic. To be honest, I never even heard of course. So I Google course. And then I say, oh my God, this stuff is over the counter. And I realized that this is the solution to tyranny because there are two risk factors to die from COVID.

One is the government you live under and the doctor you choose. And so if you have a tyrannical government and you have a doctor who has his head in the ground, so all of a sudden I could tell patients, listen, go buy the pharmacy or on Amazon, of course, vitamin C, vitamin D and zinc and prophylaxis and or take early intervention if you do get sick and you'll get better. And that's exactly what's been happening on a global scale. I mentioned the stuff in Israel. First, it's been sold out in the country in a matter of a week. This stuff really works. Well, I took it. I took it, too. Yeah, but didn't they take it off the market then?

No, that was NAC. No, no, no. I know they took NAC off, which is bizarre. Yeah. But they take a harmful, a very deadly vaccine and say, this is okay. It kills, you know, what, one person out of every 5,000. And then for NAC, which kills zero out of a billion, that's the one that they make prescription only. Anything that works, anything that works that is not inpatient therapeutic for a vaccine will be vilified and marginalized for the purpose of

pushing people towards the vaccine and to inpatient therapeutic. Let's talk about that for a second. I have noticed one of the more disturbing qualities that the public health officials have adopted. in place when this thing began, seem to have taken a position in terms of relating to the public that you can't handle it. Whatever the information is, you can't handle it. This is back to Steve's concern about informed consent. We don't know what they're thinking because we have no idea what the truth is. We have no idea what gets them to their positions because they're not necessarily rational. They seem bizarre and arbitrary, but maybe there is some thought they put into it and they don't share it.

They're not transparent because we can't handle it. We might not support them in their decision making. So go ahead, Steve. Yeah, it's worse than that. So here's what I did. I went to my Walgreens pharmacy and I went up to the line. There's a line of people for vaccination. And I said, you know, I'm thinking about getting vaccinated, but I've heard that it might be dangerous.

Does anybody know how many people have been killed by the vaccine? And the first woman says, well, I believe in God and I need to have this vaccine. And then the other guy says, are you an anti-vaxxer? You know, and then the pharmacist comes over and tries to escort me out of the store saying, you know, are you causing trouble here? And, and so, so then I call up Safeway and I, I talked to the pharmacist and I say, hey, do you know how many people have died from the vaccine? And she says, actually, no, I don't. And it's like nobody, like their brains have been turned off. Everybody believes the narrative that the vaccine is safe and so it's it's unquestionably asked the question like how many people have died because it's irrelevant it's safe but but

steve it's back to my it's back to my point it's back to my point of you can't handle it we have been brainwashed about many things on many fronts now i got to take a little break here so i'm gonna take a break but i want to move into the by, and thank you guys for joining me up here. I want to move into the break by asking an ethical question, which is back to, we're all talking around the same point and it's, it's the, you can't handle it posture of the public health officials. And it's Steve causing trouble. The question is Steve was asked is, are you causing trouble? And that's my question. Are you causing trouble? Is there an overriding ethical concern here that we're missing that the public health officials have adopted that is overriding other ethical

considerations such that they feel justified in obscuring the data, in telling the public not what they need to know, but just enough to get them to behave and be sheep? Is there some ethical principle that's guiding their decision-making that we don't see? Or am I asking the unthinkable of our public health official that they be ethical, moral, and wise? Because that's what I want them to be. And if there is some overriding, larger ethical concern, and that we are causing trouble and disrupting that ethical consideration by talking about all this, what might that be? And anybody on Restream has any ideas about this? Anybody in the clubhouse, any thoughts about this? We'll start talking about it. We're going to take

about a two-minute break. Be right back after this. Anyone who's watched me over the years knows that I'm obsessed with Hydrolyte. In my opinion, the best oral rehydration product on the market. I literally use it every day. My family uses it. When I had COVID, I'm telling you, Hydrolyte contributed to my recovery, kept me hydrated. Now, with things finally reopening back around the country, the potential exposure to the common cold is always around. And like always, Hydrolyte has got your back.

Hydrolyte Plus Immunity, my new favorite, starts with their fast-absorbing electrolytes and adds a host of great ingredients. Plus, each single serving easy pour drink mix contains 1,000 milligrams of vitamin C, 300 milligrams of elderberry extract. Hydrolyte Plus Immunity comes in convenient, easy to pour sticks that rapidly dissolve in water, make a great tasting drink, has 75% less sugar than your typical sports drink, uses all natural flavors, gluten-free, dairy-free, caffeine-free, non-GMO, and even vegan.

Hydrolyte Plus Immunity is also now available in ready-to-drink bottles at the Walmart next to the pharmacy. Or as always, you can find it by visiting hydrolite.com slash drdrew. Again, that is h-y-d-r-a-l-y-t-e dot com slash d-r-d-r-e-w. Be sure to use the code drdrew25 for a special discount. I am so grateful for our friends at Blue Microphones. Not only have they completely changed what our show sounds like, they've given me headphones so I can monitor things better. This is the mic for millions of creative people, and now I know why. I'm so grateful with them completely changing the quality of our audio.

You'll find Blue mics like Yeti and the Mouse, which we're using here, both in Pro Studios and Home Studios, all literally all over the world. Their popular Yeti caster is a Blue Yeti microphone, plus a boom arm system that's behind many of your favorite podcasts. I run into them all the time, and now I know why. If you've ever thought about creating your own podcast

or YouTube channel, Blue can make you sound and look great. Just visit bluemike.com and click Get Started, and you can start telling your story. I'll give a quick shout-out again to our friends at Blue Mike. You've been listening to me right now on this Blueberry, which is an incredible microphone. I can tell you, after more than 30 years in podcasting,

I didn't know how important the microphone was, and now I have been schooled on that. And those of you on Clubhouse, those of you out there doing podcasts, pay attention. Blue mic is what you need, whatever your sound needs are, whether you're doing video conferencing, podcasting, recording music, I am telling you these blue microphones are just amazing. So let me just say from the Yeti series, it plugs right into your USB port on my computer. You can also get any of these mics at drdrew.com slash blue, drdrew.com slash blue, B-L-U-E, to find out more about this. I'm deeply grateful to these guys for changing the sound of our whole operation here. So thank you for that, guys.

So, Steve, I heard you already ringing in here a little bit. You wanted to answer that. Let me reframe the question again, which was, is there some overriding ethical concern here that we are not aware of? Do they know about something about the potential epidemiology of this virus that is too scary to share with the public and therefore vaccine therapies become an overriding necessity that they don't want to share with the public because it's too scary or is it am i expecting my public health officials to be something more than they are steve so so there's a tremendous amount of public pressure or sorry political pressure to this

vaccine rollout and so forth so uh because of that political pressure, people tend to sort of interpret the data based on the narrative. And so there are paramedics that in the last two months, they have seen more episodes of weird shit than they have in the last 12 months combined. Well, you know, that can't happen. But they're not allowed to report it because they don't want to upset the narrative. So everybody is basically on this, you know, is sort of programmed to the vaccine is safe, the vaccine is safe, the vaccine is safe.

Do the right thing, do the right thing, do the right thing. So when the paramedics see this or like, let me tell you the best, well, the best, the most horrific story that I have heard, which I heard yesterday. And this is that a friend's daughter is getting an abortion because she was 25 weeks pregnant and they did the ultrasound and the baby's brain was split in half and it was just covered with blood. And it was so bad that he couldn't even see the baby's body through all the blood. And so the gynecologist said, I have never seen anything like this before in my entire career. They had to bring in a specialist. The specialist was baffled and said, well, we'll have to

write it up as a genetic defect. And so everybody is looking for, because they immediately rule out that it's the vaccine because the vaccine is, quote, safe. Everybody then looks to the next level. They assume, they buy the narrative because it's coming from the CDC and NIH. And so it's self-perpetuating. And so when I talked to Janet Woodcock, who's the head of the FDA, about it, she says, look, you know, we're not seeing any safety signals and we didn't see any safety signals in the phase three study. So you're overreacting, Steve. I mean, you know, she didn't say that quite that way, but you know, this is the impression. So her viewpoint is that the anecdotal data is just anecdotal. And I'm just bringing her anecdotes, whereas she has large phase three

trials and she's not seeing any safety signals. And by the way, the CDC has like horrible monitoring. These guys cannot, the internal systems of the CDC are based on state systems and the state systems are horrible. So you have this horrible monitoring where our CDC has to rely on the Israelis because the Israelis have their act together and the Israelis didn't see a safety signal, but now they finally see the safety signal and that the teenagers who got the myocarditis and pericarditis. And, you know, the CDC knows it because they got it from the parents. But these guys are clueless as to what's going on. So, you know, when you have this, and it turns out that there was an error in the paper on the phase three trial, which showed that, hey, you know, there's no

problem in pregnancy. Well, actually, when you correct, do the math correctly, it turns out instead of a 10%, it'd be a normal 10% spontaneous abortion rate in the first 20 weeks. Guess what? It's 82%. It is eight times higher. Explain that one. Explain that one to mothers. I'll explain it to you because I'm the one who reported on that data first. I was the one who actually discovered the lies of the conclusion of that paper. Because what they did was they summed all trimesters together and came up with an overall 10% spontaneous abortion rate. However, the majority of those were third trimester. Exactly. Exactly. You broke the code. Yes. If you calculate that, I think it's reasonable to say that if a woman gets immunized in the

third trimester, it doesn't lead to an increase in spontaneous abortions. I would say that's true. But if you look at the spontaneous abortion, by definition, is less than 20 weeks. If you look at the numbers associated with that, it looks like I thought by a factor of eight, eight times higher miscarriage abortion rate. When I showed it to Dr. Peter McCullough, he said, I'm wrong. It's by a factor of 24. So whatever number you want to look at, the amount of miscarriage it seems at this point in time and spontaneous abortion is horrendous. Yeah. So this was written up in a completely independent paper. I mean, they found the same thing. So this is written up by two Canadian physicians, one of which I know, and they submitted it to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine so we could get the word out. Well,

guess what? They can't publish the letter because it was an online study in terms of the paper. And so you can only submit a letter that is, you can't, they don't even allow you to submit a letter for an online paper. And so you have this paper, which is sitting in limbo, that is showing like, holy shit, big safety signal, suppressed. Can't do it because of a technicality. And this wasn't any nefarious plot. It's just the point is that all of this data, all of these people raising their hands saying there's something wrong, these guys are all silenced. And so when you have people who are silenced, everybody believes the narrative because nobody is saying, you know, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. So it's all self-perpetuating. And when they see people

around them not reporting anything either, they say, well, I guess it is safe. I don't want to be a rabble rouser. I don't want to cause trouble. And it's like when I said, I wrote this on trial site news, I wrote this, should you vaccinate or Or, you know, something about vaccination. And I said, look, you know, this is not as safe as people are led to believe. And you should think twice. And of course, now I've changed it. So it's like, do not vaccinate.

There's like no way you should vaccinate your kids. If you've had COVID before, do not vaccinate. And for any other conditions, do not vaccinate because the vaccine is so dangerous. And when I put that out, guess what happened? I have a scientific advisory board of like 14 people, 14 academics, top academics. They all left. They all resigned saying, I disagree with your approach. You're endangering lives.

And I will not have my name associated with you or your organization anymore. I resign. Do not contact me again. And so the academics, you know, put their head down in the sand. And first of all, I would associate my name with you for all of eternity for your courage of what you've been able to do number one number two um you asked dr drew you asked about uh ethical considerations yes is there is there an overriding ethical phenomenon here that that we are either wrong about or we don't see or we're not considering yeah one is going to be from medicine one is going to be from the Bible. Number one is do no harm. But that's what's causing you to speak up, though, right?

And the question is, do they have some population-based ethical concern that we're not aware of that's causing them to override informed consent and do no harm? No, they don't. They don't have insight better than clinicians on the ground. Let me tell you, most of the people making policies are completely, have not treated one patient, are completely outside of the circle of empathy, do not have any understanding of what clinical medicine is. They don't see the death and the suffering, and they just look at numbers, and those numbers are skewed. So in my opinion,

they're asking the wrong people. You have to ask the people who are battle-tested, front-line, deal with this every day, get their hands dirty, risk their own lives to help others, and there you're going to get some degree of truth, not from people who are, in my opinion, guilty of high treason. And the reason why I say that is that the actual research for weaponizing viruses was done at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. What they call gain-of-function sounds like a very benign term because gain-of-function, let's say someone has a stroke, you give them physical therapy, they regain function. It's so nice, except in the case of the virus,

gain-of-function means take a benign virus and convert it into a weapon of mass destruction, which is exactly what happened because in this country, it was outlawed. Fauci took critical technology information, sent it to Wuhan, gave them the money to do it. Now, why would you, if Fauci is here to look out for the interests of the American people, why would he send critical technology and funding to our arch enemy, both economically and geopolitically? And isn't that high treason, in my opinion? I want to understand why this information and money was sent to our enemy, And that enemy, people say by accident. I do not believe that. But whatever angle you want to take,

last year they were saying it came from a bat market. Now at least they're admitting that it's artificial and it came from the lab. We'll see what the narrative will be. Oh, no, no. Zev, Zev, you need to go over to Peak Prosperity and watch Chris Martinson's videos. There are two videos. He just put one up about 18 hours ago in the video before them. And you will absolutely, I mean, you'll go nuts.

So, I mean, the short story on these videos is that Chris basically takes down Fauci and shows how Fauci did the cover-up. So that when the, when, and the virus basically escaped from the lab because one guy got sick and they had to take him out and take him to the morgue. And then that infected other people and so forth. So it was an accidental thing. It wasn't a deliberate release. But when it came out, when it came out, what happened is that Fauci got and

sent a mail. There's a bunch of these Pierre Corey is texting me here. So there are a bunch of these emails going back and forth, but it starts with Fauci assembling a team and says to the experts at Scripps, he says, hey, what do you guys think of this? And they respond back and says, hey, all of us think that it's absolutely man-made,

like no chance that it's natural. And so then there's a bunch of emails that are all redacted. And a week later, the same guy publishes a paper saying it is it came out naturally. And look, there is no way that you can go from all of us think that it is manmade because of this fur and cleavage site that can't be done in nature. And then you go in a week and you have this paper out, which is submitted a week later, saying it's all natural origin. I mean, Fauci absolutely knew the thing was the research on SARS-CoV-1 was being done at Wuhan. I mean, there's like no way. I mean, you put all the evidence together. And anyway, Chris Martinson does this brilliant takedown. Steve, Pierre Corey is ready at hand here to bring him up to the podium. So let me do that. Pierre Corey is here? I believe so.

No, he can't be. He's on his Pierre Corey call. Let me see what he's... Let's see if he comes on in here. Yes, we'll do now. West Coast. Yes. I invited him in. Let's see if... He's...

I think he's in there. We'll see. Well, I'm texting him now. But in any event, again, I have a, there he is, Dr. Corey. Is that you? Your mic is on mute. I think he's

up at the podium with a muted mic. But maybe it's because he's on his other call at the same time. Uh-oh. Susan, what's that? He's up there, so you can just, I up there so you can just I think that's Jean-Pierre yes is that different that's Jean-Pierre it's not Pierre Fort

oh okay I beg your pardon alright so I'll move Jean-Pierre back to where he was there so guys I still you still haven't satisfactorily answered the ethical thing for me. No, no, no. Okay, wait, wait, wait.

They think. They think. Yes, they think what? Because that's what the ethics are. They clearly think they're doing. If they're in consciousness at all, they think they're doing something right. What do they think? Yes, they believe that there is a death from the vaccine and they believe it's an excess death.

But they believe that even with the excess deaths, that because there are only 6,000 deaths in the VAERS system, that is better than 600,000 deaths. And so they're willing to sacrifice, they're willing to take healthy people and kill them because they believe that that will be a benefit to society because there will be fewer societal deaths and we can get back to business and people can start earning money again. So they basically are sacrificing, making a trade-off, sacrificing lives, but the masses are just convinced that the vaccine is safe but you know but if if you're taking an ethical position that it's okay just to kill people it's just a math equation this is the this is a this is the old uh a trolley car experiment you know if you can save six hundred thousand will you save six thousand you know can you sacrifice look i i had this in an email from a top scientist at Johns Hopkins saying this.

It's the trolley experiment. Are you guys familiar with the trolley experiment? It's if you're standing on a bridge, you're standing next to a guy with a big backpack on and this trolley is running down the crack with 10 people in it. If you push the guy off the bridge in front of the trolley and kill him, you know you're going to save the 10 people in the trolley. Do you push them off the bridge? And there's not a clear answer to that. So the position of our government is we're going to push you off the bridge. You may be on one of the unlucky ones, but thank you for your service. And if you're willing to say killing is okay to save

people, it seems to me that things like informed consent wouldn't even be on your radar, right? So there's a lot of assumptions that are being made here, both on safety and both on efficacy. And before we make a risk versus benefit analysis, I think we should make a truthful analysis of how efficacious are these vaccines, how safe are they, and then make ethical calculations. How can you make ethical calculations on information that you don't even have? Right. That's true. So let me, so here's my, I'd like to go through it in a systematic way and then discuss its merits because we're discussing its merits before we've analyzed whether it works and if it's safe. Before you do that, let me just preface this

with one nuance that you may not be aware of because it was a change in the law. They changed the law such that if you have a safe vaccine, you do not have to have informed consent. It's only if it's a dangerous vaccine. You do not have to have informed consent. It's only if it's a dangerous vaccine. And so this is why... I didn't know that. Where did that come from? It was this law that was passed, I don't know, some number of years ago, and they found it in a law so that they could avoid having to give informed consent because people are not informed

of the risks. And they're not informed of the risk because this law exempts them from this because previously we thought hey they have to get informed consent you have to explain to them in plain english like what all the risks are and and so forth and we've said hey they're violating the law they're not doing this but then we then we um robert malone who's the inventor of the mRNA vaccine, presented at this conference in Virginia. Let's see, it wasn't Virginia, but maybe it was Maryland. He presented at a conference in Maryland and he said, oh, we didn't realize this. There's this law that says that if it's perfectly safe, then you avoid the informed consent, which means they can go and consent the teenagers and so forth. And so he said, hmm, you know, so that's why they're making this thing. It's perfectly

safe. It hasn't caused any deaths. And this is why the CDC finds no excess deaths at all, because otherwise they'd have to inform people, oh, this vaccine we're giving you, it's like playing Russian roulette. Guys, that to me, I think there's your smoking gun. Because that looks like clear motivation. You don't need Gilead's tentacles in everything. You just have them all wanting it to be safe, wanting it so badly that they are pushing back on clarifying the VAERS data. Let me present the data and the mechanisms and demonstrate why it's not safe. I think that's important.

There are three levels here of death, let's call it. There's the acute, subacute, and long-term. The acute, according to the recent spike protein data from the Salk Institute that showed that it's the spike protein which causes inflammation and blood clots in the thelium. And what that results in is heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary infarcts, renal infarcts, and so on. And that happens from day one, day zero, to up to three months because the average lifespan of an mRNA molecule is around two weeks. And what happens is that during that interval, every single cell of your body is making between 2,000 to 5,000 spikes. So basically making trillions of spikes,

which line your inner surface of your blood vessels like little thorns. And as blood flow, as blood cells flow through it, they get damaged and induce a clotting reaction. So that's why, for example, according to the VAERS system itself, 40% of the deaths that reported, the 5,000, 6,000, were happening within the first two days of vaccination. So there is an acute risk. Then there's the subacute risk, which is from three months to three years. And this one is very

difficult to quantify. And the reason why, it's the antibody-dependent enhancement of pathogenic priming mechanism, which, again, I can't tell you how many humans are going to die because the studies weren't done. But what we do have is the animal studies that showed that ferrets and mice, that once they were challenged with the virus that they were immunized against, had a high incidence of death because of antibody-dependent enhancement. So because we rushed this warp speed process from development to human use so quickly, there are no long-term phase three trials to document or exclude that ADE will not happen. So that's a real concern. There's plenty of data coming out that sperm counts are dropping, that ovarian function is being damaged, that placenta in the first trimester, the placenta is being damaged because of microclots and high levels of miscarriage like we mentioned before. So who knows of the long term and not to mention the risk of autoimmune diseases and increased risk of cancer potentially in the future. So my point is that there is a considerable amount of unknown,

which is okay because all new technologies take time to fully understand. That's why on average the precedent medically is it takes 7 to 10 years to bring a vaccine to market because it takes that long to actually vet all the possibilities. So what we've done is we've taken something from development to human use very quickly and are selling it to the public as if it's approved and it's safe. And my answer is,

if you want to be part of the experiment, it's your prerogative to do so. But we as a society and as a world should not spread a false narrative to people and say that we know that it's safe because we clearly don't know that it's approved, which it clearly isn't and only has an emergency authorization.

And the process suppressing known therapeutics that are 85% effective in reducing death used within the first few days and when you put that all together, it is a genocide. Steve?

You know, I couldn't agree more. You know, I'm like, usually I run into rooms where the speakers don't know what the heck they're talking about. And everything that Zev has said is absolutely right on. We are creating a complete disaster and I have raised alarm bells at the administration level, at my local congressman, reaching out to congressmen, and all I hear back is crickets. Let me, I want to caution the one thing that, well, not the one thing, many things have disturbed me in the last year and thing that, well, not the one thing. Many things have disturbed me in the last year and a half. But one of the things that has disturbed me has been excesses.

Hysteria and excesses. And I don't want us to be guilty of that either. I want us to try to be measured and move forward. And these are important considerations you guys are opening up that may end up being true. They may end up not being true also. But in the meantime, there are things that are being obscured. There is real data that people need to have access to that they're not getting. There are important questions that Dr. Zelenko just walked us through.

And it's not happening. It's not, there's no, the, now I would argue that the fact that we can sit here today and have this conversation is an improvement. I think somebody would have turned us off a month ago by now. Susan, my producer says, yeah,

that, that she, are you nervous that we're having this conversation? No. Okay. Well, it would have been a month ago. So the fact, I've never been nervous. Well, we would have been a month ago. I've never been

nervous. They're trying to rush the EUA to get full approval because now they don't have to get an informed consent once it's approved. So they're basically, because once this is out, then they have to let people know about informed consent. But if they sneak it under the radar that they get approval, like, you know, this is why they're rushing to get approval so that they don't have to tell people or ever disclose that this thing is just a disaster. Again, 6,000 deaths versus 600,000 deaths. Is it a disaster? Yes, because it's not 6,000. 6,000 is the minimum. It's probably at least double or triple or quadruple or maybe even 10 times that or maybe even more.

Because, look, the incentive on VAERS is even less now than it ever was. And typically, VAERS is 1% reported, so you multiply the numbers by 100. Well, here you could argue that, well, everybody is more kind of like aware of the VAERS system, even though the public isn't, the doctors are. But the doctors, you know, it takes like 30 minutes to do a VAERS entry, and people are pretty busy with all of these cases of the vaccine. And also, they don't want to destroy the narrative, right? So if they, that they report something, they typically don't say, well, it's just not vaccine related. It was just that, you know, his, his arm doesn't work anymore. You know, it's a neurological thing.

And people are not educated that what's happening here is we're creating blood clots all over your body, including in your brain. And that's why there's all of these weirdo symptoms. And so the doctors just look at it as, well all of these weirdo symptoms and so the doctors just look at as well as weirdo system in fact it was dr drew that i was talking to uh not long ago um who said you know uh it's not the number of symptoms it's the variety he says i've never seen in my life so the vast variety of systems of symptoms. But didn't I also say that it was like very much the way COVID is so protean? It's like a mini-COVID.

Yeah, it is a mini-COVID. But I would say 99% of it has been bizarre protean, but not clinically important. Maybe 98%. Go ahead. percent of it has been bizarre protean but not clinically important maybe 98 percent and you made it go ahead you made a statement that you know 6 000 versus 600 000 i'm going to comment on the 600 000 because steve just commented on the 6 000 the 600 000 dead the reason why there's 600 000 dead is because life-saving medications and approaches were suppressed. So I think its number should be, well, how many would have died if we properly treated them? And the number would be 15% of what we see now. So out of 600,000, 510,000, according to worldwide data produced dozens of times, early intervention reduces death by 85%.

So I would say out of those 600,000, 510,000 could have been saved. And we would be discussing a different question. We have 90,000 dead versus what is the actual death rate from the vaccination. That calculation may be very different. Yeah, absolutely. And in fact, I would argue that it's not just 80% because you're looking at a single drug when you're looking at 80%. So Farid and Tyson have 6,500 patients, average age 60 years old. They have the lowest hospitalization rate in their area. It's near zero.

The only time a patient gets hospitalized is if they show up late. So if you show up within a few days of symptoms, you never see the hospital and you never die. And so they have this huge... Dr. Farid called me in April of last year, and I gave him the multi-drug approach that I was using. Then he modified it and built up on it. And his statistics are the best in the world. You're right. And the approach is, by the way, I'm not blocked into hydroxychloroquine. I use ivermectin more than hydroxychloroquine. I use blood thinners. I use steroids, monoclonal antibodies, whatever works. But the key is initiate treatment early in high-risk patients. Yes, that is true. initiate treatment early in high-risk patients because then we could prevent the inflammatory

component that leads to all the death. And we only have five days to do that because if you look at the viral load dynamics for the first five, six days, the amount of virus in the patient is relatively constant. By day five or six, there's an exponential explosion of viral load, and that exactly correlates the complications seen by the cytokine storm or release. So the key is to put out the viral infection before it spreads into an inflammatory, unhealthy inflammatory reaction. Yeah, I feel like I'm listening to myself talk. And let me tell you, let me tell you this. So we've got this phase three trial of fluvoxamine.

It's going to show an effect size of like 30 or 40%. So it's not going to be the 100% that is in the phase two trial. And doctors are going to look at that and say, the academics will look at that and say, see, we told you it wasn't going to be 100%. But guess what? They waited five days before they treated the patients in the phase three studies, whereas they got to them in like four days or less on the phase two because it was local.

And so these hypocrites never point out that the drug was given much later in the phase three trial. And so they are going to tear this thing to shreds when it comes out. They'll say, see, fluvoxamine doesn't work. See, we told you so. See, Steve, you are wrong about this. And, you know, and nobody's going to talk about, well, it was given a day later. And, you know, a day makes a huge amount of difference when you're talking about day four and five. Yeah. So thank you. I just want to say goodbye because I have to go to my daughter's graduation. makes a huge amount of difference when you're talking about day four and five uh yeah so thank

you i just want to say goodbye because i have to go to my daughter's graduation okay congratulations your daughter i just want to say to the thank you thank you i want to say to the american people you don't really have to be afraid anymore all you need to do is use common sense start treatment early um especially if you're high risk you should be on prophylaxis you can buy over the counter options and really you don't have to die from this very preventable and you can get the Zelenko protocol right

are you selling your vitamins now no I didn't want to talk about that I'm not here to promote myself I'm just more interested I'll just give you a quick one hey Zev before you go can you follow me please so I can ping you I'm not here to promote myself. I'm just, I'm more interested. I'll just give you a quick one. Hey, hey, Zev,

Zev, before you go, can you follow me please? So I can ping you. Yeah, sure. All right, touch link.

Go enjoy the graduation ceremony. We started a new love affair. Congratulations, my friend. Yeah, congratulations. Okay. Um,

I, and I have an apology to make to the, to the, uh, clubhouse audience here. I thought we were going to be into an AMA today, but we ended up going down a path that I didn't know we were going to go down, but I think it was very interesting. And Steve, I thank you for being a part of it. I didn't know you were going to be

here either. I think people need to hear this thinking because I just want to expose people to information so they can make informed consent. They need to just open their eyes, open their ears, take a listen. You say no vaccine. I say yes vaccine. But it's something that the individual has got to make a judgment about. And my concern is that that overriding ethical principle that we're not seeing is, like you said, it's interesting that it has to be completely safe in order to avoid informed consent.

That's fascinating. So they're not even worrying about that presently. But I think it is, they're doing math. Math is the ethics that is overriding everything else right now. And that math is based on a fear diathesis that this thing must be stopped, that the numbers are too high and they must be brought down at any cost. I really think that's what they're operating from. And I'm not sure that's a proper ethic. No, it's not. Okay, I got to go because I got to catch up to this Dark Horse podcast tomorrow.

All right, we'll be listening. If you can follow me on Twitter, STKirsch on Twitter, check out my article on Trial Site News on vaccines. It is an amazing read. It's this once-in-a-lifetime takedown story of all the corruption that's going on, and all the pieces fit together. And people who have read it said, you know, I got some of the pieces, but you really put it all together. It's an interesting read. It'll take you about 35 minutes to read the whole thing, but you'll get a very clear understanding about how the system works and how it was abused and how it was manipulated and who the heroes are and who the zeros are. I wonder if we should put together a presentation about this all in one place

so people can kind of examine it all in one. Oh, yeah. Yeah, so let's think about that. All right, well, listen. Yeah, yeah. It's kind of like I'm writing on the fly. Like every day I pick up five or 10 or 20 new things that I never realized before,

and then it gets incorporated. So the document has grown kind of organically and needs to be sort of reorganized. But it's quite the, I think people will really enjoy it. Where is it again? It's at trialsitenews.com. And if you search for my name, Kirsch, K-I-R-S-C-H.

And I encourage people to read it and also distribute it to all your friends and let your friends know about this Brett Wein uh podcast tomorrow at not it'd probably be 9 a.m 10 a.m pacific time oh it's does it stream live and then go up as a pot or is it yeah you wanted to do it live because that way youtube is less likely to take it down because because youtube has taken down his last ivermectin video. And, you know, this is just, you know, this is just bullshit because they are jeopardizing lives by keeping this from the public. And this video, you know, we'll put it up on Trial Site News.

And it's going to go, it's going to be a call to action to YouTube employees to walk out. Because they're either supporting their company or they're supporting lives here. And they need to, I mean, I'm going to give all these examples with the, you know, there's a 16-year-old who couldn't see or talk 48 hours after getting the vaccine. Now, when was the last time you saw a 16-year-old in that position? I mean, the stories that you hear are just unbelievable. And, you know, they tear at your heart. And if there are any people with a heart working at YouTube, they will all walk out. Let me just say that what I'm hearing at some of these social media sites, including YouTube, is that it is the middle-level management, the programmers that are so valuable to the company, are dictating everything.

And those are the people that will not walk out. So it's kind of interesting. You know, it's the upper, apparently the management is mortified. That's what I'm hearing. The middle management won't work. That's not what I've heard is that when there was an incident where this Andy Rubin was paid $80 million, uh, to walk away from Google.

And, uh, the employees like walked out for a day. Interesting. All right, my friend, we'll talk soon. All right.

Take care of yourself. Okay. All right. And to the rest of you, uh, in the, also, we have a newbie to,

uh, to clubhouse Ram. Your gender. He's actually here. I couldn't find, I couldn't find me he said see the scroll down oh dude got your again right uh and he was no he just popped in at the end and I said here you know raise your hand and then we'll oh there he goes are you here I do don't why do you

obscure yourself like that I didn't know who Rami was. He just signed up like five minutes ago. So did you catch any of that? Oh, your mic is on. And you're up on the podium, but I don't hear it. Okay, he's messing with it. Yeah, we see you messing with your mic. But there's something else going on. Susan, is it RN perhaps? No.

He'll come here in a second. It usually takes a second to click in. But again, my apologies for it not being an AMA. And wasn't, I thought Naomi Wolf was going to stop by here. Oh, she didn't have the broadband. She couldn't do it. Can you hear me now? I hear you now. So did you catch any of that?

I did. I talk to Steve almost every day. Steve is very passionate and it's great having Dr. Zelenko back on. I mean, what do you think's going on? What is your sort of take on all this? Does he want to tell you? Well, I think Steve is right.

This is what we talk about almost on a daily basis. Steve's very passionate and I appreciate his passion for looking at this because the scary thing is that people are afraid to talk about the problems. They, and he is right. We are hearing hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of patients. They are really my email,

my inbox, Bruce and I are like, what do we do? What do we do with this? It's post-vaccination complications. Three, four months. Why don't you just report it to VAERS?

Some of them are. Some of them are. And then some of them are like, oh, we don't even hear anything back. I have doctors and I think one of them and I will mention after offline who that is, is someone you work with who's seeing, I think in her practice,

five or six patients post-vax complications and I'm helping her manage them. who's seeing, I think, in her practice, five or six patients post-vax complications, and I'm helping her manage them. And again, I'm hearing this from doctors. I'm not hearing this from Twitter users or social media or conspiracy theorists. I'm hearing this from physicians. So the question is, what exactly is going on? And I've been hit, you know,

Washington Post, New York Times, I've got all these reporters after me because we put out that we're looking into this. Here's the thing. I don't know. And it could be, you know, as Steve's been talking about, the lipid particle around the mRNA, which has been known in the literature to be a hyper inflammatory agent. It could be that there are the spike proteins that are directly

causing some of these things. It could be that it's what Dr. Patterson and I have been working on with long COVID, that the spike proteins from the vaccine could be in a monocyte, which we're about to drop the paper in the next couple of days, or it could be none of the above. So we got to have data. We got to look in it. And the problem is what I think we're facing is people are afraid of just looking and afraid of investigating. Well, I'm afraid of even speaking. I mean, I, like I said, a month ago, we couldn't even have these conversations.

I'm surprised you're not getting heat from your employers. Well, I'm a, I'm an independent contractor. Yeah, but are your job offers going down? Are you being, you know what I mean? No, not yet. But I mean, look, here's the thing, Dr. Drew. We're not telling people don't get the vaccine. All we are telling, and I think this is kind of what Steve was sort of alluding to,

is we got to get, but having information out there to patients. I have never told anyone, any patient, another physician group of people, we have to understand why did it affect a small group of people? It's science. It's medicine. We can't just blindly say, well, look, it's safe for 150 million people. Okay. But you know what? Let's say we're talking about 10,000 people. Well, those are 10,000 human beings.

And those are 10,000 people with families and lives that are debilitated. Why? And that's what I want to know. And again, you heard me mention the trolley experiment. It may be that we've decided the trolley experiment is just a math equation, and I'll explain what I mean by that in a second, and that some people are going to get sacrificed. That's just the fact to save hundreds of thousands of more lives. Now, going into that potential without understanding you could be one of those people is what bothers me.

It's one thing to say, I'm willing to take the risk on behalf of everybody else. I'll jump off the bridge. Maybe I'll survive. But to go, I jumped off the bridge and I thought I had a parachute and turns out they didn't give me the parachute. They didn't tell me about that part. That's not fair. That's not fair. That's an ethical problem. Don't you agree? Absolutely, Dr. Drew. And I'll make, and you know, one last thing on this is, you know, I know Dr. Zelenko and Steve, they really talk about ivermectin and Lubox and preventative. Absolutely. And I think our next paper, which shows the S1's causing these persistent antigens in this monocyte? And is it early aggressive? Are we supposed to be giving the hydroxychloroquine or the ivermectins or remdesivir or whatever it is,

drinking water, taking Tylenol and sleeping it off? It's obviously not working in 30% of people that survive COVID. But here's the other thing too, Dr. Drew, is if I tell someone, don't take the vaccine because we have the ivermectins and we got all these preventative things. Here's the question though, how can I get that? There are not many physicians, not many hospitals that are even open to it. So heaven forbid, I don't get the vaccine and I get COVID and I end up in the ICU. It is so impossible fighting to get these medications in the first place. You can give them all the trials and the data. How do I know I've been through it? I've been fighting for the past year for ivermectin, the loranlamabs, the RLF100,

all of these experimental, quote unquote, experimental drugs. And this is why I always say, do nothing is worse than do no harm. We can't put them on a ventilator and let them go. So it's like we're in a tough situation where we can say, yes, okay, don't take the vaccine because we have all these meds. But if you do get sick, what are the chances of you getting those medications in the first place? And this whole thing is going to shift in about three months when that Merck product comes online. Because they just today made a deal with the government to buy $1.2 billion worth of this antiviral. So it will be free.

It will be free and it will be available. Is that kind of like Theraflu or something? Or what is that one? Tamiflu. It is. Go ahead, Jo. It's Molnupiravir. Yeah, it's M yeah, it is. Go ahead. Um, it's Malnupiravir. Yeah. And it is, it's a nucleoside analog.

So it kind of works a little bit like remdesivir, but a little bit different. It's oral and it's not as toxic. Correct. It used to be called EIDD 2801. Um, and that was the name that it was a small biotech company that made a deal with Merck a couple of months ago. So it is pretty promising. Look, maybe may become incidental, not important, but focusing on early treatment is. And now we have an early treatment that everybody can hang their hat on and we go forward. The question is, is it how effective would it be? We know the remdesivir trials and what Dr. Fauci was saying, trending towards statistical significance. I have yet to meet really

any physician that has said that remdesivir has been a game changer in their clinical practice. Sure, a couple of patients might have improved or responded, but the overall consensus from doctors internationally in the United States is that remdesivir, and again, this was in the clinical studies, if you don't give it within five days, it doesn't have any statistics. It doesn't do anything to mortality. Right. We put it in a weird category, which was hospitalized patients

who've been sick for a while. Now, this other drug will not be in that category. They're requiring a positive COVID test, which already delays things because some people don't turn positive for quite a while. But we'll see. Hey, my friend, I got to wrap this thing up. Uh, I appreciate you hanging around and having, uh, come forward to talk with us about your thoughts on these issues. It's complicated. Your own, um, clubhouse groups too. Uh, don't worry. Steve will be there. Steve will show up. So, uh, what's, what's up for you guys next, Rami, as we close here?

What's happening? So we've got, I think the paper is this week. We just got the mass spectra data. I will email that to you shortly. It'll blow your mind. I can't wait. The peptide sequencing is exactly like the S1 protein, S1 subunit. Good old-fashioned science. Good old-fashioned science.

Good old-fashioned research. If you want to catch a full version of these guys nerding out, go back to YouTube or Twitch or Facebook and find the show that we did last week with Dr. Bruce and Dr. So Dr. Patterson and Dr. Yogendra, you'll find that. I think it was last Monday or was it this Monday? Yeah. I mean, it's, it's right there.

They're all kind of blurring together, but we're going away. Rom. We're leaving for 20 days. Yeah. We're going to be gone for a few weeks. So we will be checking in sort of from afar, but we will be incognito for a while.

So, well, we might do clubhouse. I was thinking we could do maybe, but email if you need us and please send me. we will be incognito for a while. So, well, we might do clubhouse. I was thinking we could do maybe, but, uh, email if you need us and please send me and I'll have plenty of time to read the data.

So as it comes in, please send it my way. Okay. But it might be super like, I don't know. We'll do when, when, when we get that preprint,

I'll tighten up. I think it should be this week. I'll, I'll send you a copy. I'll send you some of the lab work. It'll pretty mind, mind, mind blowing stuff.

I love it. We'll talk soon. Thanks. Take care pretty mind-blowing stuff. I love it. All right, thanks, my friend. We'll talk soon. Thanks, Dr. Drew. Take care. Thanks, Susan. Bye-bye. Dr. Yo at YoDoctor, spelled out D-O-C-T-O-R, Yo on Twitter.

Y-O, Dr. Yo, Yo. For all you Clubhouse people who might also want to check out DrDrew.tv on DrDrew.com, if you want to see the live feed, this was recorded and we have to make that disclaimer because Clubhouse is typically not recorded. And if you recorded it, I don't care. We are way over the time we thought we were going to be here. Again, I apologize that it morphed into something far different than I had built it on the calendar. And I will do an AMA at some point soon. This was really, I thought, important and interesting. And so we went with it and we had some interesting people show up in the Clubhouse audience. And that's one of the cool things about Clubhouse.

People show up that you don't sometimes expect. And you bring them up and you end up going in a direction that you didn't anticipate. But again, I will do an AMA soon. I appreciate you guys joining us. I'm going to end the Clubhouse room now. And we thank you all for being here. We couldn't get Naomi Wolfe in, but we'll bring her in soon as well. you guys joining us. I'm going to end the Clubhouse room now and we thank you all for being here. We couldn't get Naomi Wolfe in, but we'll bring her in soon as well.

She wants to have a conversation on Clubhouse. But you might want to also check out Drew on the Gutfeld show on Friday. Right, that show on Friday. And then we will not be doing any of these streams. This is our last one, right? Until we get back, maybe Until we get back.

Maybe when we get back from Greece. Keep an eye out. I will try to do some streams. Around the 28th, we'll be back. I don't know. We'll see if I feel up to it. She might feel up to doing something. I will do some Instagram lives and some TikTok lives. We can do the Ask Dr. Drew again.

We might do that. And we might do some live Clubhouse stuff. So we can really AMA. So we thank you for being here. And we're going to have a lot of new changes when we get back. Oh, really? I don't even know about that. Like what?

We're going to start. We're going to have just call it Dr. Drew Live. And then we're going to try to try some new formatting. And, you know, we're trying new things all the time. See what sticks all right fair enough thank you for that thank you uh caleb for producing today's show at a distance and i'm pregnant i don't even know what to say that i would have to consult with um the lord himself there's an alien baby in my uterus i

would have to actually consult with god if that's something that had happened. And that's the way the show ends for two weeks. I'm going to name him Zev. Anyway, appreciate you guys being here. Follow at Instagram, Dr. Pinsky at TikTok at Dr. Gru. And Susan, do you want to donate your stuff? No, I'm good. All right.

And we'll see you guys in other platforms and we'll see you here again. I'm going to go pack. After the 29th. Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky. This is just a reminder that the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care or medical evaluation. This is purely for educational and entertainment purposes. I'm a licensed physician with over 35 years of experience, but this is not a replacement for your personal physician, nor is it medical care. 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, anytime, 24-77 for free support and guidance. You can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at drdrew.com slash help.