Ask Dr. Drew - Ed Dowd & Dr. Kelly Victory: Attorney General SUES Pfizer For “Misrepresenting” mRNA and “Conspiring” To Censor Public Discourse About Its Vaccine – Ask Dr. Drew – Ep 297

Episode Date: December 15, 2023

The Attorney General of Texas is suing Pfizer for “misrepresenting” the efficacy of its mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 and for “conspiring” to censor public discussion. Ed Dowd and Dr. Kelly Victory discuss the lawsuit and Dowd’s latest data. Ed Dowd is founder of Phinance Technologies and author of “Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Death in 2021 & 2022.” Dowd is a former Wall Street analyst and BlackRock portfolio manager who utilized pattern recognition to get ahead of his peers during his stock picking career. He is a founding partner of Phinance Technologies. In early 2021, Ed noticed a rise in reports about sudden deaths among athletes and young people across the country. He amassed evidence from the insurance industry, funeral homes, and government databases to uncover an increase in sudden deaths among working-age Americans. Follow Dowd at https://x.com/DowdEdward 「 SPONSORED BY 」 Find out more about the companies that make this show possible and get special discounts on amazing products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get an extra discount with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew • COZY EARTH - Trying to think of the right present for someone special? Susan and Drew love Cozy Earth's sheets & clothing made with super-soft viscose from bamboo! Use code DREW to save up to 40% at https://drdrew.com/cozy • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at https://twc.health/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.  「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician with over 35 years of national radio, NYT bestselling books, and countless TV shows bearing his name. He's known for Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Teen Mom OG (MTV), Dr. Drew After Dark (YMH), The Masked Singer (FOX), multiple hit podcasts, and the iconic Loveline radio show. Dr. Drew Pinsky received his undergraduate degree from Amherst College and his M.D. from the University of Southern California, School of Medicine. Read more at https://drdrew.com/about Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kelly Victory joins me again today as well as does Ed Dowd. He's always one of your favorite. And so we'll be watching you on the restream and over at the Rumble Rants. But Ed Dowd joins us again today. I'm looking at some of his new data. He will tell us where the data is coming from. He has a summary of individual excess cancer death and causes in the UK for 15 to 44-year-olds. And again, he is a business analyst.

He is just a data analyst. And he gets accused of all kinds of wild things. So I want to give him a chance to address some of the criticisms that are out there. And his thing is, essentially, he was just saying to us, if I lie and I'm raising money on behalf of that, not only will people be awfully angry with me, there will be a big lawsuit. I do not want to lie or distort anything. I just want the facts. So we'll get into the facts after this. Our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre. The psychopath started this. He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction,

fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous. I'm a doctor for f***'s sake. Where the hell do you think I learned that? I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people. I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat.

If you have trouble, you can't stop and you want help stopping, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. I think everyone knows the next medical crisis could be just around the corner, whether it comes in the form of another pandemic or something much more routine, like a tick bite. You and your family need to be prepared. That's where the wellness company comes in. You know the wellness company comes in. You know the wellness company, we have their physicians on like Dr. McCullough frequently.

The wellness company and their doctors are medical professionals you can trust. And their new medical emergency kits are the gold standard when it comes to keeping you safe and healthy. It's really, it's a safety net. It's an insurance policy. Absolutely. That you hope you're not gonna need, but if you need it, you sure as heck are gonna wish you had it if you need it. Be ready for anything. This medical emergency kit contains an assortment of life-saving medications, including ivermectin, Z-Pak. The medical emergency kit

provides a guidebook to aid in the safe use of all these life-saving medications. From anthrax to tick bites to COVID-19, the Wellness Company's Medical Emergency Kit is exactly what you need to have on hand to be prepared. Rest assured, knowing that you have emergency antibiotics, antivirals, and antiparasitics on hand to help you and your family stay safe from whatever life throws at you next. Go to drdrew.com slash TWC. That is D-R-D-R-E-W.com forward slash TWC to get 10% off today. Just click on that link. And as I promised, we'll have Kelly Victorine here after the break.

I'm just setting up the Twitter spaces right now. And then, whoa, my goodness, that didn't work at all, did it? Hold on a second. So, Caleb, I'm going to have difficulty being on the Twitter spaces, I'm afraid, today. Let's bring in Ed Dowd. Good. Good. Good to see you, Ed.

A couple of sort of quick business items. Explain to people what your career has been. Bottom line, Wall Street careerist. Was in fixed income in the early part of my career. Capital markets, interest rates, money markets, derivatives, what have you, learned economic macro fundamentals, went over to the equity side, did a stint at Donaldson, Lufkin, and Genred as an equity research associate in electric utilities, went on to become a tech analyst and a portfolio manager at BlackRock, picking stocks for a

large cap growth portfolio. We grew to about $14 billion over 10 years. So my job is to be early, right, and loud at the same time and be ahead of the crowd, notice trend changes, notice changes in earnings, macroeconomic fundamentals, and just general trends overall. And how did you crawl into this rabbit hole with us, the COVID rabbit hole? How did you crawl into this rabbit hole with us, the COVID rabbit hole? How did you end up here? Well, you know, through my own personal journey, I became suspicious of lots of things. And when COVID happened, I was suspicious of what was going on just in general, the lockdowns, the masks, the strange contradictions, and the suppression of early treatment. I was on to that

early, so it made way for the EUA and the vaccine. I knew a lot about vaccines from my stint on Wall Street that takes seven to ten years for safety data. I knew this was a new novel technology, and I knew it was Operation Warp Speed, so I personally didn't take it. I was going to wait, and then early on i heard anecdotes and i know from statistics uh if a vaccine is safe you know there are adverse events but you shouldn't be hearing anecdotes much less multiple anecdotes so that opened my mind to looking at insurance data if you're on home data and then i you know assembled a team and we've dug into a bunch of public databases i have a firm finance technologies we're in the process of you know assembled a team and we've dug into a bunch of public databases I have

a firm finance technologies we're in the process of you know our day job is macroeconomic analysis and hedge fund we're trying to raise money for a hedge fund we've actually put that on hold because this work we're doing is so important we spend all our time analyzing all-cause mortality absence rates disabilities now we're delving into causes of deaths. And we found some data recently in the UK that, I was on your show a couple, I think a month and a half ago talking about cardiovascular deaths in the UK, 15 to 44. We put out a report on cancers, same thing. Cancers is even more stunning because there was no signal. There was a slight signal in 2020 on cardiovascular deaths.

There's no signal in 2020 on cancers, and cancers are off the charts statistically in their signal. Is there better data at the UK, or are they giving you more access, or both? It was easier for my team to get to it. We're literally right now working on the CDC data. That won't be out until January. So we're going to try to reproduce what we saw in the UK here in the US.

So we'll go into causes and that kind of thing, ICD-1 code. So that's coming. It's a little trickier. And when we reveal the data, we'll show how and why it's been trickier for most people to analyze this. But we'll have to wait until the report. And you mentioned the concern you had about warp speed. I noticed you tweeted something today, a little video. researcher who was chronicling the evolution of COVID from its first report through the initial outbreak to identifying an organism to having a gold standard test to having an entire genome

all in about 17 days. So talk to me about the probability of that and what you think that is. So look, this is all speculation, but you know, I'm a data guy and I create an analyst mosaic and I know Nick Hudson. He and I have talked, he's brilliant and he's all over this. All he did was simplistically track in the news some events and these events occurred so quickly that it smacks of not able to be done, meaning that we know how science works, we know how communication works. It seems that the chain of events happened in such a short, I think, 26-day period that it was very incredible that we were shipping PCR tests within days of the virus appearing, which is very interesting. It raises questions.

And in my mind, it clearly states that something strange was going on. This was not a normal, random occurrence of events. Perhaps there was some planning. That's all I'm going to say. Perhaps there was some planning. Well, let me pose a question

that by posing the question, when I started thinking about the question, some other sort of ideas opened to me. And that was, I started thinking, look, we know that a large part of the pathogenesis of COVID-19, the pathology is caused by the spike protein. So why in the world would they create a vaccine that floods the body with the pathogenic protein? And I thought, oh, well, the only way that would have happened is if when they opened the warp speed sort of door, they already had all this information. They already fully studied the spike protein. They had everything needed on the spike protein because they knew that organism was going to be a bioweapon. Somebody knew. And so they'd studied the hell out of the spike protein.

So you now have a way to create a vaccine come what may. You know, like, again, it's warp speed. You take risks. And now you have a way to screen for it with a screening instrument. And you're zeroed all the way in on the genome already. You just run it again. Does that make sense? Do you think that's what was happening? It makes no sense to me.

Again, I wasn't in the room. But if I had to bet money on it, I'd bet that this was a planned event. And I didn't think that, but as time rolls on and we do more investigations of the past, I wasn't aware of that timeline and that shocked me. Planned by China? Pl planned by us, planned by... No, I don't know. I wasn't in the room. All I know is the timeline is impossible. And I think you would agree with that as well. You're losing me on the plan. But did you hear my little theory?

My theory is they were so deep in this virus, they had all they needed on the spike protein to create a test and a vaccine because they needed on the spike protein to create a test and a vaccine. Because they'd studied the hell out of it in case somebody broke one loose. And so they already were locked and loaded and could

walk down that path in two weeks very quickly. That's why they didn't make the vaccine against the nucleocapsid protein. What you're saying is they already knew what was going on because they'd been studying it and it leaked. And then they were ready to go. Well, they knew what the, they studied the hell out of it.

Like why would they choose a vaccine that floods the body with the pathogenic protein? That's the question I think to myself. Why would they do that? It makes no sense. There's another protein that's ubiquitous with the virus, the nucleocapsid protein. That's the question. I think to myself, why would they do that? It makes no sense. There's another protein that's ubiquitous with the virus, the nucleocapsid protein. They could have directed everything at that, but they didn't because they weren't thinking about a pandemic. They were thinking about a bioweapon. And so they had everything they needed to go at

and create the spike protein and have a vaccine that produced the spike, etc. Everything we went through. It makes sense to me that they were locked and loaded for that. And it was a mistake, frankly. And what's bizarre is that we don't go back and create a vaccine against a less pathogenic protein. Weird. Yeah, I know. So there's two theories.

It was a plan and it was a yeah it was it was a not an intentional plan but a plan for a bioweapon that leaked but they had all the information ready to go so that's why it went so fast that those two competing theories make sense but but we didn't know lines is is nonsense if it was a novel pathogen that no one knew anything about. Right. And David Martin was sort of saying the same thing. Here we go. I can't get this thing to settle down, my stupid phone.

All right. So a couple things. Kelly's going to be in here in just a second. There's a couple things I want to get into here with you. Somebody asked me to ask you about, I guess there's some controversy about the case that was on the cover of your book or something. I really don't know what, can you address that? Do you know what that is all about? Yeah, so apparently someone was on the cover of the book and they didn't take the vaccine. We never claimed anyone took the vaccine or didn't.

It was just, we were just reporting stories that were publicly available, fair use. And we were accumulating. We never commented on any one individual. And I had nothing to do with the, what I had nothing to do with the choice of editorial decisions for the cover.

And I think Skyhorses changed the cover and i think sky horse has changed the cover that that's the last i know but i have no editorial decisions all right and then the other question was i i this seems to have settled down recently but it seemed like six weeks ago i i saw a lot of noise ed dowd's lying. He's lying. And whenever people bring up lying, I just think, in order to accuse somebody of lying, you're going to have to convince me what their motivation is. You know, why would Ed Dowd be lying? Please help me understand that. So did you get a chance to address any of that criticism or what that was all about

or what they were? Was there some error somewhere and somebody uncovered and then says, oh, that was a motivated error? No, I mean, most of the people that were coming to my comments didn't even read the report. You've got to read the report. If you want to criticize us, go read our 45-page

PDF and specifically call out, which we call out ourselves, is the lack of reporting of some of the causes. There's 8% missing in 2021 and 30% in 2022. We make adjustments for those. You can question those adjustments. But even on the cancer signal, before we even adjust it, we have a signal of four standard deviations of cancer with 30% of the autopsies not in yet. So for that age group.

So should we bring up some of that data? What's that? Should we bring up some of that new data before we bring Kelly in here? Yeah. So this is just a summation of specific causes of the data. Let me go to it because there's so many numbers these days. Why, Ed, why doesn't one country on Earth investigate excess deaths?

To me, that's the oddest thing of all, that excess deaths have been well-documented, there's nobody's debating it, and then when you go out trying to figure out what happened, I can't think of one country that's done a careful analysis. What is that? Let's pick on Australia because they locked down. They did everything that was recommended to the 10th degree. They had minus four excess deaths or minus, I think minus four or 2% excess

deaths in 2020. They went up to 4% in 2021 and then 16% in 2022. And so the question has, and they don't even want to talk about it in Australia. So the question needs to be asked, forget the vaccine for a moment. Whatever the health authorities did, it resulted in more people dying in 2022 than 2020. That's right. That's it. And no one wants to talk about this. Until they want to talk about it, you know,

they got nothing against what we're doing. We're just reporting numbers. The narrative around the numbers is whatever you want it to be, but they don't even want to acknowledge the numbers. And I find that just to be interesting. But not any country on earth. That's just like, what?

Wouldn't one of the, somebody, anyway, but I don't get it, but I have begun to hear more about people getting really serious illnesses that they were sent home without treatment during lockdown. That is a phenomenon I'm beginning to hear more about. So I'm perfectly prepared to accept that some of the numbers, if not all, are related to that. But let's be clear, it's because you locked everybody down and sent everybody home,

wouldn't let doctors and hospitals function normally. So we need to be honest about that. Well, and, you know, if that was the case, we would have seen a trailing off of excess mortality now. Unfortunately, it's continuing in 2023. We had 13% excess mortality in the Society of Actuary Numbers, group life, very specific healthy group in Q1, 18% in Q2,

and I'm hearing it's going to be 32% in this most recent quarter. Isn't cardiovascular starting to drop off a bit? I thought I saw those numbers. I have no idea what you're referring to. Oh, I don't either, unfortunately. I'm just wondering if you've seen any drop off uh we don't have 2023 data uh uh for the cardiovascular cancer report that we did

so that's going to come so it may it may have dropped off i wouldn't know because we don't have 23 data that drills down into causes we do have all cause excess mortality numbers in the uk and that's for that for the 15 44, it went to a new high. And where would you like people to go to read the document? Yeah, financetechnologies.com under the Humanity Project. There it is. PH, with a PH. And that's, you know, you can read all our reports.

We have project after project after project that is backed by a full report PDF. We have to something odd going on in disabilities, deaths, and injuries. And, you know, you can draw your own conclusions. We even say in our own conclusions, we think it's the vaccine, but it could be this, this, and this, and this. And each report's different. So go check it out. Go read it. If you want to criticize, read it first. And then the book, if you could throw that up, Caleb, is Cause Unknown.

That was written earlier on. There it is. Ed Dowd. Okay. Let's get Dr. Kelly Victory in here with Ed Dowd. Again, it's financetechnologies.com, P-H-I-N-A-N-C-E, technologies.com, if you want to read the document or see the other reports there. Ed Dowd very kindly joins us again from Hawaii.

We're getting very familiar with his iconic background now, which has been touring the world in various podcasts and streaming shows. So we'll get right back to Kelly Victory and Dr. Ed Dowd after this. Ed Dowd. We'll get right back to the Kelly Victory Indulgent. Head down after this. Head down. If you're trying to figure out the right present for someone, you will not go wrong with gifting the most comfortable sheets, clothing, and accessories that your friends and family have ever felt. Of course, I'm talking about Cozy Earth. Cozy Earth has the softest and most comfortable sheets, blankets, towels, PJs, joggers, and more guaranteed.

Susan and I love them. In fact, we still have Cozy Earth sheets on our bed. I slept in them last night. I was thinking of how great they were. And look at this. I'm wearing one of their super comfortable t-shirts right now. I don't get, I just can't get enough of Cozy Earth. Their sheets are durable, machine washable,

and come with a 10-year warranty against defects. So no surprise that Cozy Earth's brand has been featured on Oprah's Favorite Things for five years in a row. Whether it's their luxury pajamas, super soft bedding, loungewear, or plush bath towels, you will love shopping and gift giving at Cozy Earth. Here's my gift to you this holiday season. Go to CozyEarth.com, enter code Drew to save 40%. That's CozyEarth.com with code Drew. CozyEarth.com, code Drew, save 40%. Thanksgiving is almost here, which means it's time for the best GenuCell sale of the year. Just in time for the holidays, save over 60% off both of our personally tailored GenuCell

skincare packages at GenuCell.com slash Drew, so you can look your very best at all of your Thanksgiving gatherings. Look 10, 15, 20 years younger guaranteed with the best natural skincare anywhere. Take advantage of GenuCell's best sale of the year and say goodbye to fine lines, crow's feet, puffiness, and dark spots. The GenuCell experience is like no other, but don't take my word for it. You will look and feel your absolute best or your money back, no questions asked. So for results in 12 hours or less, GenuCell's immediate effects is included. word for it. You will look and feel your absolute best or your money back, no questions asked. So,

for results in 12 hours or less, GenuCell's immediate effects is included for free. Plus, if you go to GenuCell.com slash Drew now, you'll get a free upgrade to priority shipping. That is GenuCell.com slash Drew, G-E-N-U-C-E-L dot com slash drew. Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. If this episode ends here, the rest of the show is available at drdrew.tv. There's nothing in medicine that doesn't boil down to a risk-benefit calculation. It is the mandate of public health to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population. This is uncharted territory, Drew. And Kelly, we went to you a little prematurely there. Sorry about that. Sorry, Kelly.

It's all right. I pressed the wrong button. In fact, it's interesting to me that with many, many hundreds of shows we have done or whatever the number has been, that's never happened. So good for you, Kelly. Exactly. It stands out. So Kelly, of course,

I give you our friend Ed Dowd. Hey, Ed, always great to have you on. I've got gobs of things to ask you about, including I want to talk about some of the pending lawsuits that are just hitting the news and some of that. I certainly want to get into, at least momentarily, this recent data on the cancer signals. But before I do, I want to give you a minute to talk about, because I was listening to you guys banter back and forth, and people are constantly emailing me, calling me, texting me, saying, have you looked at this data? Have you looked at this data? Let's talk about data because it is incredibly important. Everybody's got a bucket of numbers. Everybody's got a bucket of numbers. Everybody's got a bucket of studies or a bucket of cases that they're looking at. It is incredibly important

from my perspective as a physician and your perspective as somebody who has credibility in the finance world to know that you have veracity and data that you can actually rely on and that the data itself itself people can't poke holes in. They may poke holes in your conclusion or in how you've crunched the data. Talk about your data versus others and where you get it and why you believe in it and why we as viewers should trust the data at least that you and your group are presenting? We're using publicly available databases from government sources. And we've used death statistics, Eurostat, ONS, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, some ONS labor statistics,

and they're publicly available databases. And in every report we detail, we start off with, at the beginning of the report, the data. And we list all our data sources and where they're coming from. So that's what we do. I've gotten, over the course of the last year and a half, emails from people wanting to deliver me spreadsheets as they claim their XYZ whistleblower from here, from there. And they're going to send me spreadsheets and want me to analyze it. And I say, well, that's great. Are you going to go out public as a whistleblower? Will there be chain of custody? The answer is usually no. And I'm not going to analyze a batch of Excel spreadsheet cells and comment on them

because I don't know where the data is coming from. So we've been able, the body of work we've done is from publicly available data. It can be recreated if people want to, and there it is. It's there and we list every data source. We're not making stuff up. We do our own analysis. So there can be questions about how we interpret the data, but not the data.

The data is the data. And I really appreciate and respect that. And I think it's important for people to have heard that because as certain as I am, and I am 100% certain that these vaccines are the cause of a vast number of these serious adverse events, I am also incredibly careful not to just jump on a bandwagon and take something that fits my narrative and say, see here, look at these numbers, because unless you are absolutely certain and have that chain of custody, you know where that data came from and that it is reliable data that's being analyzed, then what you've got is junk. And

it really undermines our efforts, I think. So I appreciate that piece of it. Let's talk specifically, and I think you've got a graph. I know you're not going to get too much into the weeds on it, but talk about the cancer signal. We've heard so much about the cardiovascular signals. Most people, you'd have to be living under a rock at this point to not understand that we've had a huge increase in heart-related issues following these vaccines, whether it's myocarditis or sudden cardiac death or whatever. But the cancer one is a little more subtle. I had predicted it, tragically, from the very beginning because of the profoundly negative impact that these shots have on the immune system. Now we are seeing it bear out in the numbers, I believe, but I want

you to talk a little bit about what you're seeing in terms of cancer signal yeah so we did a cancer report on just overall cancer deaths excess cancer deaths in the age group 15 to 44 in the uk and in that report we found a um you know negative one percent% excess deaths in 2020, 13% in 21 and 43% in 22. And so statistically there was no signal in 2020 of excess cancer deaths. Then there was a five standard deviation signal

with that 13% rise. And with the 43% rise, it was 16 standard deviations and just all cancers, all forms forms of cancers then we get a follow up report and we went as i say can can can't believe while you're talking these numbers because i think the graph is so illustrative um and you know you can put these numbers up which graph is talking about this because the next report we did the moment it's about the. The bar chart with the cancers. The neoplasm, malignant neoplasms, is that cancers?

Yes, yes. Cancers over the, yeah, I didn't know it was cancer. Hold on, I'm putting it up right now. Neoplasms is cancers, yeah. So this is in our follow-up report. We had a second report that delved down into specific causes of cancer. And you can see we went into five major ones, breast, brain, colon, without specification of site, and skin cancer. And we focus on without specification of site because people are talking about turbo cancers. And without specification of site, it's everywhere.

So that's kind of, we're thinking the increase in that may, again, of turbo cancers and without specification site is it's everywhere. So that's kind of we're thinking the increase in that may again, this is speculation, maybe with the turbo cancers that people are talking about. And you can see the stunning excess growth in the age group 15 to 44 in those different cancers. So these reports are available on our website. They're very long. They're mostly for doctors, but we have a cancer signal. And we had a cancer signal. Our methodology is to make adjustments for the missing autopsies in 22 and 21. Even without that, we have a forced standard deviation cancer signal in 2022 with 30% of the autopsies missing so it's it's registered deaths versus the causes and so once those all get reported you know we we think our calculations will approximate what we what we

said but there's a four standard deviation signal with only with 30 of the records missing and and unfortunately i can say from a from a physician's standpoint, it is predictable that if you're going to have ill effects on multiple organ systems, say on the immune system, on the renal system, on the cardiovascular system, you would expect those things to occur relatively quickly, effect on the heart, for example. And you would certainly expect, unfortunately, cancers to be a trailing indicator because it takes a while for cancers to develop. It takes a while for cells to mutate, form into a cancer and to rear their ugly heads. It takes a while. It doesn't

happen overnight. So Drew asked you about what you're seeing in terms of trend lines. If you're seeing some of these things tail off now, whether it's infertility issues, spontaneous miscarriages, cardiac events, I'd like to hear what you're seeing in terms of the trends of all this or just disability numbers in general, because I hate to predict it again, but I'm guessing we're going to see an increase in the cancer trend line, even if the other trend lines start to go down. Well, what we do know is excess all-cause mortality in 2023 is running at the highest for 15 to 44 right now, an all-time high. So we can assume these trends probably don't go down, but we don't have the data. What we do have is disability data in the US and in the UK, and it's going up. It started

going up again in June. So morbidity leads mortality, and we have more real-time society of actuary numbers that show an acceleration in excess mortality in the millennial age group. So without the data, can't say definitively, but the trend, unfortunately, is not going to be your friend once we get the 23 data on cardiovascular and cancers in the UK. And unfortunately, I can tell you, although I don't have a graph to show it, I can say what we are seeing observationally with regard to these cancers, and I've reported this before, we are seeing types of cancers in groups of people in whom we would never normally see them. For example, advanced colon cancers in people in their 20s and 30s, where the average

onset of colon cancer is normally in the mid-50s. We're seeing very aggressive malignant melanomas in people in their 20s, lymphomas and leukemias in people in their late teens and early 20s. We're seeing very aggressive malignant melanomas in people in their 20s, lymphomas and leukemias in people in their late teens and early 20s, and so forth. So we're seeing very unusual cancers, not only in terms of the rate of growth, but occurring in a patient population where it was previously not seen. So I'm hoping that that trend doesn't continue, but I have my doubts. Switch gears for a second here. You and Drew were talking about the PCR test. I find this somewhat amusing almost. The PCR test was designed, completely faulty test. It was never intended to be used in the way it was used. It's not a diagnostic test. It wasn't supposed to be used that way.

But lo and behold, it was used and was formulated. It was created to pick up the spike protein on COVID. Don't you find it curious that we need to get a new booster for COVID about every 15 minutes because the spike protein mutates and therefore you need a different vaccine based on that new spike protein. But isn't it interesting they never had to change the PCR test? I believe they can cycle it up or down depending upon the result that is wanted. But they didn't change, it's still predicated on the original Wuhan strain, the, that the spike, that a spike that has been out of existence for, oh, two and a half, almost three years now, they didn't change the PCR test. They changed the boosters. They changed the vaccines because the spike mutates and, and they know that it doesn't work on the Wuhan strain anymore. Cause

the Wuhan strain has been gone, but they didn't change the PCR test. And I would submit it's because you could stick that thing in a bowl of guacamole and get a positive test because it doesn't actually pick up anything likely related to the spike protein. In other words, I think it's utter bullshit because otherwise they would have had to create new PCR tests. Am I missing this, Drew? I mean, I'm not a PCR test expert, but I can tell you right now. I wonder about that. Tell them what happened to me this week.

Yeah, Susan insists on- I got COVID again, Kelly. Well, she insists on testing herself every time. You did her the bowl of guacamole. Right, exactly. To your point, every time she gets a runny nose, she runs her COVID test, and she's had weekly positive results, two in a very short period of time.

I don't believe either one of them. Not weekly. I'm not sick weekly. I just am proposing it. I'm just posing it, Susan, that if you have to get a new booster because the old ones don't work because the virus has mutated so much, why didn't you need to change the PCR test? Why are we using the same PCR test that we used four years ago? I'm just throwing that out there.

Yeah, and these are really old. They were in the closet, so that's why I took it. You're right. You know what, Kelly? I'm starting to really believe you. Thank you. I did not believe me, but okay. It takes what but okay. You're welcome, Drew. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Let's talk about some of the lawsuits. You made a really, I think,

important point before we came on, Ed, when we were in the green room, that nothing really changed with regard to tobacco litigation until state's attorneys general started filing lawsuits and really going after the tobacco manufacturers. Let's talk about some of the suits that are kind of pending, that are kind of percolating out there, what we're seeing, and where you think some of those might go. And by the way, Kelly, you said the one's a criminal investigation, right? Texas is actually, is it not a criminal question? I think it is, but that's why I want Ed to talk about this a little bit. Let's talk about that there's several different lawsuits

out there. Well, I've not been following all the different lawsuits. What I really wanted to see was a state's attorney general come into the game. And now they have. And like the tobacco wars, once those guys got in there, they were able to get discovery. Now, if Texas can't get discovery, then my point's moot. But discovery will, you know, give us a lot more information as to what really happened and when. So I'm very excited about this lawsuit. I hope we get discovery. I'm not a lawyer, but there's something about state's attorney generals using certain leverage

to get discovery. So we'll see what happens. But this is, I think, a watershed lawsuit that is a big deal for me, at least. A lot of the individual ones, again, those are harder to quantify, but this also has the ability for other states to pile on so we could get other states to start to come in here as well. And I want to make a prediction. I think Albert Borla probably won't be CEO next year and the new CEO will likely be a lawyer. And if not, he should be a lawyer. Well, the reason I think this is a really a pivotal lawsuit in Texas, because as

you said, Drew, what they're posing here again, is that the pharmaceutical companies lied, that they committed fraud. And the reason that is critically important to me is that the pharmaceutical companies lied, that they committed fraud. And the reason that is critically important to me is that the emergency use authorization and the protections that went along with that, the blanket liability protections that the pharmaceutical companies enjoy as a result of the emergency use authorization, go away if you can prove fraud. They are not protected against liability if they committed fraud, if they lied to the FDA, if they hid information about adverse events, if they didn't fully disclose information that they knew that might have impacted whether or not the FDA granted the EUA and on and on. So I think these lawsuits

are critically important because our ability to prove fraud and therefore perhaps offer some element of recourse for the millions and millions of people who've been harmed by these things. I think that's important because right now, all of the people who have a vaccine injury or who are disabled by these things are kind of hanging out there without any recourse because of the liability issues. So I think it's important from that perspective. Any other suits that we should be following, Drew, that you've been looking at other than the one in Texas? No, that to me has been the most, for the reason that Ed was talking about, the fact that it's a criminal investigation and that somebody who can get discovery.

But you said something there, Ed, that caught my attention was, what if they're not able to get discovery? In what world is that possible? How does that work? Is it just magically things are going to be lost? Is that what we're talking about here? No, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the intricacies of what happened in the tobacco wars.

But they did get discovery, and that was the big event. And whether or not the same engines of discovery are available to Ken ken pax and i don't know but i think they are i'm just being careful and making sure that i don't you know say it's a done deal and they're going to get discovery but i'm pretty sure they're going to there'll be follow-on um uh states coming on board and uh you know in the tobacco wars the Philip Morris, their CEOs going forward were all lawyers. So I think we're going to see a rash of lawyers become CEOs. Interesting. Yeah.

Well, the numbers that are being thrown around, I'm not saying by you, Ed, I don't know if you actually come to a conclusion in terms of how many millions of people you think have been harmed or killed by these vaccines, but certainly others have done that. We've had Steve Kirsch on this show before. The number he's throwing around is he's saying that he believes 10 million people have been killed by the shots. He's putting it at one in a thousand people who've received the shots may have been mortally wounded by them. Again, I'm not saying that his data is... It doesn't fit for me. Yeah, I'm not saying that either. I'm just saying that the numbers that people are throwing out are really quite enormous and overwhelming.

Astonishing. Astonishing, yeah, astonishing. And we may never get to, but even if it's a mere fraction of those numbers, if it was a 100th of that number, it would still be absolutely insane. And we need to get to the bottom of it. Speaking of Ed, speaking of Steve,

Ed, did you see the New Zealand whistleblower data? Did you have a chance to look at it at all? That's what I was just going to ask about, yeah. No, we did not look at it. And per our policy, we're not going to look at it. And again, apparently, whoever does look at it is having their whole data wiped out. So currently, under the current regime,

we will not touch the data. Kevin McKernan lost all his data web hosting company and made an inquiry into the web hosting company apparently the web hosting company nuked all his data including his genomic data that is crazy yeah and a slightly different topic go ahead kelly go ahead i was gonna to say, this is sort of just a postulating question, and I would pose it to both of you. Do you have a feeling for what percentage of the population, here in the United States at least, has been vaccinated? It's a question people ask me all the time. I know the numbers that the CDC is promoting.

I know the number that I think it likely is. I would submit to you that people had a motivation early on to lie about being vaccinated when they weren't because they wanted to fly or go to the concert or whatever. So a lot of people who weren't vaccinated falsified documents and said they were. Now, fast forward, I think people have some motivation to say they aren't vaccinated when maybe they in fact are falsified documents and said they were. Now, fast forward, I think people have some motivation to

say they weren't, aren't vaccinated when maybe they in fact are because they feel duped or stupid or whatever, whatever it is. But, you know, do you have a feel, Ed, for what percentage of the population you believe is vaccinated? You know, we haven't looked into that. I mean, the number we heard, we've all heard, is around 70%, 30% unvaccinated. And, you know, I've got to go with what they're saying. It could be a plus or minus 10. I don't know. What I do know, and I didn't know at the time because I never got involved in falsification of vaccine identification because I felt personally that to do so would be to

comply with the system. So I was trying to not comply. So I never got involved in that scene. But I'm hearing stories now, you know, as time rolls on, oh, I got a fake one. I'm like, oh, gee, I wasn't aware. So that's for sure. Yeah, and that's what I'm saying. I did the same as you, Ed. I just said I'm not getting vaccinated, and therefore I don't need a fake vaccine card because I'm not doing it because it's wrong. But that said, I know a heck of a lot of people who did. And I don't think we'll ever actually know the real numbers. The government certainly doesn't. I mean, think about the number of people who are getting

vaccinated in the parking lot at the local Walmart in some pop-up tent and somebody taking, you know, notes on paper, you know, it was so, you know, loosey goosey, you know, nobody will ever really, I think, sort out what actually happened. And all it would take is somebody, human error to transpose one number on a telephone number or a name that were written by hand in ledgers. These things were not exactly done in any way that would allow them to be reproduced in sort of an actual database. But what's your thinking, Drew? You think the 70 number is in the ballpark?

It's a number that if it fits for me, it's ballpark. You know, it might be as low as 60. It might be as high as 73 or 74. But I think it's in the zone. And I'm also thinking about a couple of other things. I don't adhere to this notion, but I hear people throwing around this idea that some of the little seasonal outbreaks that we're seeing may be amplified by some sort of immune suppression from the vaccine in children in particular. So we're seeing RSV and influenza and mycoplasma kind of spin around

as it normally does. And I know Kelly, just as a quick sidebar here, Kelly was with Deborah Burks on Newsmax on Saturday, which I dutifully ran to the television and filmed it on my phone for Susan. And I was stunned by, you got your licks in, which I thought was great. But I was stunned at Deborah Burke's tune change. She did not mention vaccine once. And she went on and on about how there are so many great treatments now for mycoplasma, which has always been treatable. For influenza, again, we could debate that. I'm hearing sort of bad data on Tamiflu and influenza. And then she also included RSV and COVID, treatments for COVID,

something I've been screaming about for three years. They've not mentioned treatment once, and she suddenly completely went over to the treatment side. What did you think of that, Kelly? Oh, my God. I mean, I was apoplectic. I thought, oh, please come back to me. Please come back to me. Please come back to

me. Please come back to me so I can just rip this open. Yeah, she had that smarmy smile on her face as she's saying the important thing is for people to get diagnosed so we can treat them because we can easily treat pneumonia and RSV and COVID. And I'm thinking, are you kidding me? You know, you denied that you could treat COVID. There was no treatment, you know, wait till you turn blue and then come into the hospital. No treatment until that interview, that morning, that day was the first mention of treatment in three years. But I hopefully opened, I had to, you know,

when you don't know how long the segment's going to be and you don't know what they're going to be and you don't know what they're going to ask and you don't know which guests they'll start with, I essentially did the interview like this. Good morning. Boom. I unloaded with both barrels right out of the gate. The word debacle came out of Kelly's mouth in the first seven words. It did. So anyway, but so we'll never know. Back to the question of how many people have been vaccinated,

I don't think we'll ever know. I hope that you're right. I hope it is only 60% of the population because that will, given the data that Ed has been reporting on for the past, you know, what's it been, you've been reporting on this for what, two years, Ed? I started, yeah, I started in really getting going in the fall of 21 just by myself. Then I got, you know, an insurance whistleblower or two. So since fall of 21, but it's really become very professionalized in June of 2022 when we started

really doing the work. Yeah. Other than the, than the extreme sigmas, you know, the eight sigmas or whatever you're seeing here, have there been any other surprises along the road since we last spoken to you in particular either way where things were worse than you thought or things were better than you thought um i was hopeful things were getting better this summer with the disability data and they they were going sideways and so it wasn't a break of trend

and look i i'm not rooting for death and disability. I want this to go away. And this is not a full-time job. We're going to raise capital and we're going to do our thing in the financial markets. This is something we just thought was a public service because the supposed watchdogs of the globe don't seem to be caring about these signals. And I was hoping things would start to get better in 2022. Unfortunately, or 23, they reaccelerated with the U.S. disability. So, you know, I can't say things are getting better.

I suspect they're getting reaccelerated again. But I want to just hope that this goes away. But unfortunately, it's lingering. Yeah, yeah. So I guess that's my question was, and Drew may have asked this before in a different version. Are you seeing the disability, you know,

disability numbers? Are those, the first thing I was aware that you reported on was disability even before anything else was the disability numbers early on. And we had seen those reported by the insurance companies. Are those numbers changing at all? So there was a dry kindling effect with the old folks. So it's looking better on the actuarial front in the older populations, but the young people, which, you know, they should not be experiencing these excess deaths because they remember old people die in greater numbers younger people die in fewer numbers so excess even though it's it's statistically off

the charts you know you're not noticing neighbors dropping dead who are you know 25 because it's just a lower number but uh that that's the canary in the coal mine for me and when i when i heard from my whistleblower that q3 of this year for the side of actuaries is looking like 32%, that's going the wrong way. I mean, and I want to report good news. I mean, people think I'm the gloom and doom prophet. You know, this isn't bode well. Forget, let's say I'm wrong on the vaccine. This doesn't bode well for the economies of the globe if this trend continues with deaths and disabilities and injuries.

It's just not good. It's going to cripple economic growth, which then reverberates into economic downturns and more death and more drug use and more alcohol. Well, that's a question. In that 30%, can you pull out substance use, substance death, suicide, that kind of thing? Not in the US. We're going to look at the CDC data. That's coming up. We just haven't been able to get that kind of granularity into the causes.

Has anyone of your... All cause mortality is up when it should have been coming down after all the medical interventions. I mean, if things weren't according to plan plan we had a spike in 2020 we should be trending back to baseline by now at least and we're not so and that no one wants to talk about that of the people who have who have been critic critical of you or criticize your data, Ed, has anyone postulated an alternate explanation for these that you find even interesting

or vaguely credible, something that you think, hmm, could be a contributor, anything? Obviously, COVID may have contributed to some of these things away from the vaccine. We did get, look, if I'm going to be an honest data analyst, in the cardiovascular signal in the UK, 15 to 44, there was a 13% rise of cardiovascular in 2020, excess cardiovascular events without a vaccine. And that was statistically significant. So there was a signal without a vaccine present. So maybe COVID and the vaccine. So, you know, could COVID be part of this?

Sure. But the problem is, as we roll through time, it's Omicron. It's a cold. It's just not what it used to be. So there could have been more questions in 21 and maybe the beginning of 22. But as we roll through time and this continues, COVID is becoming less and less of an issue. But early on, some of those more deadly variants could have caused some things. And we're open to that. Yeah, I think there's no question. I mean, we know that, as Drew said, we know that the toxic component of this is the spike protein.

And the spike protein is clearly present on the virus itself. Yes, when you get vaccinated, you become a little spike protein factory and you continue to crank out these spike proteins, perhaps in perpetuity, but they do exist on the virus. And there's no question that the endothelial damage, some of the blood vessel damage, the thrombogenesis, meaning the development of blood clots. Some of those things absolutely occurred to people who had bad cases of COVID. So I think without question, some of it's attributable to that, but you rightly point out the COVID of today is fundamentally a bad cold. Interestingly also, vaccine uptake is essentially fallen to zero.

You know, we're down in the, I think one to 3% vaccine uptake on the current boosters. Um, so hopefully we'll see some things start to tail off because people are not continuing to inoculate themselves with this, uh, with this stuff. Um, but I think, unfortunately it's going to take a while to show those trends. What's next on your hit parade? Where are you going next with what you're doing? What are you looking for next? Well, like I said, Carlos and Yuri and the team are looking at the CDC data and we're going to drill down into some causes. We have all-cause mortality from the CDC, but we don't have causes like we do in the UK. and we'll drill down into some causes. We have all cause mortality from the CDC,

but we don't have causes like we do in the UK. So we want to get that data. We're going to analyze it and present it. There's some, there'll be some controversy because of the way the CDC reports it, but we think we're going to be able to untangle that and unhide what some of the trends are. And then we'll report it and we'll see what,

let the chips fall where they may. What sort of feedback, if any, have you gotten from agencies like the CDC, the FDA? Who at the government level, you know, Drew asked the question, why has, you know, no government looked into these sort of alarming numbers of whatever you want to attribute them to. What feedback of any inquiries have you had from governmental agencies? None. Weird. Have you reached out to them at all?

Have you been proactive? We were in D.C. in the end of last year with Senator Ron Johnson. I'd love to get before Congress and talk to Marjorie Taylor Greene and her committee. And, you know, there are people in the movement who've been reaching out to her on all sorts of people's behalf. So I'm sure hopefully at some point we get called. I sit down in a suit, maybe even bring Carlos over from Portugal and we just go through the number right wouldn't you think they'd want to see me that that's what's so it just it's so bizarre that they don't but think about yeah think about that you you've got a

citizen who's who's you know been reporting you know consistently, overwhelmingly damning data about what's happening to your population. And nobody from the CDC whose job it is to investigate this stuff even thinks, oh, hey, maybe we ought to talk to this Ed Dowd dude and kind of find out what, you know, he's sitting on and whether or not there's something we ought to be, i mean i just find it it's criminal here's the thing the signals we're seeing they have billions of dollars of budget they have people that do what we do right i'm sure they see the same signals they just don't want to talk about it i mean that's at the end of my book i say look i get i don't get into the who and the why but they see what we see and there's silence on it. That's one of my biggest talking points is silence. These signals are not rocket science.

But every country on earth, that's the part that gets me. Wouldn't you think, and you have a few MPs in England starting to kind of look around and you have a few of the EU officials starting to look around, but nothing of any energy, certainly not the level it should be. Right. Well, I agree with that. And your amazement at the situation is the same as mine. Why is no country investigating this?

But the good news is Marjorie Taylor Greene did have Dr. Malone and some others testify. It was a good beginning. There were three of them. Tom Rents was there and another doctor. So it's beginning and we need to see more of them. I'm not saying that Marjorie Taylor Greene hasn't done a good job. She's just starting, hopefully. Right. I'm bringing somebody up to the podium here to ask a question.

It's Brain Bell, I believe. Yeah, hi, Brain Bell. Hey there. Brain Bell Jangler. What's going on? Can you hear me okay? Yeah. We do.

Hi. I'd like to ask Mr. Dowd the 2006 Lausanne study as a baseline for comparing current athlete deaths to. All right. Good question. Look, the sub-athletic deaths are up 10, 20-fold over history. And did they occur before? Sure. And again, that's anecdotal. I make a point because it's something people talk about. But go look at all the rest of the data

that we have. Some athletic deaths are up, and it's undeniable that they're up over what I grew up in the past. I'm not going to say that. What about the national consortium of reporting? I think it's an international consortium.

It's in South Carolina or something. I've read their data a few times, and they consistently say no increase. You know what I'm talking about? I know there's issues that people— I know that there's questions about people not reporting to them. That's what some of the pushback has been. Go ahead. Can I continue, please?

Can I continue, please? Can I continue, please? Mr. Dowd and others have consistently cited the 2006 Lausanne study, which shows roughly about 29 athletes globally were dying. But there's a couple things about the Lausanne study. One, it's not original research. Its goal was not to get a definitive count of athlete deaths. They were looking for protocols for the Olympic commitment. They weren't trying to count athlete deaths. They were looking in literature already available.

And some of the literature goes back to, let's face it, basically prehistoric times as far as information is concerned. They go back to the 1960s. Meanwhile, there are many studies after the 2006 Lausanne study that show athletes dying at much higher rates. You ignored, and then I'm not just blaming you, Mr. Dowd, there's others, McCullough, RFK Jr., Corey, Malone, Kirsch, they all referenced this 2006 Lausanne study, and they ignore the 2009 Moran study, for instance, which found that almost 70 a year died sudden deaths in just the United States. Okay, let me get in here. The 2013 Choi study found 52 to 70 deaths, depending on how you classify an athlete. The 2020 Peterson study found 43 sudden cardiac deaths in the United States alone. Let me jump in here. So what you refer to, because I am very well versed in this,

what you refer to as the 2006 Lausanne study, was a 40-plus year study run by the International Olympic Committee, as you rightly point out, in an effort to provide guidelines to physicians on what level of cardiac testing should be done to give somebody a stamp of approval to go ahead and participate in sports. And they looked specifically at Olympic level or comparable athletes globally. And they came over that 40 plus year period that on average, somewhere in the range of 29 Olympic level elite athletes dropped dead of sudden cardiac arrest on an annual basis. So even if that order, if that was off by an order of magnitude, we still eclipsed that number by thousands and thousands. We were up 29 per year globally was the average over a 40 plus

year when in the first year of the vaccine, we were having 1200 a month globally. No, no. We were not having 1200 athletes dying a month globally. We were not having 1,200 athletes dying a month. Where do you get that data? That is the data that's been reported, Drew, from the studies.

The reality is this. The reality is this. It's by order of magnitude. That is why people have... The Lussan study was – So hold on. Hold on. Let's hear each other out. So Brain Belt, go ahead.

The $1,200 a month is ridiculous. It's more like – I think it's awful. The number that's getting tossed around is $1,200 a year. And do you guys know where that comes from? No. It comes from an anonymous blog called Good Sciencing. And everybody on your side of the aisle refers to this anonymous blog's phony numbers. What side of the aisle am I on? Not me.

Anybody who's arguing that athletes are dying at a 10-fold or 100-fold or whatever fold rate you want to mention, anybody who's arguing that is simply wrong. The good sciencing site has been used by McCullough, by Kirsch, by Corey. Yeah, I've heard that. Mr. Dowd also references good science in his Cars Unknown book. So hold on. So let's give Ed a chance to talk about that data. So hold on a second. So hold on.

Go ahead, Ed. The good science data, I've heard criticism of that as well. I can't remember if it was referenced in my book, to be honest. I haven't read my book lately. But here's the bottom line. You mentioned studies and about 70 about 70 years 60 a year 100 a year look we have orders of magnitude well above that and i don't we don't we don't even that's just an intro a part of the book where we introduce people to the concept

then i go into all sorts of mega metadata where there are hard statistical signals. So don't tell me people aren't dying. This is on, hang on. So this is on sudden cardiac deaths in athletes. Is that what you're referencing or just increase in deaths generally? No, what I'm saying is in the book, I never say, oh, the vaccines are causing, the vaccines are, the linchpin to my argument isn't sudden athletic deaths. It's an interesting phenomenon. We have anecdotal evidence. There are hundreds and hundreds of sudden athletic deaths in my book of young people. And if you're saying 70, 100,

we had a month with over 100. There's not a month that goes by where we don't have 29 or so. They're all over the place. Where does that come? Where is that data published? Where is that published, that data? And that's athletes. In my book, I have hundreds and hundreds of examples that are just above the 29 a year, just in that year. Again, I'm not going to argue about some athletic deaths. You know, they're up, they're up orders of magnitude. Correct. And the 29, to be clear, Ed, the 29 per year cited in the Lussan study is globally,

the hundred over a hundred you're talking about in a month is in the United States. Globally, this is orders of magnitude, it's thousands per month. and you would think that i forget there's a national i had it i had it up here a minute ago there's there's a national sort of repository of data about the uh about cardiac deaths and athletes and and they're denying any increase um and now i know there's some criticism who's denying let me see if I can find the group Moderna

no no but it is a group that here this is the hold on I'm sorry I'm looking at the article I'm trying to find the name of the organization that is denying everything. Shoot. Well, I'm sorry.

I'm looking at a study here by, it's in factcheck.org, that that necessarily means anything, by a Sarnak Spencer. This is in January 23, updated April 23. Gosh, i know there's an organization but i'd seen criticisms that nobody knew that that organization existed so they didn't know to they didn't know to call them or report things to them here the national center

for catastrophic sports injury research have you heard of that no No. No clue who they are or who funds them. Okay. They are high school and college athletes. They've covered shows that 21 athletes died in that year, 20 to 21. That's the national center. But even that, though, if you're saying normally it's 29 in the world, that should be a pretty alarming number. Correct.

Interesting. Yeah. And he was saying. 29 in the world, that should be a pretty alarming number. Correct. Interesting. Yeah. And he was saying that there were increases after that Lausanne study to up towards 70. Again, is that in the world he was referencing, I'm wondering. But all right, enough of that. But I know that people go round and round and round on these data, which is kind of interesting. I want to mention something, too, is that I've sat here and I've produced over probably 150 episodes every year of this show,

and not one time has a guest come on here and quoted data from goodsciencing.com. That's never happened on this show. We've mentioned it one time before, but we've never used that data. No, I agree with you. It's never come up. But I have seen people being accused of using it on Twitter. Right. That has come up all over the place.

So, again, we need to – I've never cited it, and I don't believe it's in my book. I have to check, but I don't think it's in my book. I've never even heard of it before. I've never heard of it before. It's important to check our data, check our sources. That's all. I have no problem with that at all.

All right, guys, we are up against the clock here. It's always interesting to talk to you. What shall we look forward to coming forward? Well, look forward to the CDC report. And we got the disability number coming out this Friday, unfortunately. I'm hoping that it goes down, not up. And we'll see. It shot up a million in June, came back a little bit.

It's testing resistance or support, I should say. And if it bounces from here, we've got problems. If it breaks, then we've got good news. So let's hope it breaks. Let's not hope it goes up. When do you expect to see that? Have the data prepared? I'll be out on Friday with the payroll number.

I'll just shoot a quick tweet and I'll just, it's simple. Either going to be up or down, whatever the number is. Right. All right. And Kelly, thank you as always. I believe we will see you again next week, right? I don't think, I don't think I'm, yeah, I don't, I you as always. I believe we'll see you again next week, right? I don't think I'm on this. I think Caleb can put up the schedule there. But Ed, always great to see you. And I love, you know, thank you for everything you are doing

and reporting these numbers. It's critically important. And I appreciate truly, this is not your core business. You are doing this as a public service. And I think people need to recognize that what you're providing, I think is invaluable. I want to say one thing we're doing for free and free. It's not going to last forever.

We're going to move on to what we do, our day job. So if people want to question our motives, we've not grifted or made any money off this free data. So thank you very much for trying to accuse me of that in the trolling. It doesn't work because I've made zero money off our data. And that's why I'm pointing out, I appreciate what you have done as a public health service. You've done it, you know, truly at no benefit to yourself. You have no motivation that I can determine other than that you're trying to report as somebody who is a pattern recognition guy and reporting what you are seeing.

And I appreciate it. And I think people need to look at who has a, who's actually making money on this. And I could tell you right now, it isn't you, it isn't me. I'm not making money on what I am reporting. I'm doing it because I think it's important. Yeah, there's no money in free, unfortunately. Yeah. Unfortunately.

But we appreciate you coming here and sharing the data with us very much. It's always deeply appreciated. And again, I just think it's important to, if somebody wants to call and question, to give you a chance to address it. I'm sure you have answers. And so there we are. So we will leave it at that for right now.

And I'll let Ed and Kelly go. Thank you guys for being here. Appreciate it so much. And we have a salty cracker in here on Tuesday, the 12th. Everyone's very excited about that. Senator Rand Paul on the 13th, and Mary Talley Bowden coming in after that. Michelle Effendi, and then Roseanne

later in the early part of January. So I have to have a procedure tomorrow. I'm having some stuff done to my shoulders. Hopefully I'll get quickly back from that. I believe we are back again on Tuesday, and we will see you then at our usual time. Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation

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

available to me today, some of the contents of this show could be outdated in the future. Be sure to check with trusted resources in case any of the information has been updated since this was published. If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, don't call me. Call 911. If you're feeling hopeless or suicidal, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. You can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at drdrew.com slash help.