Ask Dr. Drew - Emergency Medicine Specialist Dr. Joseph Fraiman: “Major Shortcomings” In mRNA Safety Monitoring w/ Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 247

Episode Date: July 31, 2023

In a letter published in Vaccine, emergency medicine specialist Dr. Joseph Fraiman led a group of physicians who warn “there are major shortcomings in the FDA’s recent publication of its first “near real-time surveillance” study.” He joins Dr. Kelly Victory and Dr. Drew to examine the reliability of mRNA vaccine serious adverse event reports by government agencies. Dr. Joseph Fraiman is an emergency medical physician from Louisiana. He is the former Medical Manager of Louisiana’s Urban Search Rescue Disaster Task Force 1. Follow him at https://twitter.com/JosephFraiman/ 「 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 • PRIMAL LIFE - Dr. Drew recommends Primal Life's 100% natural dental products to improve your mouth. Get a sparkling smile by using natural teeth whitener without harsh chemicals. For a limited time, get 60% off at https://drdrew.com/primal • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get 15% off your first order at https://drdrew.com/paleovalley • 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 • BIRCH GOLD - Don’t let your savings lose value. You can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it. Claim your free, no obligation info kit from Birch Gold at https://birchgold.com/drew • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get an extra discount with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.  「 ABOUT the SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 WITH DR. KELLY VICTORY 」 Dr. Kelly Victory MD is a board-certified trauma and emergency specialist with over 30 years of clinical experience. She served as CMO for Whole Health Management, delivering on-site healthcare services for Fortune 500 companies. She holds a BS from Duke University and her MD from the University of North Carolina. Follow her at https://earlycovidcare.org and https://twitter.com/DrKellyVictory. 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 For over 30 years, Dr. Drew has answered questions and offered guidance to millions through popular shows like Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Dr. Drew On Call (HLN), Teen Mom OG (MTV), and the iconic radio show Loveline. Now, Dr. Drew is opening his phone lines to the world by streaming LIVE from his home studio. Watch all of Dr. Drew's latest shows at https://drdrew.tv Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

welcome everyone uh hopefully you see us over on youtube we'll also be over at facebook uh rumble in our usual spots as well uh today's guest dr joseph frayman he's an er doctor in louisiana who was the former medical manager of louise louisiana's urban search and rescue disaster task force one he's also a lead author of a study that re-analyzed mrna vaccine safety and side effects. He has done a good deal of research and is very interested in risk-reward, risk-benefit analysis, which is what I think anyone that watches this, hope you've heard me talk about that a million times, that is what I've been obsessing about really since the onset of this pandemic. What was the risk-reward of shutting down the economy? What was the risk reward of shutting down the economy?

What was the risk reward of masking everybody? What was the risk reward of shutting down schools? What is the risk of reward of over the top mandates for young people, for a vaccine, for an illness that right now seems terribly mild. We'll get into that with Dr. Joseph Freeman. Of course, Dr. Kelly Victor here is with us as well.

Be back after this. Our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre. A psychopath started this. He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction, fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous. I'm a doctor. 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 to help stop it, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. There are three steps to great-looking, glowing complexion in the summer. Of course, apply sunscreen, stay hydrated, and use the amazing skincare products from our friends at Genyacel. Most retinol creams are not recommended for sunlight, but Genyacel's Ultra Retinol uses a powerful plant extract retinol. It's an alternative called Bacuchiol, which helps the skin stay hydrated, smooths out fine lines without harsh side effects, and it is safe to use outside under your sunscreen.

Genyacel works so well, you can see the results in this unplanned live moment on our show, when the Redness Repair Cream repaired my skin in just minutes right before your eyes. And Susan and I love GenuCell so much, we created our affordable bundles at up to 72% off of our favorite products at GenuCell.com slash Drew. And just for the summer, every subscription includes a customized summer spa gift box, absolutely free. I know I'm a snob about the products I use on my face. Everybody knows it. Every time I go to the dermatologist's office, they're just rows and rows of different creams. And then when I get to the counter, they're overpriced. All kinds of products that you can

all find at GenuCell.com. See what's in our bundles. Get ready to show off your summertime skin. Go to GenuCell.com slash Drew. That's G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash D-R-E-W, Genucel.com slash Drew. And remember to use the code Drew at checkout for extra savings. I want to share with you a teeth whitening system that goes beyond merely enhancing your smile. Primal Life Organics real white teeth whitening system offers convenience and rapid results without harsh chemicals. Light. Blue light for whitening.

Red light for gum and oral hygiene. And you can just do both if you wish. Works naturally. Promoting gum healing, tooth remineralization. Gives you a brighter and a healthier smile. Again, no peroxide involved. Consistent usage yields remarkable results. Take this opportunity to transform your smile and at the same time, optimize your oral health.

Aim for five times a week for the best outcomes. Discover more about this remarkable teeth whitening system and other products at drdrew.com slash primal today. That again is drdrew.com slash P-R-I-M-A-L. Be sure to use that link for 60% off. D-R-D-R-A-W dot com slash P-R-I-M-A-L. Be sure to use that link for 60% off. D-R-D-R-A-W dot com slash P-R-I-M-A-L. Do it today for 60% off. And so here we are. As I said, we'll have Dr. Joseph Freeman in here in just a second.

A note, Caleb, I want to get this right. We are going to be on YouTube today, but for the following two weeks, while Susan and I are out of town, we'll be sending everyone over to Rumble when Kelly is holding down the fort. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. We will be starting the shows on YouTube, on all the platforms, but then we will be moving around about halfway through the show. The rest, the second half of the show will not be on YouTube for the next couple of weeks. Okay. While we try to sort out the challenges of YouTube, who have been generally supportive

of physicians talking in a public space, suddenly they've gone south on that for reasons that are not clear. And so we are always attempting to be good YouTube citizens, and we only want to try to get at the truth, particularly as it pertains to risk-reward, something I have been obsessing about. And so I'm so happy to have Dr. Joseph Freeman in here. He is, again, an ER doctor from Louisiana, and he has done some research in addition to practicing ER medicine.

Please welcome Dr. Freeman. Hi. It's my pleasure to be here. Just one thing you said there in that intro that I actually wanted to comment on, because you said you've been obsessing over risk-benefit, risk-benefit analysis, I guess, and just comparing risks and benefits. Well, in my head, in my head, there has been no risk-benefit analysis. That's been one of my obsessions. Where has the

risk-benefit analysis been in all these things we have done? There seemed to be just a complete, like nothing I've ever seen in the practice of medicine ever, just go. And I don't know if you taught very much in residency, if you taught other residents, but the thing I got most pissed at the residents for, if they asked them, why did they do something? And their answer was, I had to do something. It's the worst possible answer in medicine. That's how you only harm people. Yeah, I would agree with that ideology of that. If you don't know what's good, generally the answer in medicine is to do nothing. There are exceptions to that, of course.

When someone's about to die, then I will try a therapy that might not work, that we don't have good data on. But an example is an asthmatic who's close to death. And most ER doctors will give them IV magnesium, but there's not a great randomized trial that shows IV magnesium works. I think it does, but I don't know. But when you're about to die, we're willing to go out on a limb. But when you don't know, the problem is that the probability of just a medical intervention that isn't well tested to have more benefit than harm just because things make theoretical sense in some way, because there's some light evidence that suggests it. Typically, almost every time we do that in medicine, it typically works out that we harm more than we help so i i would agree that's right general that is exactly right i i i agree the terminology though the terminology you used was go ahead the thing i wanted to bring up you said you don't like risk reward yeah risk reward sure either one but the the proper terminology is i think in my opinion

is harm benefit because the risk is the probability of a harm and a benefit is guaranteed you're saying it's you're going to get the benefit so if you're going to say risk it would be risk versus probability of benefit so the equals of for an analysis would be a harm and a benefit and that that's the analysis that you should look at not the probability of of a harm versus the presumption that there is a benefit and that that so that so and it's a common terminology mistake that i think exists within it is and and what it's funny i was meaning the i guess would be the converse which is the probability of trouble versus the probability of success of utility uh and so i i'm always doing a probability analysis in my head which of these is likely so so let me let me sort of turn over

all my cards as it pertains to vaccine we're going to get more into your vaccine research in a second. But I am increasingly convinced that I, particularly in the area of when the days of alpha and delta, I am increasingly with time. Normally, clinically, you know, in time, you know, you get clarity about things, right? You sort of see things more clear on the good side and more clear on the bad side and so i'm increasingly clear that i did the right thing vaxxing and boosting all my elderly patients it was something i had to lean on heavily sometimes like i have a case i like bringing up of a guy hepatic failure from one of his anti-tuberculous meds and suddenly gets covered i can't use paxlovid he'd been vaxxed and boosted. I just sat back.

And it was right. And it was good. And everything turned out fine. That layer of confidence I would not have had without the vaccine therapy. I would have been obsessed more about doing something on the antiviral front. And you can't with his liver failure the way it was.

But in any event, I'm convinced I've not seen a single side effect in elderly patients. I've seen significant benefits. People get COVID, for sure. People pass COVID, but I'm not seeing bad COVID, and I think I've done the right thing. What I'm getting increasingly concerned about and confused about is why the over-the-top push for young people to have it as safe and effective, no other, can't contemplate, can't even bring up anything other than just safe and effective. And it's one thing to say we think it's a good idea for you to get this thing, but to have these mandates and the over-the-top marketing, that's the part that I'm troubled by.

What do you say? Yeah, no, I would agree with you in that I think that there's multiple different questions on the COVID vaccine in terms of a general harm-benefit analysis. And so it's like if you're going into a discussion and just saying like, is the COVID vaccine good or bad? It's kind of too simple of a question. Yes, I agree. So I think that there is a question of, even from the day it was released and the day it was authorized,

was this a good idea in young, healthy people? Was this a good idea in older people, people who are at risk? Then there's the next set of questions of during, through the different variants that we've moved through and how as vaccine efficacy has dropped and disease has become less fatal. And now those two questions are again, the same. Is this during this new variant, safe and effective in young people? Is this a good idea in older people? And I think those are very reasonable.

Those are the questions that of how you should be approaching this, how the vaccine should be approaching this, how the vaccine should be approached. And the answer to all of them, in my opinion, is actually uncertain. But I do agree that initially, I felt the same way and that I was, I personally did not take the vaccine for myself being in a younger group who was not at risk. But I did. I was actually advocating for patients I would see in the ER who were these specific patients who were sort of like a COVID time bomb. And I was actually quite effective, I think, atinating uh this particular group because i would explain

to them i was like listen i didn't even take the vaccine but i think you really should take it right and i think like any like any medical intervention it's the it's what's the right call for that person given their clinical syndrome their age age, their value, everything. You have to take that into account for each case. It's not just, just take it. That's just crazy. I guess you do that in military recruits or something, or maybe that's why the government gets comfortable with it. But one of the things I've noticed as it pertains to the defense of it's safe

is they keep trotting out data from Alpha and Delta. Rather, if it's effective or it's important to take it because people don't you know die or get serious illness yeah in alpha and delta i i get it there seemed to be some added benefit in those days i don't see anybody getting sick now nobody gets sick especially young people they don't get sick not even old people actually in my from my personal from my personal experience i've i could say, I could tell you the last time I hospitalized the patient for COVID in the first year of COVID-19,

I, it was one of the most harrowing like moments of my career, the amount of, amount of people dying on a daily basis. It's like where I work, you know, I'm the only doctor who works there at nighttime in these hospitals. So every time someone has a cardiac arrest, someone has a needs to be intubated. Any sort of rapid response. I have to show up typically in a month. There's a handful, you know, two, three, four, five, maybe during those COVID surges, I was responding to things two to three times a shift.

And no one had seen anything. None of the nurses, none of the physicians at the hospitals I was working at had ever seen that sort of level of death. Well, you didn't. What's interesting, you didn't work during the AIDS pandemic when we had nothing for HIV. That was 100% fatality and people were dying all around us like crazy. And there was nothing we could do. And there was nothing. There was zero. And when we had something, people are still taking issue with it to this day. We pushed things back a few months so we could get more time to develop more antivirals.

What are you looking at? I personally cannot comment on the, on the, on the HIV crisis when it was occurring, but I actually, from my discussions with elder kind of ICU, the older ICU docs who did have that experience, they were saying that during the surges, but it was only, you know,iv uh mortalities that you were seeing were probably pretty constant through the year and the covid mortality stuff that we were seeing was very concentrated in a one to two month period so i i think that's what they were talking about was that level of death that happened in that short period of time was unprecedented for them even though

they had gone through it but if you look at it probably through the whole year um and you like calculated the numbers maybe it would be worse with the hiv also but also we didn't we didn't send these poor men to the icus they didn't go to the icu i mean sometimes but mostly they didn't there's nothing there's nothing to do oh cap disease pneumocystis burkitt's lymphomas tearing through their spine you have no idea how bad it was it was terrible they would die at home mostly no antibiotics you'd give some antibiotics at home for for what so the burkitt's could go all the way through them and paralyze them and

get into their lungs so they die two days later it was just it was it was unbelievable it was super duper crazy um but thankfully we got that under control too and and by the way that was what gave me great solace that we would solve this one too i was like we'll get this we we did that very quickly we'll get this but um what do you make of them in term but yes quicker um but in terms of i just thought of another piece of data i would like in terms of helping the risk reward after that whoops sorry probability of harm versus probability of benefit uh is the that danish study that showed that somewhere on four percent of the uh batches were creating sixty percent of the adverse events i'd like to know more about that please i'd like to avoid those bad shits for my patients uh why aren't we getting information like that

yeah i i don't know that that batch the batch study information is a clearly pretty concerning finding that I, for some reason, you know, is being pushed off as one of these studies that makes vaccines look bad. So it's being generally ignored, I think. And that's, if there's an, if there was a batch problem, and the funny thing about that is I had a you know one of my good friends is is sort of these out there conspiracy theory people who's just like coming up with crazy crazy things all the time and i'm always like dude slow it slow it down no no you got it wrong but um but with he started telling me about this batch information a year earlier. And he was showing me data like some amateur did.

It's been known. Yeah. Yeah. And I was like, okay. I was like, he was calling them hot batches. That was his term for it. And I was like, I have no idea if this hot batch thing is real. I was like, how come no one have no idea if this hot batch thing is real i was like how come no one

else is talking about this hot batch thing and then this danish come out with that study i was like oh okay you might have you might have been uh you might have been right there on something i'm not sure because his hot batch data that he was showing me was from the states not from not from denmark yeah and it's not just the data, it's also the usual manufacturing quality controls for vaccines have not been in place properly as they rush this thing out. The batch sizes were different than usual. Everything, there's a woman named Sasha Ladopova

that's been looking at this. She was from that industry and has been looking at this and mortified by what she was seeing. So there come, thus there comes the bad, but that's just one concern. The point is, before we bring up Kelly Victorino, yeah, go ahead. One thing I want to raise there actually,

it's interesting, is that I would really want to see that data broken up by, because there was some point when the Pfizer vaccine, Moderna vaccines went out and they have to be negative 70 degrees. Yes, right. And at some point they just were like, actually, we just added something else into it. Don't have to be negative 70 degrees. Yes. Right. And at some point they just were like, actually, we just added something else into it. Don't worry about the negative 70.

Now it has to be at like a normal refrigerator, freezer temperature, and you're fine. And that happened without any clinical study to show that that was okay to do. Right. That to me was, is crazy that you can take the drug that was used in a clinical trial change an ingredient that then changes its the temperature that it needs to be kept at and then presume everything is working exactly the same so i would then then give it to how about then give it to a population you haven't tested it on like pregnant women that that to me was like what right it's that was incredible i mean you know of a problem for me too yeah like to tell it was incredible but once they started to promote pregnant women as as recommending it for pregnant women and breastfeeding women as as safe and and i've never heard us ever recommend anything to pregnant women as safe

it's the the the caution that is generally held and i don't even understand from a herd immunity status like can you give the pregnant women nine months to deliver this baby and then what's like until we figure this out, like it doesn't even make how many pregnant women are there in society that this would be the flaw in the herd immunity. Like it just seemed like a very policy wise. It's, it was a decision that I, I was confused by and it made me question. And so what, what, what do you think the push is? Why the push and why are we only shown data from you know alpha and delta and presented as though that's representative of what we're dealing with

with omicron what what is happening i'm very confused yeah one more thing on the pregnant women pfizer yeah started a study on pregnant women i'm not sure exactly when but they were supposed to have released that data already and they still have not released the pregnant women data study that's just something that should be known that it's been studied they should have finished the study at this point and we are not hearing the data from it and i guess we did get a study out of switzerland yesterday with the 1 in 35 incidents of myocarditis, more myocarditis in women than men. This is a prospective controlled study. Did you make any of that study?

Do you think it was a good study? You know, I didn't evaluate it strongly enough to give like an opinion on if it was good or bad, but it, it, it matches up with the tie study and the, it's more or less, except for the, except for the, the sex difference is a little strange. So I, I do have to, I would have to read it in, in closer detail, but it's no matter what it's concerning, I think it's the reality is that finding something like that, elevated troponins in in people is never that's never something that we've in the pre in any prior time in medicine where we would have been like don't worry about this like it's fine right elevated have we diluted have we just diluted ourselves or something it's so stunning to me it's so i i'm trying i'm really struggling to to come to

terms with it are we not just not willing i i don't know i well dr victory has her own thoughts about this on that same point yeah pfizer also was supposed to release their myocarditis study was which was looking at troponins in for this exact issue that was supposed to be released i believe i want to say in june it was definitely we're past its due date and i'll get another one that we have that is supposed to have been yeah and it's fda said you have to do this they did it yet no data has been been put out and and it's it's the entire world that's not asking questions. It's the most astonishing thing. Oh, well, let's, Dr. Victory doesn't mince words the way I do, I guess. And let's get her into this conversation. So Dr. Freeman, you can follow him on Twitter at Joseph Freeman,

F-R-A-I-M-A-N. We'll take a little break and be back with Dr. Kelly Victory right after this. A lot of you have been asking for more information about how to counter the adverse effects of the spike protein from COVID infections and the COVID vaccine. The spike protein is not your friend, let's just say that. So I'm glad we have the wellness company Spike Support Formula as a sponsor, especially since renowned internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, who's also chief scientific officer of the Wellness Company, is one of its champions. There's some very intriguing research around natokinase, which might be a way to take on the spike protein. Listen to this. So start, if you would, with talking about natokinase, how you got to that and where you

see its application. So with the viral infection or the vaccines, the spike protein stays within the body and it's found in the heart, the brain, the vital organs, and it's causing problems. The Japanese have been using this for heart and vascular disease now for 20 years. It's safe. It is a form of a mild blood thinner that it dissolves the spike protein nearly completely. Spike Support Formula is the only product on the market containing natokinase, dandelion root, and a host

of other antioxidants, all showing promise in helping you protect yourself and your family. To order this unique, specially formulated supplement, go to drdrew.com slash TWC. That is drdrew.com slash TWC. Use code Drew at checkout for 10% off today. President Trump recently issued a warning from his Mar-a-Lago home, quote, our currency is crashing and will soon no longer be the world standard, which will be our greatest defeat, frankly, in 200 years. There are three reasons the central banks are dumping the U.S. dollar, inflation, deficit spending, and our insurmountable national debt. The fact is there is one asset that has withstood famine, wars, political and economic upheaval dating back to biblical times, gold.

And you can own it in a tax shelter retirement account with the help of Birchgold. That's right, Birchgold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k, maybe from a previous employer, into an IRA in gold. And the best part, you don't pay a penny out of pocket. Just visit birchgold.com slash drew for your free info kit. They'll hold your hand through the entire process. Think about this. When currencies fail, gold is a safe haven. How much more time does the dollar have? Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with Better Business Bureau and thousands of happy customers. I do not give financial advice and previous performance is no guarantee of future performance. Visit birchgold.com slash

drew to get your free info kit on gold. That is B-I-R-C-H-T-O-L-D dot com slash D-R-E-W. I suspect you've seen Susan and I gushing over Paleo Valley products. We love the taste and how well they fit into a paleo-based nutrition regimen. They're delicious and we use them for travel all the time, but there is more. We are huge fans as well of Paleo Valley's grass-fed bone broth protein. It comes in three flavors, unflavored, vanilla, and chocolate. It's a powder you can add to really anything. We add it to coffee literally every day. Smoothies, baked dishes, just hot water dissolves really easily. The bone broth protein is made with 100% grass-fed and finished bones that are free from pesticides or antibiotics and are slow simmered to extract as much collagen as possible.

As we age, collagen breaks down. That's what wrinkles are. And research shows that there are significant benefits to adding a collagen source in your diet. I don't think it's too much to say. It's changed our lives. And Susan is now reporting that after drinking the bone broth for a few weeks, her hair is stronger and longer and nails are stronger too.

Try it for yourself. You can order at drdrew.com slash paleovalley and use drdrew at checkout to save an additional 15%. 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 there we are, Dr. Victory herself referencing potential risk and potential harm analysis

that they were not taking into account. It's where we started our conversations a year or so ago. But here we are. Hey, Joe, really, really happy to have you here. I want to get into the weeds specifically on the analysis that you authored or were the primary author on with regard to these mRNA shots. But before I do, I want to finish some of the discussion that you and Drew were having. posting some hurdles or challenges for us, is that these kinds of conversations prior to COVID, robust, vigorous debate amongst physicians. I mean, here we are three physicians, Drew and I are considerably older than you are, but we all are three practicing physicians with years and

years of training and education and robust, vigorous debate, you know, conversations where doctors are saying, no, I disagree with your analysis of that study, or no, I think you've missed the, you know, the risk benefit, or whatever, was really a cornerstone. And it's tragic, frankly, that that has been removed from the public square. And this, you know, Drew has been kind enough to offer this platform to me over the past year or so to invite people in so that we can, if nothing else on this platform, have those discussions. So I don't, Drew and I certainly do not agree about everything with regard to medicine in general or what happened in the pandemic. But I'd like to think that we have exposed our audience to enough varying opinions and truths that they can come to their own conclusion.

So I do want to get into what you discovered. But one thing that for me, just to close the loop on a couple of things, I, from the very beginning, you heard what I said in my open, I believe that the risk reward or however you want to call it, calculation is really the most critical component of medicine. I've been practicing medicine for three and a half decades and it's led me to the right answers, I'd say pretty much every time. But you can't make that calculation if you don't have both sides of the equation. You need to really know the honest to God's risk and the honest to God potential benefit. And I would submit that we were robbed of both of those as a result of

corruption and fraud and failure to release the information. I knew from the very, very beginning, because the data were clear, that children, for example, were at such a de minimis risk from COVID as to be fundamentally indistinguishable from zero. We knew from the beginning. This isn't something that we realized a year into it. That's bullshit. We knew from the beginning the kids weren't at risk, but that was kept from the public. And in fact, they said the opposite. They tried to amp up and lead people to believe that children were being hospitalized and dying from this. And the same token, and before we came on air, we were talking about that whole benefit, that effective component of the vaccines.

We were being told, you're safe and effective, safe and effective. So that speaks to the benefit part that you would get from taking these shots ultimately. You had some interesting takes on what was being said about the safe and effective. So start with that, your take on the safe and effective rhetoric. Well, the concern for the safe and effective rhetoric is that they were never allowed to say effective for a drug that hadn't been approved when it was authorized immediately after it was authorized you would find on the uh hhs uh website safe and effective yet the the fda documentation is essentially that was maybe effective and and that is a a really big that's a very different statement and the reality is safe also, they, you know,

they didn't say maybe safe because they didn't, they didn't even refer to safe. To come up to say a drug is safe would be impossible. Actually, I couldn't, I have trouble even imagining, I can't think of a single drug that's ever been approved or released that where we say safe, which means absent of any risk. That's essentially breathing air, which actually also sometimes can have, there's pollutants in the air. But like to use the term safe in a professional manner from a government agency, it's a little bit unusual.

And so the whole, yeah, the whole term safe and effective, it was, it was, it's a little bit unusual. And so the whole, yeah, the whole term safe and effective, it was, it was, it's potentially was not legal when our government was saying it, because the FDA had not said it's effective. It was maybe effective. And, and we did experience, we experienced that moment in time where, where that was the slogan that was being given. And I don't think it was an accurate discussion or an accurate communication of what we actually understood at the time. It was much more of an advertisement than an actual scientific communication of what we understand. Mm-hmm. Exactly. So I would submit that as important as that risk benefit calculation is in medicine, and as I said, it has been, you know, for me, a construct by which I've lived,

you can't do it if you don't have access to either the risk component or the benefit component if you don't know that data. And we did not know that data. I want to point out here that it's an interesting idea of the only guy you said, I don't know exactly the words he used, but he said God-given benefits or something like that. But the reality is that at any point in time when a drug is approved, you have the benefits that we know about and the harms that we know about. And those are different than the true benefits and the true harms. And if we had, if there was a God, a God who could say, these are the true benefits and give us the answer. And these are the true harms and give us those statistics perfectly. And, you know, funny that God could do these statistics and

communicate in that way. But if that existed, if such a, if we, but you can think of that, we have the known benefits, the known harms, any time a drug is approved. And what we almost always see is, is the known benefits, the ratio of the known benefits to the known harm versus whatever is the true harm to benefit ratio. We'll never figure out the true because that's too hard. But because there's going to be tons of harm we never discover. But what you always see is the benefits with time, with research, we always learn, not always, but almost, it only goes in one direction. We always

learn that the benefits are less than we thought originally. That's part of a thing called publication bias. And that we always discover new harms the longer we have drugs around. And so, so this, so the, as a drug, from when a drug is released to when a drug, you know, from any point in time, that the known harm-benefit ratio versus the true harm-benefit ratio, they always worsen. The known one always gets worse because you always see the known benefits. I don't want to say always, but the direction of these things. They never go the other direction. You never figure out later, oh, these benefits are actually way better than we originally thought. There's no examples of that that's happened in medicine.

There are examples of when we discover a new benefit, a benefit we didn't originally know about. That happens. But I don't know of anything where we discovered, oh my God, this drug's so much better than we thought in the initial trial. And then for every other drug, the harmless builds with time. And that- Can I ask something about, really quick,

a really quick sidebar on that issue. That's another thing that has caught my attention. The way we arrive at what the true risk, Really quick sidebar on that issue. That's another thing that has caught my attention. The way we arrive at what the true risk, the true benefit is, is through the medical literature, right? They continue to publish and review the effect of these drugs. And it goes back and forth. It goes back and forth. And I was telling somebody the other day, even if it's 51% in one direction, that starts to accumulate over time. And we start to get some clarity about what the real picture is or approximation of the real picture is.

When I read the medical literature these days, it only goes one direction. I've never seen anything like that. So it leads me to believe something has adulterated at least the editorial process or at least the journals I rely on. Do you have any thoughts about that, Joe? Yeah, I think what you're referring to is a problem of publication bias that is currently existing, especially with the observational data that we're seeing. And that, you know, if someone did so, we have observational data on, you know, millions and millions and millions of people. So there's probably hundreds, hundreds, maybe thousands of studies that were done on this, on these vaccines. And if you found something that wasn't

good for in that didn't fit the narrative, right? For example, you found efficacy wasn't looking so great, or you found a safety harm. You now have a choice that you have to make as a researcher. Are you going to publish this finding? Because you're going to be publicly smeared. Your article is probably going to be censored. And so you might just make the choice to say, you know what? I like my career. I'm not even going to publish it. And you're just going to self-subsist. So that's step one. And then the next step is public, getting it through the publication world, the firewall of publication, which, you know, it's difficult to get things published in general. But if your article is, is essentially challenging anything on this vaccine, that is that, that doesn't make it look good in one way or another,

you will be asked to do much, much more than if you found that it was good. And you will be asked to jump through much more hoops, make sure that what you're saying is correct, do all these extra analyses. And so what happens is that, and then still you may, do all these extra analyses. And so you, so what happens is that, and then still you may, will likely not be published. So what you end up with the end result of what the data you're reading, you'll see that, that you're going to have a massive bias of, of, you know, for every negative study, there's going to be 20, 30, 100, I don't know how many, but there'll be a massive amount in the positive direction and very few in the negative, but that's not necessarily an accurate portrayal of our objective reality. I've never seen that. I've never seen that before in the

medical literature. It's just so odd. That's why I caught my attention immediately. The other thing is, I think, and that what has happened is I would say to you, Drew, that we don't just go to the medical literature. In the past, we really relied heavily on the clinical reports of our colleagues. And that was disregarded. It was actually in the same way that VAERS is being disregarded. The reports are being disregarded from practicing physicians. It was practicing physicians who came up with the, you know, the treatment protocols,

the early treatment protocols. It's practicing physicians who see the, you know, the incidents with adverse events. It's practicing physicians who say, actually, no, kids really aren't getting sick. You know, I haven't seen any sick kids. haven't seen any sick kids. And that was all disregarded. So unless it got published, and Joe, I think you're spot on, there's been incredible agency capture when it comes to the journals. And they are, as far as I'm concerned, nothing more than the long arm propaganda you know, propaganda marketing arm of big pharma at this point, because you are hard pressed to get something published because of that bias. So I think that the literature is really, really super tainted, if you will. I want to start talking about your study, but I do want to close the loop on this issue of, because you brought up something, Joe, that I think people forget about. And I reported on this a lot. When the vaccines first came out, they were really

problematic. And I had predicted that they would be an abject failure from way before they were released. There's a good darn reason we have never come up, start with, we have never come up with an effective vaccine for a coronavirus for good reason. They mutate too quickly, not like we haven't tried. Can you imagine how wealthy the guy would be if he could wipe out the common cold, which is a coronavirus? Okay, there's a reason it hasn't worked in the past. Furthermore, there's a reason why every single prior attempt to make an mRNA vaccine has failed and failed miserably, sometimes with horrific results in the animal trials. It is a problematic thing. When they launched these things,

despite the fact that it was totally predictable that they would be problematic, they had to be stored at like below, as you said, below 70 degrees or something. And that was going to make it a real problem, particularly if you want to start giving them in the Walmart parking lot, you know, with these mass vaccination sites. So they replaced that, they change it and have a synthetic component to the mRNA.

They replaced the uridine in the mRNA with pseudouridine. It is synthetic mRNA and does not degrade the way that normal mRNA does. Normal mRNA is very, very fragile and degrades quickly. This does not. And they didn't go on. I'm not sure if that was what led to the change in the temperature, by the way. You're correct in that pseudo-uridine is definitely used in place of uridine. It was to make the mRNA more stable at temperatures that were... Is that what it is? Okay. Yes. You might be right. I'm just not sure. I thought it was a preservative, but you could be totally correct here. I'm not that familiar with it. I just remember it changing, the temperature changing, and that to me, you change something,

and now we have a new product that's essentially untested in clinical trials. That to me was the concern. That was the thing that they changed. They changed the code of the messenger RNA to pseudouridine. That's correct. To make it more, to make it more stable. And as a result, I think it really has impacted, not that it would have been safe prior to that, but you now have created a bigger issue because that mRNA does not break down as quickly as native mRNA would. This synthetic component allows it to stick around way, way longer. And again, they did inadequate safety trials, as you know, and this whole idea of giving it to pregnant women, that's all for a show on its own. You're right.

They have done the studies. We haven't seen the data. What do you think that means? I'll let you come to your own conclusion. If the data showed that it was absolutely safe and there were no issues, that data would have been released to the public a long time ago. The only example that I could think of that we have of this regarding the COVID vaccines is that by March of 2021, we know that Pfizer basically had this data on the waning immunity. It was well found in their own personal files and emails that there was waning efficacy.

And this was known by the time of their press release that they released in April of 2021, basically just Israel first released data saying, we're seeing a problem here. This vaccine is not working the way that it was. Then within a couple of days, Pfizer releases a preprint. New York Times writes an article saying new data shows boosters may be needed. And that was not new data. That was actually old data that they just held in the file cabinet until they were forced to say it because the Israeli government had discovered that problem on their own through observational. Right. That's the only experience that we have regarding the vaccine. So talk about you did. Yeah, I want you to talk about you. You know, you are the lead author on what I thought was a really well written piece, a reanalysis of the safety data on these and the adverse events. Talk about walk us through in layman's terms. I mean, the vast majority of our

audience is not, they're not just physicians. We have a lot of lay people. So walk us through your study, what it was that you reviewed and your major findings. So yeah, for our study, we re-evaluated the clinical trials. And I think that it's okay, actually, if I can explain a little bit about the clinical trials, not only the safety part, the harms, but I think that the efficacy portion of the clinical trials is not, it's not discussed very much. And there were some issues that I think are important for the public to be aware of what happened here. So initially with the clinical trials, there was the primary outcome that the FDA allowed

for the trial was something called symptomatic infection. And that means you had symptoms that were suspected to be COVID, then you got tested and it was positive. So it's positive tests and symptoms. The other option was to test just the number of infections, like essentially weekly testing would be the alternative. Why you wouldn't test just infections is, I don't have a rational reason why, because that would show us that you decrease transmission. That would give us the important information.

So they didn't study its effect on infection rate. The other option that they could have studied was a decrease in hospitalization, a decrease in death, even crazier. That would be perfect. But understanding that's a hard study because you need too many people maybe. But for hospitalization,

they could have studied this in nursing home patients and actually been able to find, does this prevent nursing home patients from going to the hospital? That would have been great. And then had a prolonged study on people who weren't at high risk, where this wasn't really an emergency for that we could have actually studied this safely, understood actually what we're dealing with. Because now they just did symptomatic infections and that was how they found this 90, 95% benefit. And it was a big difference in the trial. It was eight versus 162. But like they, they didn't tell us a lot of important things in this study. For example, you know, everyone knows that if you compare one country, at this point, everyone kind of is familiar with the term test a positivity rate.

That was the bottom on CNN. It showed the positivity rate on the news every day. We all became amateur epidemiologists. Positivity rate is really important. Number of tests that were being done is really important. In that clinical trial for Pfizer and Moderna, I don't know how many tests were done in each group. No one does. They never told us. They never told us test positivity rate. There were some major issues here on this. And then there's this whole other case of, in the Pfizer trials, where they were talking about these suspected but unconfirmed cases. And there were almost 3,500 suspected but unconfirmed cases, which is presumably people who had symptoms who didn't get tested, or maybe they didn't get tested on the right at the right time. But there's 3500, but there's only suspected cases in the Pfizer vaccine than in the placebo. So within this whole trial, the efficacy data is very concerning in that there's a lot of information that's missing.

They go on to talk about severe COVID being good. They had a benefit from the vaccine there. They did. That's true, I would say. But severe COVID is not the way people think of severe COVID. It was a definition in that if you had a high heart rate and a certain reading on, there were 30 cases of a severe COVID versus one in the vaccine group, which is clearly a pretty good benefit. But of those severe COVID cases, I would presume the way you say severe COVID, most people would think that those people were not only hospitalized, but like bad hospitalizations. No, no, but that's not true because only nine of those 30 were

hospitalized. So the majority of severe COVID cases in the trial didn't go to the hospital. So they're comparing things that are, I don't know how about what the severe COVID definition really means. It's a strange thing. And an important point to point out here is the hospitalizations for Moderna, for example, because I'm going to come back to this, but it was nine to one. So there were nine Moderna hospitalizations in the placebo group and then one in the vaccine group. So it's a nine to one. And that's around a tenfold improvement. That's good. But the thing is that the infection, the symptomatic infection reduction was a 20-fold reduction. So that suggests that the people who got infected in the vaccine group didn't necessarily do better.

It's uncertain, but it's hard because that symptomatic infection that I was saying is a weird sort of outcome. But they didn't. So if you got infected with COVID and you were vaccinated, you didn't necessarily avoid the hospital more in the clinical trial. And that's something that should raise some questions for especially what happened later on with a lot of the observational data. So let me interject in, just to summarize that. So what you're saying is that the vaccines may have been shown to decrease some of people's symptoms, high heart rate, lower oxygen levels, decrease some of their symptoms, but it didn't necessarily correlate to outcome.

So I could make a tantamount to say, you and I could both have a really bad cold. You could choose to take some Tylenol or ibuprofen. And so you had fewer aches, you, you didn't spike a fever, but by Wednesday of that week, we're both playing tennis. We're both actually, because if it didn't decrease, if it didn't decrease the hospitalization rate, or you said, you said nine to one, but not 31. So, so in the study, in the study, they attributed 21 more saves or good outcomes than I would have, because I would have said, you know, if, if somebody wants to give me something to decrease my symptoms, my cough or my fever or my achiness, but with an unknown risk to that thing they want me to take, I would say, you know what?

I can live through a few aches. I can live with a snuffly nose or a cough or whatever it is for a few days rather than taking something, the risks of which are unknown. So the study way over concluded, if you're saying, if I'm understanding you, the study significantly over concluded by an order of magnitude, the, the benefit, the efficacy. Yes. Yeah. So that, that it will know, cause they didn't say it reduced hospitalizations by that. They said they, they were, that part was honest and that they said they reduced severe COVID. They gave the definition of severe COVID. It's just they said they reduced severe COVID.

They gave the definition of severe COVID. It's just not, when someone says severe COVID, the way that it's interpreted by a layman or someone who hasn't read the 400-page briefing is that, oh, that sounds like a sick person who is almost definitely in the hospital, probably a real bad case in the hospital. So I think that the term was basically, I don't think it communicated what it actually was. Because with only a third of them actually going to the hospital, this is not the same thing. And that's because people always say, no, it reduces severe COVID. But severe COVID is a definition.

And severe COVID is not, like reduces severe COVID, but severe COVID is a definition. And severe COVID is not like, we don't think of severe COVID when we talk about it of, and like, even from doctor to doctor or person to, you know, lay person to lay person, no one thinks of it as like, oh, what does that mean? Oh, my heart rate went above this number. That's how I know it was severe. Like that is not actually how we. And by the way, I want to posit something I noticed during some of the more significant COVID cases I saw, which is there was an often a fever pulse dissociation. When I first started seeing that I was I was seeing people have fever, including myself. First time I saw it, I had a fever 102 and my pulse was 65. I thought, oh, this thing affects the heart.

This is doing something to my heart. And I was very sick. And I'd consider some sort of COVID myocarditis severe COVID. But it didn't include a high heart rate, which is interesting. No, treating COVID in those early days, there was a lot of weirdness that we all, anyone who was treating it noticed that there were things that we were seeing that just didn't fit anything we'd ever seen before. But back to what you were just saying, I would submit to you, and again, you're more generous than I am, Joe. I think that they didn't make an error in, quote, not describing it well. They did exactly what they wanted. They wanted people to believe they wanted the lay person to conclude that these shots decreased some very, very severe thing.

And that's why they defined severe COVID the way they did. So the shots may have had an association. I don't think the FDA was honest, in other words, in how they did it. I think they led people to believe, to draw a conclusion that wasn't accurate. I agree. I agree in that. I can't say I know what their objective was. I don't know. But I can say that it's misleading, at least in terms of the way I interpret it and the way I think most people do. But I do want to point out, though, that it did reduce hospitalizations in that initial trial. And 9 to 1 is legit. It's not small numbers, but to me, it would be pretty convincing. And to be fair, I think

that's anecdotally what I saw clinically in that for those first six months. Yep. Me too. After the after the after the vaccine came out, I remember the first day when we saw a covid infection in a vaccinated person. We went it was it was May. It was in May 2021. We went from January till May 2021. The whole hospital had never seen an infection in a vaccinated person. And that day happened. And then that day was followed a couple, maybe a week or two later, where I saw a super spreader event in the vaccinated. And it was at a it was a Christian. There was a hundred people at a Christian retreat. If this was unvaccinated people, this would have been front page news in the New York Times. was a month, about a month before the Provincetown super spreader event in the vaccinated. booster campaign, the anecdotal experience of seeing the difference between infections, hospitalizations, I can say became much, much less clear cut. And I was not as convinced that the booster and subsequent boosters that I was seeing, that it was reducing people's chances of hospitalization. It became

at least anecdotally to me on just a personal experience level. But it was clear to me on a personal experience level that the first couple of months it did. It just, the point that I was trying to make there though, that I think is important is that if you got infected in the trial, your chances of going to the hospital weren't better. And that's a very important point because of what happens later on. Once we started to learn that the infection, that it stopped protecting against infections, we got a message that everything shifted and they said, okay, it doesn't stop hospitalization. It doesn't stop infections, but it stops hospitalization and death based on observational data. Observational data there is not that reliable is the problem.

And it presumes that when the data from the clinical trials suggests that if you got infected, it didn't give you more protection after that. It prevented infection is what it looked like. And that's kind of how it worked. But then somehow magically it stopped preventing infections. And then that thing happens. The thing that I told you earlier that never happens, that we learn a drug has a magical quality, that it's even better than we initially thought, that it actually reduces hospitalizations, even when it doesn't reduce infections. And I can't claim that that's untrue. I can say that the observational data is not reliable to claim. No one can be certain that that is true. It's all based on observational data is not reliable to claim. No one can be certain that that is true because it's

all based on observational data. And the certainty there is, it's high uncertainty on even this thing that is thought of as a fact that once the infection rate dropped, we were still reducing hospitalization and death. And without an RCT that has evidence supporting that suggestion there that, specifically for hospitalizations and death. didn't study for, and they certainly did not prove that these stopped transmission, that these, that the, these vaccines ever stopped transmission of the virus really wasn't even studied for. It wasn't, it wasn't, you know, the study wasn't set up to look at that. Well, and why did they not do it? Yeah, it makes no sense. Correct. Particularly because stopping transmission is the only possible rationale for mandating vaccines to people. The government has no skin in the game. There's no dog in the fight if you, Joe Freeman, want or don't want to take something to stop you personally from getting sick. The only possible rationale would be to say as a public

health, we can compel you to do something to keep somebody else from being exposed to the bad thing that you have. They didn't even study for that. They didn't do it. And we certainly know that it didn't stop transmission. So every single potential, rational, ethical, moral, logical argument for a mandate for a vaccine goes out the window. And that is something that America that we need to get our arms around, that our government pushed you to do something for which there is no rational, moral, is that as hospitalizations are increasing, that there's the need to keep people vaccinated to prevent hospitalization. But at the same time, I don't feel like in the winter, when hospitalizations start rising and hospitalizations, hospitals start filling up, that we're going to start closing ski slopes to prevent ski slope injuries, you know, or we're going to start saying like, okay, shut down the fast food restaurants because we don't want any more heart attacks. Like this is,

it's an absurd idea to say that we're going to do something to prevent hospitalizations. It is, it's, you cannot, we cannot force people to do these activities that will prevent hospitalizations or our entire society will be destroyed. Correct. I mean, the first of the four pillars of medicine, which I don't even know if they teach anymore, autonomy is the first. The ability, you know, the right for people to make a decision. My patients make decisions all the time that I disagree with. There are people, and whether or not they get vaccinated is the least of my concerns compared to smoking, drinking heavily, multiple sexual partners, lots of other things that people do that I don't agree

with that are bad for their health, obesity and inactivity and lots of things that people do. But autonomy is the first of the four pillars. And I would say that we've reached that. Now, back to your study, however, your article, your reevaluation, we've been talking about the efficacy component, that piece. Let's talk now about the safety piece. You know, where did, where did your analysis take you on that? Yes. So our study was essentially started with, I initially was not very concerned for safety with the vaccines. I didn't, nothing, you know, lit up when I read over the original briefing, the 400 page FDA memo document, But it was in April 2021, when we learned that the spike protein was harmful. And that to me was this moment where

I was, I was, I was, I was sort of caught off guard because it was not, it wasn't on my list of a possible problem, the protein. This was a shock. And the response to it was really bad. It was because we just invented this vaccine that no one knew that the spike protein was toxic when we started. We find out three, four months later after we approve it, authorize it, that the thing that we're making our body create is toxic. And they started claiming things like, oh, no, the COVID vaccine spike protein and the COVID virus spike protein are different. It just stays in your arm, which is a weird thing to say about an intramuscular injection, especially given they had biodistribution studies that showed that it didn't stay in the arm. So it was a very strange thing. And I thought, okay, we need to relook at this study with this in mind. And we came up with

this idea of looking at it by focusing, because they found no difference in a serious adverse events. And we were looking at the serious adverse event by definition is something that you could that caused death, hospitalization, or permanent disability, or a physician believed that it was serious for one reason that didn't meet those. So this is these are very serious problems, you never want to have a serious adverse event. And so we looked at that and we said, we took a list that was called the adverse event list of special interest that was created by a group called

the Brighton Collaboration. They were endorsed by the WHO. It was done before the trial had started. So we figured it was a reliable list to look to say, this is a way to focus in on the serious adverse events, get rid of the noise. And we thought we might see a problem. And we were concerned.

Our drive essentially was the spike protein issue, but we didn't use the spike protein. We used this list as a guide. And when we started the study, the thing that is the most surprising result of it is when we counted out the number of serious adverse events in the Pfizer trial is that there were more serious adverse events in the Pfizer trial. And that really was shocking because if you look at the New England Journal publication on the Pfizer trial, they said that the incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between groups. But the incidence of serious adverse events was not

balanced between groups. It was higher in the vaccine group. They meant to write in their paper, I think, that the incidence of participants who experienced serious adverse events was similar. But even there, it's not 100% true because there was a 27% increase in the participants who experienced serious adverse events. But that didn't reach a statistical significance. But if you count the number of events, then you would reach something that's the equivalent of statistical significance, where you look at the confidence intervals that people really like the statistical significance for these things. But it would meet that. And it's a 30 some 36 percent. I think we found a 36 percent increase. It's the increase in the Pfizer trials, one in 555, one increased serious adverse event. And the reason why there's this difference between participants and the number of events is because some participants experience multiple events.

And so that could be someone who has a heart attack and then has heart failure. And in my opinion, it's worse to have a heart failure after a heart attack than not have heart failure. So people get caught up on that issue from our study, but it's a detail that people just dismiss our study for. And that's absurd because while I acknowledge two participants having one event is worse than one participant having two events, I think also everyone would agree having two events in one person is worse

than having one event. And if you were in the vaccine trial, there was more events. And the way that you got there, 27% more participants experienced serious adverse events. And they were twice as likely, about twice as likely, to experience multiple serious adverse events. And then, so that existed on its own. That's not even the part of our trial. The next part is we took this adverse events of special interest. And we were able to see this increase in harm again. And we were able to see clearly now in both trials, in the Pfizer

and Moderna trial. And when you combine them, the risk's about one in 800 when you combine them. But I think that the number, exact number is not such an important thing to think about. Consider it's less than one in a thousand would be the rate of harm. That is, I think, a better way of looking at it. One in 800 combined, but with this way of looking at it versus in the Pfizer trial, it's one in 555. And that's indisputable in the Pfizer trial because anyone could go and count it.

You can count it yourself and they are higher in the vaccine group in Pfizer. And that was totally missed by the FDA and never reported to the public before our publication. Okay, so that's a pretty, so the number you're giving, just the number you're giving, you're saying that your analysis showed that one in every 550 people who got a Pfizer vaccine reported a severe adverse event.

No? No. For every participant who took the vaccine, right? So there was one event, one event for every 555 people, one event. So some people experienced two. So about one in five people experienced two serious, you could have a heart attack and a stroke, right? You could have a heart attack after dose one, a stroke after dose two. If you just count participants, that counts as one. Okay.

Okay. That counts as one event, one participant who experienced serious adverse event, but he had a heart attack and a stroke. If you count events, you would catch heart attacks, the heart attack and the stroke. Um, but you lose something in the sense of a person who's, you know, has congestive heart failure and also then has is hypoxia, right? They come in the hospital for congestive heart failure and hypox then has is hypoxia, right? They come in the hospital for congestive heart failure and hypoxia. They're sort of the same thing. But it just means it's

a worse version of it, in my opinion, that you had that in your hospital, essentially. So it's, it's a, it's a subtle difference. But it but it's, but it's, it's worse. It's worse to have more serious adverse events in the vaccine.. This isn't debatable. Correct. And so I guess I'm trying to summarize it to the, you know, you ended up, there's no question in your mind, if I'm interpreting what you're saying, that these vaccines caused a lot more serious events than, I guess guess how would I put it? It's possible that they could make people who experience a serious adverse event more likely to experience more. But yes, yes, there were more events in the vaccine group. I can't say that it, I'm sorry, it's, I'm strict on my science of what can be, what can be interpreted from it. And, and, and I think that it's most likely. But back to, back to where we started all this, you know, we, we want to be able to

help patients understand the risk reward of the treatment or the vaccine. And now we have your data. We have the data out of Switzerland. We have issues with clotting. I mean, when a young person takes the vaccine now, you might go, hey, you're, you know, we may want to check your troponins in a couple weeks or you may want an echocardiogram before you go out and play football. I mean, there are things that we should be doing and informing patients about to further protect them to take these adverse events maybe down to zero in terms of their

ultimate impact. And we're not being given the information to be able to do it. And this is what is mortifying to me. Just absolutely. back to kelly's point about the pillars of medicine i mean you're giving people proper proper information to be able to give them risk reward and have informed consent we're not doing it we're not doing it no no no no i i agree with that completely and actually as you point out with blood clots are the most common serious adverse event that was that was the of all the body systems that showed an increase between the vaccine was the coagulation disorders. And that's both clotting and bleeding in terms of how you would organize the you know that it wasn't the majority and uh it was just the most likely it was probably around 40 of the serious adverse events of the differences the differences between the groups was in the we should be studying what the mechanism is and how we can

reduce its risk whether it's taking an aspirin or avoiding aspirin whatever i would agree completely that we should at least, we should be acknowledging it. And, and the problem is that we are, when we tried to publish our study, we were denied initially multiple times. And we sent our study to the FDA because we were, we're concerned.

We're like, okay, like too much time is going by and the FDA needs to be aware of our findings. And so we sent it to them and they met with us. The head, Peter Marks of the FDA, along with seven other officials, top officials of the FDA, met with my co-authors. And we sat down for a conversation about our study. And they have some pretty unusual thoughts here. This is an unusual experience. They don't use statistical testing to look at harms,

is what they told us. They don't use statistical testing. They have a guy who goes and looks at each one, and he tries to figure out if it was a vaccine induced heart attack. And all of our minds were blown by this because this is not, I don't think most people are aware of this problem. Like, what do you mean you're not doing a statistical analysis? How are you determining if a product's causing harm? And that's a mind blow. Because how do you do this, right?

Like imagine someone's on Vioxx and they have a heart attack. Was that a Vioxx heart attack or just a regular heart attack? You have no idea. The only way we know is that in the RCT, the second one and the first one, the people who were in the Vioxx group

had more heart attacks. But each individual heart attack is, it's impossible to distinguish if it was a heart attack, a Vioxx heart attack, or just a regular old one. And they claim to be able to make that distinction. And that is, the public needs to be aware that this is, that's an inappropriate way to be evaluating, to not use statistics what right i don't even know they're using some guy who just makes an opinion they're using an opinion instead of statistics which is opinions statistics aren't perfect but an opinion is worse yeah all right we're gonna have to we're to have to leave it here and head for the

exit, I'm afraid. But I would love to have you back to re-review this and let people, we'll chew on it for a while because it is just so, so interesting and so distressing. Again, even this last little chapter of going to the FDA and finding out that they didn't do good science on this on these important issues right can i get two minutes from you is that okay yeah yeah have that yeah yeah the thing that the fda told us that why they are not concerned with our results was they said their surveillance is so good that we're not seeing this. We asked them, are you seeing an increase in myocardial infarction? Are you increasing in pulmonary?

Are you seeing these increases? They said, actually, yeah, we are. It's about 1.5 relative risk, 50% higher risk. But we're not sure if it's real. And we're like, well, it's the same as the study. A couple months later, they publish it they did publish this it was in people above the age of 65 they find that increased risk they later then find something else that disproves it but in their study on younger than 65 we wrote a we wrote a

letter to the editor on this and this surveillance system that they're using is absolutely inadequate to find these harms. They say in their group, in their thing that they had anonymous experts decide if you, if the relative risk is 25, if you have a 25% higher risk of, uh, 24% higher risk of a heart attack, not clinically significant, not clinically significant, 25, 24% higher risk, 24% higher risk of stroke, not clinically significant, not clinically significant, 24% higher risk, 24% higher risk of stroke, not clinically significant. Yet somehow I'm pretty sure when they approved statins, that got us a 1% improvement in heart attack, that was pretty good. So this is a logically incongruent thing. We have a serious surveillance issue. The whole idea that we are safe because of the billions of doses that have gone out and our surveillance of this, and that is the argument the FDA has used to counter us, their surveillance system, it's not adequate. It will not catch many really problematic harms. And that's, ourf is somehow comfortable with that and and stands by

we are gonna have to let you drop the mic drop the mic with that one because yeah that is right a great place to roll to a stop but i i want to bring you back and go through it again and maybe let people take calls on this and chew on it because your science is good and people are wanting good science. And I don't know, I feel like the things you have to say need to be heard, it seems to me. Oh, thank you. Yeah, I think what you're exposing and I think and my goal in having here was to expose that what people are relying on, the agencies that are out there whose mandate it is to protect us, the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, they are using faulty, no statistics, they're using bad science, they're using bad protocols. And so therefore, the things you believe you are relying on, in the words of Mark Twain, it's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for certain that just isn't so. And we, and that's what we are relying on things that we are being told by the FDA, and you are exposing that it is built on, you know, on on sand not on bedrock the the issue is there's a great amount of uncertainty and that is the major thing so we're uncertain about the benefit about who where's the

if there's a cutoff where's that cutoff and we're uncertain on these harms and so when you have a situation like that i you don't push you don't push and push and push on doing it you don't push you let people make their decision with their doctor and that's it oh yeah and while claiming certainty if if they were saying we don't know, but this is, in our opinion, the best path forward. This is your best option. That would be really, really different than claiming safe and effective certainty. No, no, there's great uncertainty. Like I said, no one can tell me with certainty that we know that this vaccine, even the thing that people say is certain, that it's reducing hospitalizations and death.

That is uncertain. It's an uncertain question. It did definitely for those first couple of months, I think in the trial. And I think I saw that. But after that period, when the infections stop and they claim that that reduced hospitalizations,

they are not certain. They can't be because no clinical trial exists to demonstrate that. And they are, that is, that it's dishonest. Anyone who says they're certain on that, that it's reducing hospitalization and death is either lying or they do not understand how to interpret the data. That's the only way that you can understand. That's the only thing that's true.

If you're certain of hospitalization and death reductions six months into this vaccine no you are either a liar or you don't understand how to interpret scientific data but so it's we're dealing with a lot of uncertainty yeah that's yes that makes perfect sense to me i like i said that no but as i said at the beginning i was convinced now i convinced myself that the elderly were getting benefit. I'm not convinced. It's all uncertain. And how to provide the risk, probable risk, probable benefit, informed consent for a 30-year-old. I don't know. I don't know how to do that just yet.

But let's leave it there. We have to leave it. Kelly, thank you for manning the ship while I'm gone. Dr. Freeman, thank you for joining us today. Absolutely. Kelly will be here with Dr. Cortland wednesday at three o'clock pacific time uh maybe caleb will throw that up and then you're going to take the following wednesday as well right with uh i'm taking the next day the thursday and and then august 10th uh palowski nathan palowski And I think on the ninth, I think we have, uh, the Danish author of

the study we were referencing. Um, maybe we'll bring Dr. Freeman back to talk to her a little bit. He can query her data a bit that showed that the, the, uh, batch that you hope so that the batches are the adverse events. This chart here is slightly outdated. I've just been dealing with YouTube's nonsense today, so I didn't update it yet. I understand. 90% are liable. We are traveling within hours.

Kelly, thank you as always, and we'll see you next Wednesday at 3 o'clock, everybody. Sounds great. Safe travels. Bye-bye. Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky. As a reminder, the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment.

This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only. I am a licensed physician, but I am not a replacement for your personal doctor, and I am not practicing medicine here. Always remember that our understanding of medicine and science is constantly evolving though my opinion is based on the information that is available to me today some of the contents of this show could be outdated in the future be sure to check with trusted resources in case any of the information has been updated since this was published if you or someone you know is in immediate danger don't call me call 9-1-1 if you're feeling hopeless or suicidal, call the

National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. You can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at drdrew.com slash help.