Ask Dr. Drew - Furin Cleavage Site Is Key To Uncovering Covid’s Origin: Professor & Vaccine Inventor Nikolai Petrovsky Reveals ACE2 Research with Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 216

Episode Date: May 14, 2023

Nikolai Petrovsky – a professor & vaccine inventor – examined advanced computer models of animal ACE2 receptors as part of an investigation into the real origins of COVID-19. He uncovered new details that appear to conflict with the idea that SARS-CoV-2 crossed to humans through bats. One key finding is the presence of the Furin Cleavage Site, which is unique to SARS-CoV-2. Despite theories of mutation or recombination, the origins of this site remain unclear. The spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 is highly similar to that of a coronavirus found in pangolins, leading to speculation that the pangolin may have played a role. The research appears to suggest that the virus was already adapted to infect humans at the start of the pandemic, as it bound most strongly to human ACE2 receptors compared to other animal receptors studied. Professor Nikolai Petrovsky, founder and research director of Vaxine, is a world-renowned expert in vaccine development and immunology. He developed Covax-19 / SpikoGen® vaccine that was approved for use in Iran in October 2021, becoming the first successful human vaccine developed in Australia in the last 40 years. Find his company at https://vaxine.net 「 SPONSORED BY 」 • 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

Should be a very interesting program today. We are having Dr. Nikolai Petrovsky with Dr. Kelly Victory, of course. Dr. Petrovsky is the founder and research director of Vaccine, V-A-X-I-N-E. You can find out more about his company at vaccine.net. He's also a well-respected expert in vaccine development and immunology, published over 200 peer-reviewed journals, our journal articles, inventor of multiple vaccine patents, and many, many grants from the U.S. and Australian government.

He's talking to us today from Australia, and he's recently developed COVAX-19, a spike gene, a vaccine used in Iran for COVID. There's a lot to be said. He's got many publications. He had an interesting evolution in his thinking. We're going to get a chance to interview him 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. I recently discovered Paleo Valley. They have a line of products that align perfectly with the paleo dietary regimen. Goodbye to the limited rotation of eggs, burgers, and the standard fare. Hello to a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious. Paleo Hello to a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both

healthful and delicious. Paleo Valley offers a spectacular range of options, including 100% grass-fed beef sticks. They're packed with nutrients like omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, glutathione, CLA, and bioavailable protein. Plus, keto-friendly, make for a great protein-rich snack on the go. Paleo Valley's tasty beef sticks are not just 100% grass-fed, but also grass-finished, sourced from small domestic farms in the U.S. and flavored with real organic spices. They're also fermented, which means they contain natural probiotics that are great for gut health and they taste amazing.

Try them out by heading over to paleovalley.com slash drdrew to get 15% off your first order today. Don't miss out on this opportunity to discover a brand that is perfect for your paleo lifestyle. And as I said, today Kelly Victory joins us. First, I'm going to be speaking to Dr. Nikolai Petrovsky, professor in vaccine development, and professor and a vaccine developer.

He uses some computer modeling recently to investigate the origins of COVID-19. He's uncovered some interesting details, particularly about the fear and cleavage site, that may give us some interesting insights. In addition, as I said, you can find him at vaccine.net, V-A-X-I-N-E. Please welcome Dr. Nikolai Petrovsky. It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you. Pleasure to have you. So I feel, I read an article of yours recently when you were advocating for open conversation about COVID-19, for ending all the censorship.

Has your sense of what we've been doing in this pandemic and what caused it and what we've done right and what we've done wrong, has it markedly changed across the course of this thing? No, it hasn't. I think what has happened is some of us who were sort of way out on the edge initially three years ago, maybe because we knew too much, because this is the field we've been working in for decades. Somehow the mainstream is slowly moving to our side. But from my perspective, my views on the origins of the virus and also the management of the pandemic to be honest really haven't changed. It seemed like at the outset you were advocating for vaccinating our way out. Would that be an accurate way of describing your position?

No so I you know my view from the the start and I think, again, the perspective of WHO pre-pandemic was that if we were faced with such a pandemic, we should identify who are the high-risk groups because it's not always predictable. Sometimes a virus will hit young children. Other times it will hit the elderly. Identify who's at risk and then roll out hopefully a vaccine quickly for that group because everything has a risk and a benefit. If you're going to roll out a vaccine very, very quickly, which is what was happening here, then because there's a risk associated

with that, we have to actually target it to the people who are likely to get the greatest benefit. Obviously, that was not what exactly was done in the end, but that was certainly how we thought it should be played. To that point, it's so bizarre to me that risk-benefit analyses seem to have been just completely abandoned during all policy in this damn thing. And I've been still struggling of late with, at least in this country, this push to vaccinate children. Just an absolute over-the-top enthusiasm. Can you help me understand what that is? I feel like I must be missing something, am I? Look, yeah, I've, you know, as a vaccine developer, I've similarly, you know, really wondered about that. You know, we know that now that, you know, we're dealing with Omicron,

it's, you know, probably equal severity as influenza. You can argue about that exactly. And, you know, and children with COVID, even more so than influenza, are just simply not at risk. You know, they get a sniffle for a day or two generally at most. So again, I think when you talk risk benefit, obviously the benefit is going to be dramatically smaller. That means that, you know, normally we'd be very cautious. And so, yeah, I don't fully understand the driver for that. It doesn't stop transmission, doesn't stop them still getting infected and giving it to others. So what exactly are we trying to achieve? You know, maybe we're opening up a market for next generation vaccines using the same technology. And so the driver is not actually that the children's need an mRNA vaccine against COVID,

but the manufacturers would like to open that market up. And the easiest way to do that is to get everyone accepting of this technology in children right now, you know, while we've got a pandemic and maybe people aren't asking as many questions as they normally would if we were doing this outside of the context of a pandemic. Of a pandemic that has been declared over too, by the way. And yet I keep hearing from pediatricians, I can't stand seeing another kid in an ICU. I'm thinking, how? God, I must be missing something. I just don't see how Omicron is doing that. And it feels as though we don't even understand the risk, as you're saying, to the kids.

Yeah, look, you know, for most of us, the pandemic really was over two years ago, you know, when Omicron, you know, was a very fortuitous, you know, jump from Delta, which was, you know, it was a serious pathogen that was causing a lot of people to be hospitalised, causing significant number of deaths. Once we had Omicron, really at that point, I think, you know, most of the emergency was over and it's just unfortunate that that you know i guess governments and health authorities didn't move to to down you know start to downgrade um the emergency and and remove a lot of those the weird thing is if if anything they they ramped it up

they seem to like miss their miss the emergency and like the panic and uh again just odd odd stuff yeah i mean it's odd if we're thinking about it as as scientists and as doctors. Maybe not odd if you're thinking about it from, you know, political or strategic objectives. So I think that certainly, yeah, from our sense, you know, the fact they seem to have doubled down and doubled down, particularly with the censorship and, you know, the attacks on doctors has been truly extraordinary and unjustified and certainly not justified by the virus.

So I think the virus has been used for other agendas, obviously. Have you been the object of some of that stuff? Yeah, unfortunately I have. You know, I've not been able to attend my, go to the hospital for 18 months now because I chose not to have an mRNA vaccine. Not surprisingly, having developed a successful protein-based vaccine, that's the vaccine I had. But they want to acknowledge that um

and uh and so you know i'm normally work as a clinician but i've not been able to do that for 18 months so um yeah it it's been difficult and what is your to? And difficult to understand. So I'm an endocrinologist. Yeah, so I'm a clinical endocrinologist. But, you know, I'm not the only one. Oh, I know. I know. It's just awful. I know.

Over here, it's just been wild. So you've had some recent computer modeling that uncovered some details about the fur and cleavage site that perhaps gave some clues on the origin of the virus. Is that accurate? So it's actually not, not new. Interestingly, we did this in the first few weeks of 2020, you know, when the viral sequence was first released. So we hadn't even seen the virus in Australia at that time. But we used supercomputers to model viruses. So when we got this new genetic sequence, we put it into our models.

Obviously, we're thinking, can we build a model of virus to make a vaccine? Remember, we had no idea what this virus was. And we said about that, but we also thought, well, we could use this model of the virus to work out where it came from. Because, you know, we know that it's attaching to this receptor ACE2 in humans and if it's come from an animal source then we there should be an animal out there whose ace 2 binds better to the virus than than human ace 2. so so we innocently said about yeah modeling all the different animals to understand which animal the virus came from the surprising result of that rather than finding some you know exotic animal at the top of the list, we found humans, a not very exotic animal. And, of course, that raised really interesting questions because it said this virus, if you went by our original thinking, it must have come from humans because it's so well human adapted.

That really had us scratching our heads how to explain that conundrum. And, of course, you know, one of the possibilities is that was by chance, but that seemed highly unlikely given the stringency of the work we'd done. The other explanation is that maybe it had adapted to human cells in some sense, and obviously then the most likely place for that is a laboratory. And so that did raise the question, was the source

of this virus not directly from an animal? Did it get modified or somehow was it an accidental laboratory release, which we've seen with other viruses in the past. So it was innocent work, but it took a long, long time to get it published because, you know, the narrative was that that was not an acceptable question to be asking because we were just asking a question. We weren't trying to tell anyone anything other than here's our research, here's what it shows.

You know, the furin cleavage site, which is what you referred to as the other intriguing thing that looked like a smoking gun. Again, I know the head of the CCC at the time said the same things. Many people have said the same things, but in our modelling, it was clear to us that it looked like the furin cleavage site was not a natural part of this virus. Because if you compare it to the original SARS virus from 20 years ago, which is again a relative of SARS-CoV-2, it doesn't have that furin cleavage site, which is so important to the pathogenesis of this virus. So again, it just asks lots of questions, but we weren't allowed to ask those questions or put that information

out there in a scientific journal for over a year, which was very disappointing and, again, was reflective of the censorship of science that was going on at that time. Yes, the lack of risk-reward considerations and the fact that I'm not sure I'm seeing the full spectrum of scientific discourse in the medical journals, that is mind-boggling. That is breathtaking. I've relied on my entire career. Now I have to worry that there's a whole body of evidence I'm not seeing because they're editorially dictating how science progresses. Did you have, and you seem very even about all this, I would be beside myself if it were my articles being censored. Yeah, look, I guess with the benefit of time, you know, you realise you just have to get on with the job and communicate with people and let people know what's been happening.

And I agree with you. Once you can't trust the science and what's in the scientific and medical journals, not because what is there is necessarily wrong, but because there's a whole other side of the story that you're not seeing. So your perspective is being dramatically distorted. You know, you do start to question everything and wonder,

well, who can I believe? And, you know, how do I get that other information that is being concealed from me? You know, is there another source? Or do I have to go to, you know, the root source? Like, you know, I've been poring over, you know, various data sets that are available around the world and others, again, similarly have gone to just raw data,

which is an enormous task, but, you know, maybe we can believe the raw data if we analyse it. And when you do that, you often will get to a totally different conclusion to what you're seeing in the major medical journals. And that's concerning because I believe you're right, that there is a great distortion going on by censorship and only selectively allowing certain material to be seen.

Yeah, I remember, I became aware of this when the Danish mask study was concluded. And I remember there was great excitement about it. Finally, we're going to see how masks work and how great they are. And then you hear New England Journal passed. Then you hear Journal American Medical Association passed. And finally, it was much later published in Annals of Internal Medicine, something I read, but not routinely read by everybody. And I was proud of that journal for doing it, but it was a negative result. And then that article, of course, was roundly attacked, which is, of course, part of the scientific method.

But every time there's a negative result that goes contrary to the narrative, it doesn't get published. That's not the scientific discourse. So Nikolai Petrovsky, thank you. He's an immunologist, academic physician, vaccine inventor. We are going to bring Dr. Kelly Victory in here to discuss this with us further. Before we do bring Dr. Victory in, I'm going to take a little break.

Again, for more information on Dr. Petrovsky's company, it's vaccine.net, V-A-X-I-N-E. Let's take that break and get right back to this conversation. Over the last few months, no doubt you've heard a lot about spike protein, certainly on this program. The reality is once lockdowns are well behind us, we will likely still be dealing with the effects of COVID and potentially the COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, the spike protein may prove to be an important part of our story. With that in mind, I want to introduce you to the Wellness Company's Spike Support Formula. Whether you've been vaccinated or not, spike protein may be something you have become concerned about. Good news is that there's some interesting research on how

to potentially deal with it. Studies have suggested that natokinase and dandelion root are showing some potential in protecting you and your family. Our friend, Dr. Peter McCullough, and the team at the Wellness Company have the only product on the market that contains both natokinase and dandelion root. In addition to the natokinase and the dandelion root, The Wellness Company's spike support formula also includes natural antioxidant ingredients such as black sativa extract, green tea, and iris sea moss,

all thought to help boost immune health. Go to twc.health slash drew to order today. Use code drew at checkout for 10% off today. With Mother's Day quickly approaching, what better way to express your love than by giving the gift of younger looking beautiful skin with the luxurious feel of GenuCell skincare. Susan, who is a huge fan of the brand, has raved about their ultra-retinol product, which contains powerful retinol alternative, Bacuchiol, and a proprietary MDL technology to soothe irritation and target red blotchy skin. Additionally, their under-eye treatment is perfect for hiding those pesky bags and puffiness that can result from long flights

or lack of sleep. 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. Retinols, vitamin C cream, under eye cream, night creams. Scrubs. And then when I get to the counter, they're overpriced. All kinds of products that you can all find at GenuCell.com. In fact, you might have witnessed the astonishing effects of GenuCell Redness Repair Intensive during a recent unplanned moment of our show, repairing my skin within minutes right before your eyes. That's just how fast this stuff works. Celebrate the special mom in your life today by visiting Genucel.com slash Drew and check out the personalized packages from Susan and for myself bundled with our favorite Genucel products. And remember to use the promo code Drew for an extra 10% off. All orders are upgraded to free shipping. Plus, if you order now,

every package purchased gets a free spring spa package with three of GenuCell's best-selling spa products ready to try in the comfort of your own home. Again, that's GenuCell.com slash Drew, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash D-R-E-W. 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? Birchgold 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-D-O-L-D dot com slash D-R-E-W. Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. If this episode ends here, the rest of the health to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population. This is uncharted territory, Drew. And Dr. Petrovsky, this is Dr. Kelly Victory. Hi, Dr. Petrovsky. Thank you so much for joining us, particularly given the huge time difference. I really appreciate

you making the time available. And I'm going to start, there's lots I want to talk to you about, but I'm going to start where you all ended, which is with regard to this issue about the origin. And I am not an immunologist and I am not a DNA or RNA specialist either, but I was one of the first people very, very early on claiming that this was a man-made or man-manipulated virus that came out of a lab. And in fact, it was my first of many to follow bans from Twitter for stating the same.

I was an early heat-seeking missile in this entire pandemic, but I got kicked off Twitter early on for saying that this was a lab-originated virus. And what I want you to do is, I'm going to give you a minute, I'd like you to explain to our listeners, we have a largely non-scientific viewership, So I want you to explain if you would sort of in very simple terms, when you say furin cleavage site, use your most simple way of explaining what that is and what it is about having found that on this virus that leads you to believe that it was in fact lab manipulated. Great. Okay. One minute. So the furin cleavage site, so the virus has a protein on its surface, the spike protein, which is what attaches to our cells. Without the spike protein, it can't infect. In order for that spike protein to work to bind the cells, it has to be cut with a pair of scissors, which is called a furin, which is an enzyme inside our cells.

And so the viruses like SARS-CoV-2 don't have a furin cleavage site. Other viruses do, like the bird flu, which is a very lethal virus. So furin cleavage sites are like a warning sign that this could be a particularly dangerous virus. The weird thing is that SARS-CoV-2 has this furin cleavage site and none of its relatives have. So it's a bit like, you know, if you have a baby born that doesn't look like any of its relatives or its parents, you start to question its origins. So this virus, it's the same. It has this furin cleavage site.

None of its relatives have the furin cleavage site. It becomes a really important question. It needs this furin cleavage site, it becomes a really important question. It needs this furin cleavage site to be so infectious for humans. Where did it come from? How did it get in there? And no one to this day has been able to address, answer that question. You know, no one's found an ancestor that has it. Great. So the analogy that I've made, and you can correct me if you think I'm off base when I've explained it to people. So I say, if you ever have received a Word document where someone has been sloppy and they've cut and pasted something in from another document and they somehow didn't get the fonts

just right. So most of the documents written in Times New Roman, but then there's one sentence or a paragraph that's written in Calibri. And so you can tell that they cut and spliced a section into this document and that it wasn't naturally occurring there. So it has the telltale signs on the end of the splice that this is something that is out of place in this document and that that is in in a way how this furin cleavage to people who understand the genetics and the makeup of these at a molecular level somebody like yourself it would stick out like a sore thumb to them as something that doesn't belong or didn't naturally occur. Exactly, yeah. When we looked at the sequence, like it just jumped out of the page,

so to speak, as you say, just like a really different font that had been, you know, a bit of text had been stuck in in bold or something, would jump out of the page. So we looked at it and we looked at the SARS sequence, which at the time was the only other reference sequence, and this was just so clearly different. And it's complicated but it's not easy for a virus to create a furin cleavage site itself through mutation,

which people have suggested. But it just doesn't work that way. It has to come from another virus just the way it's in there. And no one's found where it could have come from. And the other important thing I think for people to understand is that the insertion of this or this here in Cleveland's cleavage site specifically makes the resultant virus more lethal, more not only more infective, but more dangerous. Correct. Where a normal mutation viruses mutate, all viruses mutate. Corona viruses are particularly adept at it. But as viruses mutate, with very rare exception, they do two things. They become more contagious, but less lethal. And this furin cleavage site would be,

if it had occurred by a mutation, would be a mutation in the opposite direction, making something more lethal or capable of creating more severe illness, correct? To a degree, yeah. I mean, the only way to really test that is to take the furin cleavage site out and then compare the two viruses, you know, which has been done and definitely it's less infectious without the furin cleavage site there. And I guess what was really the light bulb moment for me is, you know, because we were speculating, obviously, you know, could this have been inserted, you know, by humans, you

know, was to later on see that, in fact, there were research proposals by virologists from back in 2018 where they were proposing to do exactly that, to take furin cleavage sites, put them into bat coronaviruses to see how they influence the infectivity of the virus. So really that told us that not only was it possible but people were thinking about it and in fact we now know people were doing it we just don't have the evidence that they did it with this particular one but when you're you're

speculating about you know how could it have got there, and you know that scientists were doing this type of work, then of course, you add two and two and you may get four. I mean, it doesn't prove it, but it becomes much more likely. Yeah. And so I would ask you, is there any doubt in your mind, given the amount of research you've done on this and your deep knowledge about it, do you have any doubt that this was a lab manipulated virus? How it got out, we don't know. And you may or may not have theories about that, whether it was purposeful, nefarious, or just abject incompetence. But is there any doubt in your mind that it in fact emanated from a laboratory rather than directly from the wet market or from an animal source? Well, as a scientist, you know, nothing's absolute

till it's proven. And so, you know, yes, of course, you know, I wouldn't say with absolute certainty this is the case, you know, with circumstantial evidence. I think there's a large body of circumstantial evidence that suggests it could have been an accidental laboratory leak or something related to that, you know, there are other scenarios around that with human intervention. But, you know, if someone finds this virus in nature and proves that, you know, I'm certainly very ready to, you know, accept that, you know, it was an unlikely event, but that was how it happened.

But after three years, zero evidence really, in my view, has been put forward to support the fact or the suggestion that this just naturally came by an animal source because we don't have the animal and surely everyone's looking for it. Right. All right. So let's change gears and this will circle us back ultimately to the origin question, but let's talk about vaccines. I have said for a long time that immunology is the last great frontier of human medicine. The human immune system does not always respond the way that we think it is going to. Despite what people have said about me over these last three and a half years, I am not, quote, anti-vaccine. I'm more heavily vaccinated than the average person because of where I've chosen to travel and what

I've done for a living. That said, there is good reason that the average vaccine takes six to eight years to come to market if it ever makes it to market. Many, as you well know, fail and sometimes fail miserably during the extensive animal testing. I'm interested that when you went to create your vaccine for this, that you chose specifically a recombinant vaccine, not an mRNA-based vaccines. So spend a little bit of time talking, if you would, number one, about your thoughts about mRNA vaccines, that your history with them or your experience with them, and why you chose a different platform to pursue in your own vaccine development. So that's a great question. The answer is that right at the start, we were platform agnostic. Obviously, we'd had a lot of success with protein-based vaccines in the past,

not just against pandemic influenza, but against the original SARS virus, against the MERS virus. We'd developed protein-based vaccines and shown that they were highly protective in small and large animal models. So we thought that that was the default setting, that a protein-based vaccine are the best vaccines. They're very safe. You know, they have an enormous track record. They are challenging to make. And so we knew it was going to be a hard task. So in parallel with developing the protein-based vaccine, we also made a DNA vaccine, we made a mRNA vaccine, and we're comparing the different technologies.

But we rapidly defaulted back to the protein. The data suggested that was going to be the best approach. The animal data was showing that it was protecting them and we weren't seeing any side effects. And so at that point we stopped the other programs and just focused on the protein. You know, with mRNA, you know, there had been a lot of, if anything, doubt as to whether it could deliver.

There'd been some small phase one studies prior to the pandemic looking at its use for other pathogens. And the data wasn't that impressive, to be honest, compared to a protein-based approach. And obviously, the technology itself was still massively in its infancy. There just wasn't much experience or data. So we thought regulators wouldn't be ready to approve an mRNA vaccine. So to be honest, yeah, from our perspective, it wasn't going to be viable, even if it worked, because regulators would push back, as you say, and just want a lot more safety data in animals before they'd be ready to put it into large populations. Obviously, we were wrong about that. And you can argue about, you know, did the regulators get it right or wrong in doing so? But, you know, the protein-based data is still, I think, very robust and it's still the vaccine I rely on. And so, yeah, so it's fascinating. fascinating so you were doing you were actually

looking at multiple platforms not just the protein base you actually were looking at both the DNA and mRNA platform as well and comparing them in doing them in tandem did were you seeing you said you saw less efficacy or that you felt the efficacy was better for your protein base were you seeing, you said you saw less efficacy or that you felt the efficacy was better for your protein base. Were you seeing adverse events related or getting concerned about potential adverse events related to the other platforms, specifically the mRNA? So the answer is we never got that far as to be able to see that. So, you know, when you're initially doing these things, you're doing them in mice and in small numbers. With the side effects that, you know, we see with these specific different vaccine technologies, typically, you know, a lot of them you'll only

see when you go to large animals, when you're doing post-mortems and looking very carefully for where are they going, what are they doing. We never even got to that point because we just weren't getting the immune responses that we would have liked. Now, part of that may be again that we weren't using lipid nanoparticles as a delivery technology for the mRNA. So to be honest, that's probably why it wasn't working to give a beneficial response. But it could also be why, for instance, we may not have seen side effects. But, you know, as I say, it is difficult. And just doing things in mice is not always, you know, that informative.

And, you know, you really have to look for side effects to find them, if I can put it that way. You don't just they don't just appear or generally they don't. Anyone who's been paying attention now knows that not only did the mRNA vaccine manufacturers, namely Moderna and Pfizer, not look to see if their mRNA shots would prevent transmission. They don't prevent you from getting COVID and they didn't even look to see if they prevented transmission of the virus to others. Were you able to determine in your testing whether your platform, your DNA vaccine, prevented, presumably you believe it prevented the contraction of the virus, was it able to prevent transmission, therefore, of the virus to others?

Sorry, I think you said DNA vaccines. So I'm sorry, I'm sorry, protein. I probably did. I'm sorry, your protein was able to prevent. But I do know that Dr. Pruski is a fan of DNA vaccines. I've read several of his articles on this. Yeah, look, we've researched DNA vaccines as well, but we just don't, again, think they're ready for the prime time. There's a lot more work needs to be done. So we are

very much protein-based vaccine people. So did your protein-based vaccine stop both the contraction of the virus as well as transmission of the virus to others? So it actually was quite exciting that we were doing some studies with a collaborator, in fact, in Kazakhstan, who had an animal hamster model set up. And he was the first to come back and say, look, I've been testing your protein-based vaccine in the animals and I've not only shown I can protect the animals themselves, but when I put naive animals that haven't been vaccinated in the cages of the ones I've just infected who have been vaccinated, they're not passing on the virus to the other animals. We've subsequently did another study in the United States at Colorado State University.

And similarly, they were looking at this whole question of can the vaccine actually reduce transmission, and similarly saw the same thing. So that looked very promising. You know, in terms of humans, again, it's very complex to try and design studies to look at transmission. And so it's really only when you give your vaccine to a whole community that you can then look at the epidemiological data to say, are we seeing less transmission? So transmission is something we need to study in animals. We've shown that we can block transmission in animals, but we can't say that we can block transmission in humans

until we can find a way to collect that sort of data. But it is really very, very promising. With the protein-based vaccines, they're a little bit, well, I guess they're like the other vaccines. We don't claim that we will stop infection. And, in fact, it might sound strange, but infection, because it gives natural immunity, is a powerful force on the immune system. If your vaccine completely prevents you even getting a single virus getting inside a cell, it may be initially effective, but once that effect

wears off, you're now vulnerable again. So a lot of vaccines people don't realise are designed to allow you to get a very, very minor infection, in many cases what we call an asymptomatic infection where you don't even know you're infected. And if a vaccine can allow you to do that, to safely get this tiny infection that can then give your immune system a boost, you'll actually end up with much,

much better long-term protection than you would get either from the infection itself or from the vaccine itself. So this is the subtlety of vaccines that never gets discussed, that a vaccine that allows a very mild infection actually may turn out to be the best vaccine. And the vaccine like mRNA that initially looked to be really strong at stopping infection in those phase three trials, now it's not stopping infection at all.

So ironically, the one that might have looked better at the start may actually do worse at the end. And we're not being allowed to discuss that sort of nuance that I think is really important. And just so that people understand, as you're saying, if the vaccine doesn't allow you to get even a tiny amount of the virus to become intercellular, you will never develop, and you can't develop antibodies to something that you've never actually been able to see. So you need that small amount of an infection, that small amount of exposure to the virus so that you will mount an adequate

antibody response and develop that memory, that fighting force, that army of antibodies to be ready in the future if you come in contact with it again. Then what I wanted to bring you back around to now, knowing everything you know about the vaccines, quote unquote, the mRNA shots that were developed so remarkably quickly and brought to market so remarkably fast for this novel virus, let's talk about that and what you believe or may think they knew ahead of time. As you said, we know that going back at least to 2018, they were contemplating doing this sort of manipulation with the furin cleavage site into a SARS-type virus. I find it remarkable that they came so quickly with these mRNA vaccines. And I think the reason they did is because

they had a headstart, if you will. I suspect they started working on these and the patents would lead us to believe that they started working on these vaccines well prior to the pandemic. So let's go down that, explore that a little bit and talk about your thoughts. Yeah, look, you know, one of the reasons we were fast too is that, you know,

we were similarly working on coronaviruses before 2020. So as I mentioned, you know, we'd been working on SARS and MERS vaccines for a long time. And so to give them credit, I mean, the same groups, you know, particularly Moderna, Pfizer came into the game very late and sort of backdoored onto BioNTech's work. So they weren't in the space at all. But Moderna were doing, you know, mRNA vaccines for MERS coronavirus. So I'm sure a lot of what they learnt from those studies of MERS allowed them to move much more quickly when SARS-CoV-2 came along. So that I think we know and it's a fact that we were all looking for a coronavirus to cause potentially a pandemic in the future and we're trying to prepare as best we could.

And that did allow us to move faster. Did they, you know, get early tip offs, you know, about this virus in China, you know, I don't think we can say, but certainly, you know, it wasn't that we weren't all working and worried about a coronavirus pandemic. In fact, I looked at a paper I wrote in 2016. You know, I said at the end, basically, I think the next big pandemic would well be a coronavirus, whereas at the time, most people were thinking influenza. So it was predictable to a degree.

Interesting. If you're comfortable, I'd love to pick your brain a little bit, change directions. You're sitting in Australia. Australia has done somewhat of a 180, perhaps. It went from the most egregious affronts to civil liberties. It was really the most draconian lockdowns and restrictions on its population. has been perhaps better, more insightful than we are here in the United States with regard to pulling back on things like mandates for vaccines for pregnant women and children and these sorts of things. So I'd love to hear a little bit about your experience as an Australian being there at the height of the lockdown and then how it is that you believe they got to where they are now, which is really quite different. Well, some of us here believe that it's got a long way to go. So, yes, some of the mandates, you know, the mask mandates have been rolled back.

You know, some of the vaccine mandates, but there's still quite a lot still actually in effect at particular groups throughout Australia. So, but, you know, as I say, yeah, what happened, I believe, was not justified on a public health perspective. You know, the length of some of these procedures or, you know, mandates was just way too long, even if you could argue that, you know, if you're dealing with a crisis and a new virus, that, you know,

doing something in those first few weeks, you know, whether you can justify it or not may be, you know, reasonable. It's not reasonable when you continue it, you know, for six months, a year, two years, three years, especially when there's, you know, you have a massive amount of data that it's not working, as we've seen with obviously the masks. I mean, you know, there is no evidence that I'm aware

that supports that they were actually doing anything beneficial or useful. So, you know, the very fact that those things were done, I mean, I think in itself is problematic. I think the fact they will continue, and some, as I say, continue to this day, is completely unacceptable. And so unfortunately, no, Australia is not as free a country as you might have got the perception over there. You know, I'm still subject to vaccine mandates. The mask mandates in our hospital were just dropped a few weeks ago, but you still have to wear them in clinical areas.

It's just now when you're in an office by yourself, you don't have to wear it. Well, that never made any sense to me three years ago. Are Australians pushing back on all this? Have there been a counter trend in any way? A little bit, but surprisingly little. I mean, Australians are pretty law-abiding and they'll usually cooperate if they think it's reasonable. But I think a lot of us were surprised at just how accepting the population have been. And I think, again, that's because of the media and the way the media took control of the messaging. And aren't they expressing concerns about that? Yeah.

Also not public health policy. You know, that should never be public health policy. A panicking population is never going to lead to more health or better health behaviors. Can you imagine during the HIV epidemic where you just started screaming at people about their sexual partners and how inappropriate their behaviors were and they were going to die if they continued to engage in them? It's the same exact phenomenon. I want to quickly go back to your protein vaccine. It's like Novavax is a similar vaccine over here.

Is that correct? Yeah, so that's the closest. I was also reading that Iran has another. Then your vaccine became used in Iran. I was reading they had another one called Soberana. That's a different one. Is that correct? Soberana is a Cubanan vaccine so but in iran

yeah so so so the the iranian government here did did a deal and so they've got a number of vaccines they've got chinese vaccines there they've got a couple of AstraZeneca lookalike viral vector vaccines. And then- Is anybody, my question was, we have all these different physicians. I just noticed in the UK, they approve the use of mRNA vaccines for six months to five years of age, and people are expressing certain degrees of outrage and whatnot. Look, I'm of the opinion that it's not just the approval process that is in question. Physicians should have the opportunity to use a variety of therapeutics for their patients should they wish to deploy them. It's these mandates and the pushing and the excessive fear-mongering, that's

the part that is irresponsible and unethical. To that point, I'm wondering, is anyone looking at Iran and the different mixes of vaccines that are being deployed and what the consequences have been? Look, I've been strongly encouraging them to do that. I guess, you know, unfortunately, Iran is, you know, being in a lot of turmoil, not just because of the pandemic, but obviously they've had significant protests and political upheaval. Trying to do science and collect data in that environment

on what the different vaccines might be doing is extremely problematic, unfortunately. But certainly I do, every time I talk to them, I encourage them to try and collect that, as you say, comparative data to say, well, which vaccines ultimately look like they're doing the best? I mean, we keep hearing ours is doing really well. But again, I like to see all of the days. Well, also with regard to these mandates.

At what risk reward is the question, once again? the presence and the powerful nature of, first of all, of natural immunity, that the vast majority of the population has already had this virus and recovered from it. And once that's the case, and you add on top of that, that the vaccines don't prevent transmission to others, there's absolutely zero justification. There's zero scientific rationale to mandate a vaccine for someone who's already had the virus when the vaccine itself cannot guarantee that you will prevent transmission to others. It's up to that individual. I mean, we allow people to smoke cigarettes and do all sorts of things that are known to be harmful to their health.

If you don't want to take a vaccine to potentially prevent your contracting a virus, that's really your own choice. Do we have a consensus yet on how long the immunity goes following Omicron? We were saying a year at one point, I heard six months at one point. Does anybody have any good sense of how long the immunity lasts with Omicron?

So, well, what we're seeing is at least a year. And again, it depends on the context. There's no doubt the people who are doing best, you know, are the people in our studies who've had the protein-based vaccine. A significant number have got mild infections subsequently because we, unlike other companies, we track all of that and we're honest about our data. You know, so I think over the last year and a half, maybe, you know, half of the people in the studies have reported a mild infection, but then they've not got any subsequent infection. So it looks like, you know, you have your protein, you might get

one mild infection and then you don't get infected again. Whereas the people that we talk to have had the mRNA typically will tell us they've had two, three infections after having five or six mRNA shots. I think the CEO of Pfizer, I was amazed when he came out on social media and said, I've had four shots of mRNA and I've just had two infections with COVID, you know, a month or two apart. That seems to be the pattern of disease that we're seeing after mrna but we don't see that with our protein you know as i say we see one infection and then nothing like you know yeah complete protection so there's something different we need to understand and i just can't believe that regulators are not demanding more science on these technologies. You know, they're new technologies.

We don't know what they're doing. Clearly they're not working. I mean, additional boosts do nothing. I mean, I think, you know, we've seen people getting sick shots of mRNA, but they're still getting infected. So we need to understand better why have they gone wrong? They looked okay right at the very beginning, but I think things have gone wrong.

And no one's asking the question, what is it about them that's different to a protein-based vaccine? Yeah, well, I think the data are irrefutable, that they not only don't prevent COVID, but this is independent of all of the adverse events, the serious adverse events. I know here in the United States, we are fortunate to have looking at the data in the United States specifically with regard to all-cause mortality and huge increases in disability rates here. Is there someone similarly looking at issues in Australia that may well be related to adverse events from the mRNA shots themselves. And once you answer that question, we've got some questions. Some callers want to ring in here over in our Twitter spaces.

So go ahead and answer that question, and we'll maybe take some questions off the Twitter spaces. So the answer is that, you know, I think we're starting to see the tip of the iceberg in terms of people coming forward now with vaccine injuries because, you know, we knew they were happening as a clinician. You know, we talked to people who had and people contact me who had horrific stories to tell. Even some of my colleagues were crippled, you know, but it never was allowed to come out, so to speak. It was not talked about. In the last few weeks, you know, we have seen the media

in Australia actually running some stories on these individuals, you know, after three years. And we've got a class action that's just started that is basically collecting these people together with serious vaccine injuries and now prosecuting the government and the regulators, you know, to seek compensation and also to seek redress for what they believe were inappropriate actions, as you say.

So I think the answer is we weren't allowed to see it till now, but, you know, hopefully from now these people can actually get, you know, a fair treatment and get their stories out. Maybe they should go after the media also while they're at it to, you know, a fair treatment and get their stories out. Maybe they should go after the media also while they're at it to, you know, for having inappropriately silenced stories and, and encourage the panic and the mandates. Yeah. Unfortunately we don't have a first amendment in the, in, in Australia. So the,

the media are untouchable as far as I can see. And anyone who tries to take the media on untouchable as far as I can see. And anyone who tries to take the media on is going to get destroyed here. So unfortunately, I think that it would be great if we could. But, you know, the media in Australia, yeah, are a beast unto themselves. Do you have a question there, Drew? Yeah, other people, I'm just going to encourage those in the audience there,

if you want to raise your hand, the cartoon that's up alongside of us here tells you how to request to be a speaker. And if you do come up, if I do pick you, you'll be streaming out on multiple platforms, Twitter, Twitch, Rumble, YouTube, Facebook, wherever you can find these things, we will be. Don't say something your mom wouldn't like. From the questioners, please. It's public. Okay, fair enough. So go ahead and raise your hand. And then once you are called up, you have to hit that microphone in the lower left-hand corner to unmute yourself. Here's,

let's get a question from Joshosh here josh go ahead dr drew hey sir um so i just wanted to say that some of the stuff i'm hearing sounds a little political um i really don't have a position either way but when it comes to the origin i feel like we're we're trying to promote our own view of it and it's obviously extremely hot political issue uh just to prove the other side wrong for no other reason and it gets in the way of the science because i'm hearing things that just go to that without really an explanation i feel like i'm i'm being i science because i'm hearing things that just go to that without really an explanation i feel like i'm i'm being i feel like i'm being cheated a little bit yeah you are you are being i let that's i think dr petrovsky thank you for the question went out of his way to say look i was just asking questions i was not even advocating a position we were just raising

the issues for what would ordinarily happen for the scientific process to unfold, where we all talk about this through publications and otherwise. But that's not at all what happened, was it? That's exactly the point. I think, as you say, when you're not allowed to ask a question, then there's a serious problem. And, you know, there was a whole narrative and we now through Freedom Information even know who the big players were who decided to shut that discussion down. And they themselves in their own emails a few days

before shutting the discussion down were all saying the same things that I'm saying, that they were worried about the human cleavage site, they were worried this virus had features that really suggested it wasn't natural. And three days later, they changed the narrative, put out a high-profile publication saying anyone who suggests that this isn't a natural virus is a conspiracy theorist.

Well, they nailed themselves in retrospect as being the conspiracy theorist because they created the conspiracy. Fred, I'm going to go to you in just a second. But, you know, I've listened to interviews with some of the players that were there sort of building that Nature article. And to hear them tell it, you know, it was a good-natured, good-faith attempt to put something together the problem is anything questioning it was met with fire and fury that that's the problem

is that the the usual scientific discourse and interplay amongst clinicians and scientists was completely cut off and anyone daring to stand up was not just criticized, was destroyed. And that is reprehensible behavior. Fred, you have a question? I would also submit to you that it goes way beyond politics needing to understand whether something is naturally occurring or has been synthesized. Because when it comes to understanding or predicting the mutations, for example, or the potential treatments, for example, it is critical to know, is this going to mutate the way that we anticipate from a normal, naturally occurring virus, or should we be waiting for

something else? Do we need to be anticipating a different mutation rate, a different transmission rate, a different infectivity rate, and on and on? So it is not purely political to understand the origins and whether or not something is naturally occurring or lab manipulated, despite the fact that it may sound highly political in nature. I'm sorry, go on to your next question.

Fred, go ahead, I'm sorry. Yeah, and just to add to that, I mean, it's important- Oh, wait, hang on a second, Dr. Pet to your next question. Fred, go ahead. I'm sorry. And just to add to that, I mean, it's important. Hang on a second, Dr. Piotrowski is going to pile on. Go ahead. Go ahead, sir. I was just going to say, we don't want another pandemic. If this really was a lab leak, we don't want this to happen again. We need to know so we can put strategies in place to stop it happening again. So this is not a political discussion about the origins. It's about we must get to the bottom of it and understand how it happened. Let's stand back and let Fred now.

Sorry, Fred, go ahead. No, no apologies necessary. I'm just glad I was able to unmute my mic this time successfully, so I'm happy with that part. I've been waiting a long time, really, for a long time. I've been watching you folks and keeping track. So let me just give my quick shout out to Caleb and Susan, Dr. Victory, Dr. Drew. Thank you. You folks are fantastic. I want to make sure I get that out there first and foremost. That's very kind. Very kind, my friend. Okay, so right to it. I think the origin is important

because that's the topic we're discussing. I don't think it's more so political. I think it's just looking at the facts. Looking at the facts and getting it down to the origin. I think that helps clarify some pieces of it. But let me ask this.

This is my real question. All right. I've heard you over a long period of time, Dr. Drew, kind of, you know, you started off cold, but you're warming up to things being a little bit more clearer, you know, as far as some of the, let's say, things that have taken place that seem kind of questionable, right?

That's kind of... Yeah, I'm evolving my point of view. Yeah. You are, and I've actually heard it, like, over a period of time. So, fantastic. Well, what I say is this. If you take all the things that have taken place, you know, as far as the information that's come out that was inaccurate, some of the results as far as when individuals have taken the vaccine and some of

the side effects that haven't been too, we'll say positive, right? I'm trying to generalize all this. And you take all of those things and then you let the pendulum swing, right? I have two checkpoints. One checkpoint is complete incompetence right so you take all those things and let it swing to either complete incompetence or or malicious intent or ignorance ignorance too fred you go don't forget ignorance but that's there with incompetence yeah i guess so i kind of put that in with complete incompetence. Fair enough. So malfeasance or complete ineptness.

Right. And I think that's really the thing that irks me the most is that when I label all these things, the information, how anyone speaks up against it is automatically put into the corner. Excuse me. There's always some type of demonstrative effect against individuals that just kind of voice their opinion. And maybe they're not in accordance with the narrative, but nevertheless, they have the right to their opinion. So if you take all of those things and wonder why, because you keep asking this question, Dr. Drew,

you always say, well, why are we doing this? And how come they're not, you know, researching this with normal medicine practices and things along those lines? So you're asking that question because you, it's something foreign, it sounds like to you. And they're going against the grain, right? That's really what it seems like. Or something against, you know,'re going against the grain, right? That's really what it seems like.

Or something against, you know, not just against the grain, Fred, but against everything we learned from previous pandemics. Everything that runs within our veins as clinicians, you know, our sort of approach to clinical problems. I mean, everything was turned upside down in this series of events. It was really, and it continues to be, and it's just an, when you're used to your profession operating a certain way, and all of a sudden it completely abandons so much of what makes it effective. It makes you, it just is confusing. It's confusing.

And I'll add this last point because I know there's other people. But speaking on Dr. Victory's point earlier about the Rochelle Walensky, and this is what I've been seeing. If you look at a certain time gap, it's things, and you can look at this. I have data too.

I'm a data analysis type of individual. So it seems, though, a lot of the individuals, if you take it back to February of 2020, a lot of individuals that were at the forefront, right, pressing, pushing, hey, we got to do this. Make sure you do this. This is proven to be safe and effective. That's my favorite term, I think, that they use. But what I do see is slowly but surely, one by one, those individuals seem to be falling off. They retire, they change positions, they disappear, right? And to me, and i'm just looking at i've been watching a lot of uh mystery shows and investigative shows i'm getting some tips but to me it seems as though

that's with intent it seems like they were put out there to serve a purpose which is express confidence get people on board and just saying, well, let's say hypothetically, I know Caleb will probably put this message underneath my, it's coming up. Don't worry. I just want people to be honest and realistic. It's okay to look at it from a scientific viewpoint or personal viewpoint. I'm just saying, look at the facts, look at the facts, and then draw a conclusion from there. And what I just said, I think it's, I don't think it's a coincidence that individuals are disappearing. I don't think it's a coincidence that Dr. Fauci was rah, rah, rah

with his pom poms and promoting it. And then all of a sudden he falls in the back or Rochelle Walensky, who's not even the CDC director. Right. I mean, that's right. Remember Deborah. Remember Deborah Birx. Remember the scarf lady, Deborah Birx. Yeah. When's the last time you saw her? I do indeed. Right. And I don't think that's just accidental. I don't think all these people's retirement plan just happen to come up at the same time. I think that's a little bit more purposeful, meaning that they served their purpose.

They pushed it out. They got everybody on board. And slowly but surely, they're disappearing. And then they're going to put in new folks. And it just seems like, I don't know, I'm not going to go too deep. It just seems like more so. We know, I'm not going to go too deep, it just seems like more so. We're noting it. It's noted. We appreciate the

observation. Thanks Fred, really a good question, a good comment. We love you Fred. I love you folks too, I had to get it out. Dr. Victory too, I want to make sure I tell you this fantastic, right? Dr. June's coming on board, right? Slowly but surely surely he's swimming to the boat fantastic all right okay you guys have a

wonderful day thank you man and interestingly just to add we've finished sir yeah i was just going to say we've seen the same in australia all the chief medical officer um you know the head of therapeutic fda equivalent in australia they're all stepping down right now um so i think they serve their purpose and and uh but there's but they may have served their purpose or they're sensing the the winds of war ahead that there's a change of common, that they could incur some trouble if they tried to maintain the positions and whatever's coming next.

I want to bring up Christy, who's also a biotechnologist and has lots of good information about the banana particles. Christy. Hi, Dr. Drew. Hi, Dr. Kelly, Victory, and Dr victory and dr petrovsky sorry a long time i've been gone i've had sick family members and some other things um so i am a manager and project

manager of rna and lmp recombinant proteins etc and my question for dr petrovsky actually is kevin mckernan who's a genomics expert, he developed the solid sequencer for MIT. He gathered many samples, including a whole case, and had them sequenced, including by a company that's independent called Illumina. I don't know if you're familiar with them. And this was confirmed on multiple continents that the starter plasmid is present physically in those vials by one-third volume. The double-stranded plasmid with the promoter and the origin of replication and with the gene, if you're familiar with that. And we have some thoughts on that being a reason why we're seeing,

from a zeta potential perspective for people that are have been following like my substack like it would have shifted the net charge on that lipid nanoparticle to negative you know it did it go into the LNP then and then so I guess my questions for you are obviously you know we don't have big media reporting on this but if the starter plasmid landed in the vials in the production process alongside the RNA and then got sucked up into the lipid nanoparticle. What are your thoughts on the consequences of that? So I think what we're seeing and what you're discussing is an issue that we would call quality control. And that's one of the reasons it takes, you know,

10 years to develop a vaccine normally is you develop the vaccine in a year and then you spend nine years trying to get your quality control perfect so that, you know, every dose of the vaccine is very pure and it's all the same. And, you know, the data, the little bit of data that we have seen on these technologies, given that they were very new, they'd never been manufactured at scale before, tell me that there's a horrendous quality control issue going on

and that, you know, particularly in that first few years at least, there was no guarantee that what was in one vial was the same as what was in another. And that's a concern of itself, even if you don't go into the question you're asking is, well, what could those contaminants do? First, you have to have a steady level of contaminants. And then you're meant to characterize, you know, what's the potential steady level of contaminants and then you're meant to characterise, you know, what's the potential risk of those contaminants and it doesn't look like any of that work was done and that's a serious concern in its own right before you even ask, you know,

well, what could be the consequences of that? So they're just all big, you know, warning signs usually when, you know, to a regulator that there's uncertainties and that more work needs to be done before that product is given to humans. And I think that obviously was bypassed because of the sense of urgency. But have those problems been fixed? Well, if they've never admitted to them, they've probably never been fixed. Because it's only when you admit to a problem that you actually

put effort into getting it right. So I think these are my ideas. Kelly, go ahead. Well, as you say, I can't speak in any specifics to what Christy's talking about with regard to this particular issue. But what we do know is that somewhere in the range of 80 percent of all the serious adverse events in the United States, at least, have been traced back to somewhere around 10% of the total number of batches. So there is clearly something, and I agree with Dr. Petrovsky, at a minimum, you're talking about huge variation or lack of quality control, because you should have a relatively homogenous distribution of adverse events across all batches if there's consistent quality control, even if there's a problem with the product itself. The fact that we have such a disproportionate number of adverse events related to a relatively small number of batches is very, very troubling. Yeah, we've spoken to researchers. Go ahead. Yes, sir. given to different populations, other explanations. But where's the regulator coming out and saying, you know,

we're aware people have raised these really worrying questions and here are the answers. We're going to show you why this is not something you shouldn't be worried about because we have other data that says that this isn't an issue. But the silence is deafening and that's the worrying thing is that not that people are asking questions, they're entitled to, they see these serious warning signs,

they don't know whether they're right or wrong because they're not in the position to have all the data. But those who do have access to the data are not seemingly prepared to come out and reass reassure us um that that we've got it wrong and and you know i think the regulators have a responsibility to explain a lot more about what's going on yeah and we had uh sasha latapova talking to us about uh you know high concentrations in certain vats or parts of the vat. Christy's been raising the alarm about protein particles and mRNA particles.

And now, Christy, it sounds like you're tilting at also really DNA mechanisms. Yeah, go ahead. I didn't mean to interrupt. All right, so for everybody, the central dogma of biology is DNA to RNA to a protein. And RNA goes into the arm and it uses the cell's machinery to make a protein. But that lipid nanoparticle houses a bunch of things, including the RNA, and then it hits the cell's machinery, and then it has the instructions to make the protein. If a DNA, if those DNA plasmids were not separated out with the RNA,

which in multiple continents, and multiple scientists are confirming now it's in there by 30% by volume per vial. Crazy. Then the plasmid went into the lipid nanoparticle. And so the question is, because we've read studies, that can transfect the nucleus. Right. And then also Dr. Hazan, did I pronounce her name right? Like I've read studies, she was worrying about the bacteria in the gut. There was a study that I

found that shows when bacteria overexpresses a protein, it kills itself 99% of the time, like a self-defense mechanism. So then we've got the negative charge. So, because it's supposed to be like minus 3 millivolts per visor's own documentation for the lipid nanoparticle, and the plasmid's really negatively charged. So if some of those plasmids got sucked up into the LNP, then that would create a more negatively charged particle, and then it would leak into the vascular,

which precision nanosystems, I think you and I talked about that was even a concern, and that's where you'd see the clots. And again, the insane thing is that you're raising these very legitimate questions, and they're not being answered or even thought about, which seems just astonishing. Christy, thank you as always. I've got to keep going. We've got a bunch of calls here, and we have Charles, I believe, next to you. Charles Rixey. Charles. Charles, you got to unmute your microphone there in the lower left-hand corner.

Her or Caleb's cartoon? There you are. Can you hear me? Yes, we got you. Okay. So I'm a member of Jurassic, so I've been investigating the origin of the virus, and I run in some similar circles as Dr. Petrovsky. But one thing that people don't realize is that when the scientists got together on February 1st, 2020, and they were first talking about the German clevich site and whether or not it looked unnatural. Dr. Fauci already knew that the Fjernklevich site existed. And we know this because by January 13th of 2020, his vaccine research center had made the decision to retain that during cleavage site

when they've sent off their prototype sequence to modern and and that's a fact that's in peer reviewed literature and everything so my question would be to dr petrovsky what do you think the like why do you think they kept it first of of all, because this was in congruence with previous vaccine manufacturing? And then secondly, why do you think he would not talk about that publicly for nearly two months? So in terms of why they kept it, they mutated it. So they kept the four amino acids that appear to be unnatural, but they mutated them so that no longer would furin cleave that spot. In our vaccine, we actually just removed them completely

and put it back to the SARS sequence, and that's worked beautifully. But both methods turn out to work. In terms of Dr. Fauci, I mean, Dr. Fauci was not part, I suspect, of any of the work at the vaccine center. He's in the ivory tower, effectively, running all the programs. So he's not doing any of the science. So to be fair to him, I don't know to what extent he would have been involved in any of that work being done by the Vaccine Centre with Moderna. I suspect he wouldn't have known about much of it.

Charles, go ahead. Yeah. What concerns me is that in the literature, they specify that they did not mutate. Because I know that typically they either mutate or remove those sequences. But in this case, they explicitly said that they did not mutate it away. And even Barney Graham himself, the number two person who made that decision, said that this was against like a common logical thought for vaccine manufacture. And the other odd thing is that Pfizer did the exact same thing, even though Pfizer's head of vaccine research,

Philip Dormitzer, was on camera several years earlier during the gain-of-function debates, stating that they would always remove furin cleavage sites from vaccines. And if they ever found it, they would destroy the entire batch. In that case, he was referring to influenza, but this has been common throughout the different vaccines.

So it seems like they didn't mutate it. Yeah, so again, what happened in those early days, I think, is people made multiple different vaccine constructs and we did the same. So we had proteins where we left the furin cleavage site in, we made ones where we removed the furin cleavage site. Ultimately, the ones where we removed the furin cleavage site. Ultimately, the ones where we removed the furin cleavage site did a lot better because the protein was more stable.

And I think, you know, I can't speak to every vaccine and what sequence they ended up using, but the vast majority of the ones I'm aware of, in the final product, rather than what they might have done in those first few days, the furin cleavage site in most of them has been mutated, like in Novavax. As I say, I can't speak as much to the mRNA because I'm more focused on the protein side.

But most people did end up mutating or removing the furin cleavage side. Dr. Petrovsky has been very generous with his time. We've kept him way beyond what we normally do. And it's early in the morning in Australia. And we've been hammering him with all kinds of questions from many, many different angles of this topic. And we appreciate you rolling with all the diversity of ideas and questions that have come your way. Kelly, I wonder if you have any last thoughts. No, I just, again, I appreciate it so much because you really look at this from a lot of different angles,

having been someone who successfully created an alternative vaccine. And as I said, I think so much of what we've witnessed in these past three years has fallen into two big groups. One the egregious and unnecessary mandates and limitations and shutdowns, and then everything we've seen that has been a result of what I consider to be a rushed and relatively unnecessary vaccine that's caused more harm than it's worth. So I think you bring a tremendous sort of your vision on this is really in perspective is really appreciated. And again, and I appreciate your willingness to talk about it. You know, Drew and I started this

show really as a result of what used to be the cornerstone of medicine it's what doctors used to do is you know get together and argue theories and say we have it what about this or did you consider that um and it's uh it it's been missing and yeah absolutely and the object and that you've been the object of the scrutiny and silencing and canceling and that you've lived in a country where it went in insanely far over their skis let's be let's be honest here they just did ridiculous things i do not know how you maintain your equanimity i do not get it but i appreciate it nevertheless And we'll give you kind of last words here. Well, thank you. Yeah. Look, I think it's great to be able to talk and slowly, you know,

opportunities are opening up. I mean, I was taken off LinkedIn for over a year. I looked at the comment. I think what's wrong with comments I've made? I mean, I'm a vaccine developer. You know, I've made scientifically valid comments that are referenced. I was removed off LinkedIn, which I was astonished by. So hopefully I'm back there. You know, hopefully the world is slowly coming back to normal. But I think we have to talk a lot more because we aren't all the way back to normal. No. We might like to think so.

Not even close. And we really need to encourage, I guess, inquiries and formal assessments of what happened, what went wrong. How do we stop this ever happening again? I think as Dr Drew said, everyone threw out the rule book. The WHO threw out their own rule book on pandemics. The Australian government threw out their rule book. We'd spent 50 years writing those rule books based on all the science that we knew. Why did we throw them out? It made no sense. And we have to go back to what happened and how do we get back to the rule book? Because the rule book actually is pretty good and it doesn't talk about

mandates and forcing people to do things. It's more about how do we limit the damage, you know, as the virus comes through and obviously ultimately get the world to a point where we have natural immunity, which still is the most robust protection that we can get. But we have to find a safe and effective way to get there. But we weren't allowed to explore that. And we need to know why. And we need to find a way to stop that happening again. Well, again, thank you for joining us. We'll have you back anytime.

That would be true. We'd love to have you back. I'm so happy we get to speak openly here. We are the media. And we're not going to let this stop us you know that is my producer wife behind the scenes there who runs this operation and i'm i don't as we're talking about the french underground media but but yeah i know we feel like the french underground throughout this pandemic but but but the again i'm i'm remarking at your equanimity

and i'm wondering if it's the influence of the you know queen victoria and the commonwealth or if you're going to go in the back room and punch a bag after we finish this. I wonder, but it did make me start thinking about how insane we have all been. And I was reading something recently about how the Carthaginian Empire, when surrounded by the Romans, they started sacrificing children. They just went nuts, and like like, we got to do something. And that's how insane humans get when they're in a panic. And so the media has a very significant duplicitous influence over what happened here.

And it's what I saw at the beginning. I kept telling people, just don't listen to the media. They need to shut up. And of course, they allowed the media to drive this thing into the excesses. He's been saying it since day one. Since day one. The excesses that it became. And then he got targeted.

But I want the audience to, I always put out share if you care on the feeds to everybody. And I want everybody to share this because it may not look like a headline that anybody's interested in. But it is really good information want everybody to share this because you know it may not look like a headline that anybody's interested in but it is really good information for everybody to share and go listen I heard this thing and you should listen to it if you know somebody who's interested in that or it's super you know just so that they can hear the facts and uh speaking of speaking of headlines I'm I'm very excited to read all the articles and tweets that are about to happen about how Dr. Drew is an anti-vaxxer after we just hosted yet another vaccine inventor on the show. It's awesome. I don't know, draw his eyes.

Go ahead. I actually had a newspaper article that said that I was the picture boy for the anti-vaxxers, which I found as someone who spent my whole life developing vaccines and trying to encourage the appropriate use of vaccines to have the anti-vax label put on my portrait. Yeah. It's just astonishing that they could get away with that sort of thing that they have. And we have to find a way to stop that happening again.

Right, right. It's the vaccine researcher face of anti-vaxxers. That's what they would say in this country. researcher face of anti-vaxxers trying to parade around masquerade as a vaccine inventor i'm piling on what they did to uh i'm blanking on his name here in california uh the african american uh broadcaster anyway who ran for governor any event, that's the way the press works. I think more to be revealed. Thank you both. We're going to wrap this thing up.

Again, vaccine.net for Dr. Petrovsky and Kelly. V-A-X-I-N-E.net. Correct. Put Kelly's stuff up there, Caleb, if you don't mind. I will be back. You'll be back on the 17 upcoming guest of course, Sapphire on Monday.

Yep. You'll be back on the 17th. And I'll be back with you on Wednesday. Yeah. I interviewed him months ago at the beginning of all this. I'm interested to see how his situation has changed. His stuff was very compelling. He was, of course, very much taken to task for daring to say the things he said. But it'll be interesting to see what is up with with him uh and uh kelly earlycovidcare.org are we still pushing that yep

yep earlycovidcare.org and uh at dr kelly victory on twitter thank you guys and we'll see everyone on monday with nicole sapphire we'll be gone the rest of this week and uh do monday tuesday and i believe wednesday next week susan yes yep wednesday wed Wednesday. Wednesday is Dr. Malhotra. All right. Thanks. That's it. Correct. See you then. 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.