Ask Dr. Drew - Inside Fauci’s iPhone: COVID Shot “Could Be Associated With Miscarriage” Reveal 2021 Pandemic-Era Text Messages – Ask Dr. Drew – Ep 653

Episode Date: August 13, 2026

Sen. Ron Johnson obtained Dr. Fauci’s cell phone and text messages from the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. He says it contains bombshell revelations about Fauci’s concerns of how the 2nd vaccine dose “theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester” at the same time Fauci was publicly insisting that the vaccine was safe and effective for pregnant women. “The phone contains more than 34,000 text messages and 522 voicemails,” says Sen. Johnson. “The text chain released today could have an immediate impact of public health and the principle of informed consent.” However, many experts are hesitant to call this a smoking gun. “The Fauci phone may have big revelations. This isn’t one,” says Alex Berenson. “They’re talking about a theoretical risk to monitor. Big studies show mRNA jabs do not cause miscarriage.” Were these simply routine, internal debates among health officials – or should Fauci, Rochelle Walensky, and Vivek Murthy have warned the public? Retired pharma R&D executive Sasha Latypova says “mRNA jabs cause 430% increase in miscarriage rates vs. normal background” and has cosigned a letter demanding RFK’s resignation. Latypova joins Dr. Ram Yogendra and Emily Kaplan (of the Broken Science Initiative) LIVE on Ask Dr. Drew. Sasha Latypova is a retired pharma R&D executive. Follow at https://x.com/sasha_latypova Emily Kaplan is CEO and Co-founder of The Broken Science Initiative, a platform educating people on systemic failings in science, education, and health. Follow at https://x.com/emilykaplanx and learn more at https://brokenscience.org Dr. Ram Yogendra is a board-certified anesthesiologist with a background in public health, and an expert in treating Long COVID. Follow at https://x.com/dryostradamus 「 SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS 」 • FATTY15 – The future of essential fatty acids is here! Strengthen your cells against age-related breakdown with Fatty15. Get 15% off a 90-day Starter Kit Subscription at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/fatty15⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • 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 • CHAPTER - For free and unbiased Medicare help, dial [phone] to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter, or go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://askchapter.org/drdrew⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Chapter and its affiliates are not connected with or endorsed by any government entity or the federal Medicare program. Chapter Advisory, LLC represents Medicare Advantage HMO, PPO, and PFFS organizations and stand alone prescription drug plans that have a Medicare contract. Enrollment depends on the plan’s contract renewal. While we have a database of every Medicare plan nationwide and can help you to search among all plans, we have contracts with many but not all plans. As a result, we do not offer every plan available in your area. Currently we represent 50 organizations which offer 18,160 products nationwide. We search and recommend all plans, even those we don’t directly offer. You can contact a licensed Chapter agent to find out the number of products available in your specific area. Please contact Medicare.gov, 1-800-Medicare, or your local State Health Insurance Program (SHIP) to get information on all of your options. 「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Executive Producers • Kaleb Nation - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://kalebnation.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • Susan Pinsky - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/firstladyoflove⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Content Producer • Emily Barsh - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/emilytvproducer⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

And now this week, thanks to Senator Ron Johnson, we have some text messages from Dr. Fauci's iPhone that suggests there was some concern. In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, it contains revelations, concerns of how the second vaccine dose, quote, theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the first trimester, unquote. At the same time, days later, he was chanting safe and effective, safe and effective. And one of the things that really got me is he was talking about the, there it is, talking about a potentially cytokine activation, which is a monumental problem. That's what caused all the horrible outcomes in COVID. And so he's saying the same thing is being triggered by the vaccine, even if it's at a lower level, that is a profound thing. I don't know why people aren't making anything of that.

And then, of course, Rochelle Wollensky in there you see her on the same thread saying, yes, this is a good point. It could cause some miscarriage issues. So others, however, have seen this and are not getting so accelerated by this revelation, including our friend Alex Berencun who is saying, be careful, this was known. We don't want to overcharge the defendant, which I agree. but we'll hear from both Sasha Latapova and Emily Kaplan from Broken Science what they're thinking about this data and what they have seen. And I think we're going to resolve this a little bit right here on this show.

There's an important argument that if he thought there was a possibility M RNA vaccines could cause miscarriages, how ethically, how in the world is he just continued to get out there and chance safe and effective? and then I have grave concerns about Erica Schwartz, who's our new CDC director, who has said the same thing. I want her to step forward and go, apologies, new data, I've made a mistake, I've adjusted my position.

Also, finally, Romio Gendor comes back for part two. He's a board-certified anesthesiologist, expert on treating long COVID, and he's going to talk about some new long studies in women, particularly who show that the long COVID syndrome neurologically in women may be certainly somewhat worse than in men. You can find him on Dr. Yostradamus and Emily Kaplan is on Emily Kaplan X and I'll tell you more about Sasha Latipovo when we return. Our laws as it pertain to substances are draconian and bizarre.

The psychopaths start this. He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction. Fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous. I'm a doctor for, I say, where the hell you think I learned that? I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people. I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals.

Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time, educate adolescents, and to prevent, and to treat. You have trouble, you can't stop, and you want to help stop it. I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. And you can follow Sasha at on X at Sasha underscore Latipova, L-A-P-O-V-A.

Also, due diligence and art, which is Sasha Latapova. Substack.com. She, of course, is our friend of the show and a retired pharma R&D executive with 25 years of experience, working with all the big companies. She's specialized in cardiovascular safety. And she has been working as part of the FDA cardiovascular safety research consortium. Again, you can follow her on X. She has extensive experience in scientists, science, and particularly in pharmaceutical production. Sasha, welcome.

Welcome back. Hi, Dr. Drew, thank you for inviting me again. Remind people again your training background. Yeah, so I spent about 25 years in pharmaceutical R&D in various roles, various capacities. At the end of my career there, I ran my own clinical research organizations where I worked for over 60 pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, in clinical trials, conducting clinical trials, specifically focusing on cardiovascular safety, assessment of new drugs. I never worked in vaccines, and I was just as brainwashed and diluted as everyone else. And as a result, my daughter is profoundly injured by childhood vaccines.

But I'd retired prior to 2020, and through this COVID experience, my eyes were opened. I was just discussing earlier today. It was like a Truman show moment when you're hitting the fake sky. It was kind of like that. And since then, I've been researching. I was the first person who identified the batch variability in Vayers data in adverse events. So some batches were super toxic and caused thousands of adverse events and hundreds of deaths. And you also raised awareness about the substandard practices that were leading to that batch variability.

Exactly. Because in pharma, that's the first analysis. do and if you see a variability of that magnitude, you know the product is non-compliant, and non-compliant pharmaceutical equals poison. This is how the law is written. This is how the law treats it. So it's not an exaggeration. It's not hyperbole. I'm not being hysterical here. I'm just saying this is how the law is written. Pharmaceutical products must be good manufacturing practice compliant, must have consistency. So whatever you're saying in the vial must be reproduced in the vial over and over and over again.

And it's not the case with these products. Never was. From day one, it wasn't. And so what shall we do with these new text revelations? How, we were talking a little bit off the air about how to understand this and how to interpret it. My focus right now is on Erica Schwartz. I want to see if she steps up and goes, sorry, there's new information. I got it wrong.

I would love to see that. But the way these people behave, it didn't seem like they're. I would love to see that, but my bet she's not going to do that. And so coming back to the miscarriage rates and all that debate. So I send you an article on this that I've written recently because there was a pushback on the, you know, people were quoting 82% miscarriage rate. Naomi Wolf was first, she was discussing the high miscarriage rates and kudos to her for analyzing the Pfizer papers, the papers that became available through FOIA. I was looking at a different study.

I was looking at the study published by Shimabukuro, Tom Shimabakuro, and about 40 co-authors in New England Journal of Medicine. In, I believe, April, sometime early in 2021, they looked at V-Safe registry data. This was an app distributed with vaccinations and about 3,500 pregnant women, mostly healthcare workers at the time since December 2020, when it became distributed, this shot, signed up for that registry. Of those, there were 1,200 women who signed, were vaccinated in the first trimester before 14 weeks, and they signed onto this registry.

So when Shimabakura and colleagues published that paper in a prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, their conclusion was there are no obvious safety signals. That's how they phrased it. But they were very, very clear and very obvious safety signals, as I will explain right now. I actually submitted that article that I sent to you to Senator Johnson. We exchanged emails and texts about it. He has an official investigation open into Thomas Chima Bakuro, who is part of CDC. I think he's on the run, actually. And he is being investigated for destroying data.

and hiding safety signals. And so I submitted analysis to Ron Johnson. Now, there was a pushback. Wait, wait, wait, slow down. Slow down. Did you find evidence that he had done that? Or is that your analysis in spite of him probably having done that? Oh, absolutely.

He lied. He's the first author on this project. And he absolutely lied in the study. And it's very easy to show that he lied. And 40 co-authors, they all knew. All of them should be under investigation, not just Tom Shima Bakura, although he is the main criminal here. But all of them lied there.

There's no excuse for this. There's no incompetence. They lied in numerous places. But for the sake of time, I can just tell you. So the 82% miscarriage rate is a raw unadjusted statistic, which they should have reported, but they pretended that, oh, we don't have a denominator. We can't say anything about it. Now, but it's not the 82% miscarriage rate.

The way this works is out of the 1,200 women in his data set that enrolled in the first trimester and were vaccinated in the first trimester of pregnancy, there is well available statistics on what is the normal background miscarriage rate. So if you're observing 1,200 women prospectively for nine months, how many total pregnancy losses should you expect and approximately how are they distributed in time? And if I ask anybody randomly today, they will say, oh, it's about 10%. And that's categorically false. Because 10% or higher miscarriage rates exist only before six weeks.

And pregnancy is 39 weeks. Okay. So that high risk only exists for a short period of time, which most women pass uneventfully. And then it plummets after six weeks. So between week six and week 11, it's only 5% miscarriage rate. And after week 11, so for the vast majority of pregnancy, about 28 weeks out of the 39 weeks, the risk of pregnancy loss is less than 1%. It's 0.6%.

And so if you combine... Why did you pick 3rd 28 weeks? Why 28 weeks? Well, so because the way it works, first six weeks, 15%. Next five weeks, 5%. The rest of it, 0%. So if you calculate the weighted average by weeks and the percentages, it amounts to about less than 2%, 1.6%. And this total expected pregnancy loss.

And that was calculated and demonstrated in a well-designed study in Australia, which I referenced in my article. And there were about 700 women prospectively observed this way. And this is how they calculated the expected pregnancy losses. Only 1.6%. So it's a very easy mess. 1,200 women enrolled in first trimester times 1.6% or 2%. They should have only seen 20 miscarriages. They recorded already 104.

So that's over four times higher than they should have seen. So this is as clear signal as you can imagine. And those people are not incompetent. it wasn't a mistake. They didn't have no, they can't say we didn't have enough data. They did have the data. They knew.

So that's what I said. Do we know when that 104 occurred? Was that in that first six week interval? Or was it after that? Do we know? Yes. So they, because they also very deceptively, they cut the data very short.

So they took first six weeks of the registry. And whatever, whatever they had in that first six weeks of the registry, from December 22, late December 2020, I forget what's the sixth week. So they took the first six weeks. In the six weeks, obviously, women that are enrolled in the first trimester, they can't complete pregnancy.

So you will only catch miscarriages from that group. And that's how they pushed back and criticized us for saying, you can't say 82% because we didn't observe them all to nine months. But I'm saying there is historical data available of how much you should expect to miscarry in the group of folk. But we're not, the only question, in terms of the math, you're not starting at everybody at time zero, right? You're, you're, you're, you're, you're,

you're, it's all along the first trimester. Is it not? No, but the, the, the, the, the, first, uh, the, 1,200 women were, it says in the paper were enrolled before 14 weeks. So we can apply, uh, the same statistics, um, you know, but, but they, they, they, they they can't like just all miscarry, right? So. No matter how you look at it.

So they also reported, so they took the wrong denominator. This is the second piece of lying. They took the wrong denominator. They put all the women, including first semester and third trimester, and calculated some kind of an average miscarriage rate, even though you can't because miscarriage is defined loss of pregnancy before 20 weeks. But they're throwing in all of them, including. the third trimester.

And then they said it's 12% and therefore it's normal. And I'm saying, well, 12% if you're combining everyone for every trimester, it's not 12%. It's still 1.6%. You're still off by an order of magnitude. Right, right, right, right, right. So rather than 1.6, it was 12. Uh-huh. Yeah.

Okay, got it. So it's like either it's 10 times higher or four times higher. But the point is, you know, if you have a multiple of one, what you were supposed to observe in your data point. It's a huge signal. And that should have stopped. Yeah. And so shouldn't just the fact that there were cytokine activation

after the second vaccine be enough to stop particularly vaccinating pregnant women, if not stopping vaccinating everybody? Isn't that by itself? Something that should have alarmed people? And then safe and effective. So let's take the safe off the list. It's not safe.

And then effective, it didn't, it didn't, you know, may, are we willing to concede? Let me ask this. Is there any ability to concede that it reduced hospitalizations in the very elderly, perhaps during Alpha and Delta? Is there any data to support that? Because that's my, that's my contention. That's what I think we did. That's what I think we thought we were doing.

but we were not affecting transmission, clearly. Go ahead. Well, Drew, you know, we've discussed in previous shows. There is no legal safety or efficacy claims that can be made with respect to EUA countermeasures. It's a category of product which has no medicinal use. It has no medicinal use and it has no human use if you don't have a PRAP Act declaration, extended by HHS secretary. I know.

You got that part through to me last time. I understand. Even though I stopped, I screwed it up. I stopped calling a prep act. I was calling a DARPA or something. But yes, prep act. I understand. I understand.

I understand. But as somebody who use these things, I want to evaluate my decision making at the time. And I wanted to be wrong if I was wrong. I want to be sort of uncertain if it's uncertain. And I'm happy with uncertainty. But there's some clear moments there. And by the way, were we clear in the first year of Alpha Delta?

No. So unfortunately, the data, when you look in the clinical trial data, because of underlying variability, you will see this sometimes, you know, you will see some effect, Sometimes you see a different effect. And this is assuming that, as I said, they would produce actually a good manufacturing practice compliant product. Then you know that you're comparing apples with apples. Here we don't.

Okay. How could we possibly have known that at the time? You alerted me about a year after we started this, right? Right. That was going on. How could individual practitioner, other than Veebeck, you know, the Danish physician, who came up with some studies too,

who was vilified for showing the batch variability. You know, that was sort of a hint that something was going on. But we didn't know. None of the practitioners knew, right? Practitioners, of course, didn't know because you were, you know, the professionals like myself, like yourself, we were the marks for the scam, just like the public. And it's harder to fool the professional than the public. And they went to extreme lengths.

Marks for the scam. We were already there. We're all the way there. Okay. Yeah, I hear you. I hear you. as usually you get through to me. We were the marks.

Well, success. And then now you have a whole theory why they needed to do that, right? Well, why we can leave why, I mean, you know, they, it is a scam. It's a lie that they pulled on the public and on the professionals. And as I said, because it's harder to fool the professionals, they recruited people like Shimabukuro from CDC and all of his colleagues to present this front in New England Journal of Medicine, for example, and many other things that they've done. Now, as I said, I don't sit in their heads. They need to be on the stand answering this question. I just know that they're doing it and they keep doing it.

They're continuing to do it. The PrEP Act Declaration is extended until end of 29. Therefore, anything that is related to this Fauci investigation, in my opinion, is not a real investigation. It's a fake investigation because under the Prap Act Declaration, I can't find any law that Fauci broke. You know, lying to Congress and destroying documents that's par for the course in Congress and anywhere in government. It's not interesting to the COVID policies that everybody is screaming about. For example, lying about this miscarriage data. How can it possibly be legal, but it is?

I'm telling you, under PrEP Act, this is legal. I believe you because I believe you. But my feeling is, so what? Because I would like the truth. Are we getting closer to the truth? Well, let me tell you this, the signs that you should be looking for as to when we're getting to the truth is when RFK Jr. revokes that declaration and writes a memo to federal registers saying, I no longer believe we have a COVID pandemic emergency because that's the number one fake. And also, it needs to be declassified. It's still classified as a national security threat. And under that classification, the prep. Well, the COVID itself. Now we're getting somewhere.

Yeah. Okay. So when they do that, then we know that they're in earnest trying to investigate something. Until they do that, or everything that they're doing and screaming at Fauci and villain casting him is just a show. Yeah. Yep. Okay. Well, again, you've moved me, you've moved my chest pieces further down the table further into the game.

but as always I appreciate you coming here and sharing your thoughts I have been watching your not just your substack but your email blast right is that is that that links to your substack yeah yeah and you have been on fire lately so you're almost scaring me in some of those things so appreciate appreciate you continuing to put a nice piece of put a nice piece of art at the end to calm us all down. So are you still doing your art?

It's difficult at the moment, but I'm still trying. I'm attempting to keep working on it, keep doing it, and just keep putting it in my articles because otherwise they're too scary. That's exactly right. They scare myself. It's exactly right. Well, good. That's good.

Then I understand the spirit in which it's being offered. All right. Well, thank you, Sasha. We'll talk again soon, no doubt. Follow in the meantime, Sasha underscore Latapova. See you soon. Thank you. Thank you, dear. All right.

Coming up, Emily Kaplan coming in here. She is from the Broken Science Group, Oaken Science Initiative. She really founded all that. You can follow Emily. Hold on, Emily Kaplan, X on X. Also Broken Science, Broken, underscore Science. And she has a little different point of view. And I'll be very curious to hear what she says about,

Sasha's comments after this. If there was ever time to be rationally ready, it is now. I urge you to consider getting one of the emergency kits from the wellness company. Because TWC has seven different kits that are customized for a variety of situations. Wouldn't be a bad idea to take a look at each. Considering, say, what we've just been through in California with the fires, I was happy to have the field kit on hand. And the contagion kit, in particular, is suited for what is being predicted to be the next outbreak.

that would be the H1N5 or avian or bird flu. Of course, the same experts from the COVID era are freaking out about this potential pandemic, but don't panic. Just arm yourself with the meds you might need if this comes to pass. Contagion on emergency kit contains ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, Tamiflu, and Budesinide, an inhaler that is good for airway reactivity and tightness, as well as reducing viral replication in the airways.

Go to Dr.Doo.com slash TWC for 10% off your performance. Hey, Dr. Drew here. When I am traveling, I am always so grateful that we bring along Paleo Valley products. Both, this is the grass-fed venison, which is delicious, one of my favorite. Also, they have the grass-fed and finished beef as well, which are chicken and pork. And the superfood bars, which have saved me a million times. It's made from the bone broth, which, again, is 100% grass-fed, finished beef, bone broth. And it's made from real bone, not hides, and other superfoods within this bar, including blueberries and cashews. check the label.

This is a great supplement and wonderful to have on hand when we're traveling. That wasn't all Dr. Drew or anything. Why would I screw myself? What am I like, Dr. Drew? And before I bring Emily in here, I want to talk about health care.

It's complicated. Medicare shouldn't be, but it is. I've been on the provider side for decades and now I'm a patient. Many plans, lots of fine print. It's very difficult to end up with the, to figure out the right coverage that you can easily end up with the wrong coverage.

I suggest you consider talking to the team at Chapter. They're an independent Medicare advisor. They are the only ones who compare every Medicare plan available nationwide. Their advisors are there to steer you towards one. They're not there to steer you towards the one plan over another. They're simply there to help you find the coverage. The best fits your doctors, your health care needs, your prescriptions. If you're already in the best plan, they will tell you to stay right where you are.

That's what happened to us. It was so confusing. I couldn't tell. Susan went to Chapter. they said Drew's good, keep him where he is. Exactly, he picked the right plan for him. Last year, on average, though, people who used chapter saved $1,100 in their health care expenses. So if you're on Medicare are about to become, think of you're about to become, I suggest it's bewildering.

Right. Yeah. And it's free. And it's free. It's completely free. You pay nothing. And they're not steering you one way or another. They're there to do their work.

218, 521, 247.1 is where you can go. 218 521, 217.1. Dr.Drew.com. I'm sorry. Dr. Drew.com slash chapter. What's that? Sorry. Got the wrong number again?

Yeah, the copy on your screen is different. Forget the number. The number is 218, 521, 21, 2472. Oh, 2472. You're not going to remember that if you're over 60. Just go to Dr. Drew.com slash. Chapter. Exactly.

Now. And then call them. Yep. They'll take about 20 minutes to walk through your needs. And it'll be a real person. And they'll tell you what you need. And that will be that. All right.

Emily Kaplan, Broken Science, Project BrokenScience.org. On Instagram, it's at News Not Noise. And it's Emily Kaplan X on X. And it's the, you're going to tell me with the name of the group because I can't quite read it. Emily Kaplan, welcome back. Good to see you. On mute. Oh, there we go.

Can you hear me? There you go. Oh, great. Sorry about that. What is the, what is the, Cleo Group. I'm not sure what that is. The Cleo Group is my strategy firm. And actually, we have a couple of other exciting things.

So we have Metfix.org, which you heard a little bit about when you came down to our health conference, which is really sort of like education developed through all the research at Broken Science, but being taught to personal trainers and coaches and doctors. And they are reversing chronic disease in gyms, primarily in doctors' offices around the country. So that's a really exciting. new project that we have launched within the last year and a half or so. And we have a subject coming out. Okay, tell me. That's called, let's start with the truth. And anybody can go subscribe.

I think we have like 10 subscribers. We haven't launched yet. But we're going to launch with a big piece that I've been working on for a few weeks, looking at all of this Fauci drop of information from his emails. There was a big drop of Bill Gates information. That's actually really interesting to go back. And he and Fauci were kind of working on the AIDS. stuff way back.

Yes. And I'm really looking at him as sort of looking at the man and trying to figure out, like, what's the playbook? What did he learn from AIDS that he is, you know, sort of reused through COVID in ways that worked and in ways that have not worked for him at all? So I think that'll be interesting. That's going to be on our substack. And so I think those are the main places that I'm living.

Do you have a sort of a sort of a. a thumbnail for us on what what you think was going on with him? Because I can't figure anything out except the narcissism. Because when you look back at his behavior during AIDS, I see that same

personality quality, but it was contained within the environment he was in. It was a different environment at the time. But you tell me. It was a different environment and he was young, right? And he was very ambitious, but he didn't have a lot of power. And I think it's really interesting to go back

and look at how did he operate and made some big mistakes and pissed off a lot of activists and then found that he could recruit them in and give them seats at the table and they wouldn't be so hostile to him. And what's really interesting is that then you see other AIDS activism groups, you know, sort of trying to take down the groups that sold out and joined his side. And I think you look at that, the machination of controlling information using publication. I mean, he was the one who published it was an opinion piece that was then sort of misquoted later as saying it was a study review. It wasn't. But it was a very strong opinion piece about how you could get AIDS in your household. And that really caused mass panic for people to think like, oh, God, my kids could get it.

I could get it from my neighbor. And you look at the hysteria that caused. And then you look at the hysteria that was caused around COVID. And it becomes, you know, it's all retrospect. perspective, right? Hindsight bias is worth thinking a lot about. But in my sort of interest in, how does corruption come to be? Like, do we truly have bad people or do we have people who are operators within a system that has gaps that are vulnerabilities? And those people can sort of take advantage of those situations. I think it'll be a very interesting read. You know, it's funny is that I don't know that I'm going to make either side happy because I think everybody wants me to say he's a liar and he's this. He's actually incredibly strategic. He's much more like a politician than a

scientist. And you get into, when we get to the gain of function, which is the third part of the series, he defined gain of function. And guess what? It's like if you're defining terms, you can navigate your way right around things that are going to be complicated for you. And so I would say the level of deceit, which is what we're seeing in these text messages on the miscarriage front, you know, it's, he had that interaction. with Wollinsky and the incoming surgeon general, and nine days later went out and told everybody there's nothing to see here. There's no problem. We don't have any risk. Now, we have to, you know, take this with some moderation, which is you don't want to cause hysteria if there is

none. But if you're internally getting feedback from your other higher-ups, that they also see the cytokine storm is a problem and the fevers could be a problem. And then you're, you know, really in those text messages, what's interesting is that they're receiving. responding to, I think it's the WHO that has come out and said, we do not think pregnant women should get vaccinated. And they're like, ah, this is going to be a problem for us. We're going to have to speak to this. What are we going to say about it? That is, I mean, you and I both know, that's about as anti-scientific as it gets.

That's message to you. That's not you saying, huh, we should call up the WHO. Do they have information we don't have? Why are they making this declaration? or have we not looked at the data right? Why, you know, instead, the immediate reaction on text is we got to shut that down. How are we going to shut that down? And that's very telling to me.

Yeah, me too. That's the behavior that I find the most egregious. But back to the hysteria back in the AIDS day, and I'm always looking for opportunities to apologize. I participated in some of that sort of anxiety creation. Remember the campaign? If you have sex with one person, you have sex with everyone that person ever had sex with. Remember that? That was the campaign. And of course, that was bizarre and not even, it was nonsensical. Like, everybody that person had sex with didn't have AIDS,

didn't have STDs, or even if they did, your partner at the moment got over that probably a long time ago. And if not, you knew it the next day. I mean, it's just like, what do we talk? about it was strictly designed to create hysteria. Well, you know, but I also think there's almost like a temperance component to that, right? It's like a chastity thing. It's like we can jump in here and shame people for, you know, being sexual. Yeah, it's, it was a weird time. It was a weird time when it was a weird time.

Things were a bit out of control, but you weren't allowed to talk about risk populations because that could be homophobic or it could be whatever, you know, it could be racist. And so you just said, everybody needs to be contained and wear a condom. But we just sort of enfocus. We just said it over and over and over again. So I'm a little sympathetic to these simplified public health messages. But my God, hysteria is never good. And when they're wrong or they're wrongheaded and when other information is hidden, that's reprehensible.

Well, I also think it's infantilization of the. American public. And I think like our education system is horrible, right? So most people are not scientifically literate or they don't know how to read the studies or crunch the numbers. However, that does not justify the people who are in charge essentially doing what we would call a noble lie where they think it's okay to lie for the greater good, right? I'm not okay with that either. I think that's a that's a huge problem. And to your point, I think it erodes the credibility of all public health when you have, you know, if you make a mistake and you get up at the podium and you say, whoa, we made a big mistake, I think you'd get a lot of credibility. Yeah, you'd get a lot of pushback

and people would be mad about it, but you'd also get people to listen to you. Whereas if you go out with absolute certainty and you say you are sure of what you're saying and it turns out to be wrong and your text messages come out showing you we're not sure at all, now nobody's going to trust you. So we have people who are not scientifically literate. looking to defer to an authority, but don't trust the authorities that have been appointed. It's a, it's a colossal mess. Colossal mess. And what do you make of what Sasha was saying about the miscarriage data?

Yeah, so I don't, I mean, I don't know any of the criminal stuff, right? I've not looked into that at all, so I don't want to speak on that. But I think what I, what jumped out at me was when people were saying 83%, I was like 83%, that's like, eight. That would be like almost everybody. Like, we would all know lots of people who had had miscarriages. And I think, you know, Naomi Wolf is somebody I have a huge amount of respect for. And when she sounded the alarm on all of this, I think everybody should take her very seriously when she looks at data. She knows what she's doing.

She's smart. And she does really have an insight, especially because she's good at listening to women. And quite frankly, most people in positions of power are not. But I would say with this particular case, what seemed to me to happen was that the original study was flawed in their math, that they had the 700 cohort that they had added to the denominator, which made the number look lower of miscarriages. And that was a mistake in the New England Journal of Medicine issued a correction around that. But it also was then we had bad math and then we had bad logic on top of that. So I did a whole reel on my Instagram. So again, news not noise. It's on there. We'll repost it on Twitter. But I think, or X, I think what's important is that the critics

jumped on that and then they turned it into, okay, well, we'll back out that. 700. Well, that's also, that's not right logic. And so I think what she was explaining, I agree with, which is really this notion of like, they were tracking full pregnancies. And so the time span, the tracking of the pregnancy stopped at a certain point when those results were published. And so it wasn't the only way that you could be captured as having had been vaccinated in your first trimester was basically if you had lost the baby. Because the other pregnant, other people that were in that cohort were still pregnant at the end of that time period. So they weren't counted. Now, CDC did go back and re-look at the full data set. So after all the women in the study had reached full term, and that's where the number is actually much higher than what she had said. It was, I have 2,456 women out of 2,811, that's that carried to full term.

So that is, that's not. And so they basically were taking that 700 out and moving numbers around. And that actually, that's not worse, but it's like they're both doing wrong things in terms of properly evaluating the total risk. And I think, you know, again, for me, this really goes to like, but people just want to, I mean, and even like the Fauci thing, right? So like if you go on X and you look at what people are commenting, they're saying like, oh my God, look at the study said it was 83%.

The study came out in April. Those text messages are what, from September or January, like they're January, anything? So like in January, nobody had that data. Like the study's wrong and bad in a million ways, right? However, it wasn't even available. So they weren't looking at that data either. And so we conflate these things.

And I think it's really hard for people to hold two truths. One is the study was wrong and it did the wrong thing. It was not 83%. It was nowhere near that. Was it too high? Probably. Do I think the vaccines are great for pregnant people? I wouldn't tell anybody who's pregnant to get vaccinated, but I'm not a doctor, and I haven't looked at them in that capacity.

I think there's high risk. And did Fauci know about that data? No. Did he do something deceitful? Yes. Right. And I think, like, we have to be very careful to maintain our integrity around these issues if we want to be critical of them. Because when people are hyperbolic or they misstate things or they conflate things, it ends up deteriorating our own. credibility in ways that I worry a lot about. Yes. I, a thousand percent agree with you. As I said in my opening remarks, you don't want to overcharge the criminal, right? You want to, you want the charge to be.

Yeah, exactly. But isn't, but isn't all of this symptomatic of why broken science exists? And explain to people why I would explain to people why we would say that. Well, so, I mean, I think there, for me, a little bit of it is this idea of scientific literacy. And it's an understanding of how have we gotten to this point where, and I think, you know, COVID is an opportunity to exploit some of this because I think people are talking about science in ways that they don't usually talk about. And it's bringing to the forefront your need to be your own advocate and find your way through

a very complex system that seems to be designed in a way to be more complex than it needs to be. that you're hearing all these things about how do you critically think your way through that? So we have a lot of online classes, some of which are out. We have about probably four or more that will be out in the next week or two. And they should really be helping people both regain your own individual health. And then as health coaches and doctors, we have an incredible class that meets all the HHS requirements for med students that are now charged with 40 hours of nutrition. And a big part of that class is also teaching you, like, how do you read a scientific study? How do you look at incentives, right?

So we know that we have all these problems in peer review, which is really, you know, where people I cite a study, you cite a study, like we can all do this. But what is happening in peer review? And why is that such a sort of like bastion of problematic information coming out? And I think what a lot of people don't know is that, you know, we have these sort of mathematical, statistical tests that we use to evaluate the validation of a result. And, you know, one of those tests is called a P-value, and it's very hard to get published without a significant P-value. Now, P-value doesn't actually tell you anything about your intervention and whether it works or not,

but it is like the gold standard and the requirement for people if you're going to publish anything in a medical journal. And so once you see how easy it is to manipulate a P-value, right? you get a larger sample size, you figure out other ways to sort of change your data sets or, you know, the length of the study. You can kind of do all these different things to get a significant P value. You start to realize like, oh, this is actually a really easy system to manipulate. And then we call that P hacking. But that's just like part of it, right? Like we have something, we have a huge problem called paper mills where people are just paying basically for authorship on papers. And in some cases, those labs,

don't even exist. And those are landing in high-impact journals. We've had a couple of journals actually closed within the last year because they've had such problem with fake stuff being published. And so I would blame academia and the sort of pressure to publish or perish that we all talk a lot about. But it's real. You're not putting your name on a bunch of papers. You're not going to get grant money. You're not going to get tenure. And so what are people doing? Well, a lot of this is happening through China and the Chinese, you know, have basically figured out this is like a hot market. So we can come up with a medical paper. We reach out to you.

You pay me 800 bucks. We put your name on it and we promise it's going to get published in a medical journal. That isn't good for the patient. Remember all those articles that were published and we would look at the authors and it was like 50 Chinese guys? That's a different thing. That is what I've been talking about, which is there was a really cozy relationship. and the scientific community between this country, the British, and the Chinese. And it was actually kind of a very productive collaboration, but no understanding on this end

that the PLA and the CCP was in there with everything. We just didn't even pay attention to that. And then all of a sudden, it became so obvious that that's a real serious problem. But I have to kind of wrap up here. The other thing I love about broken science is not just scientific literature, literacy, but really defining what science, how science is done and how, you know, because people are not being trained in science anymore. That and that then because you're looking at things objectively, you're willing to ask questions outside the box, and you're also working hard to

embed functional medicine in good science, which is, again, it's about predictable outcomes. Yeah, and I think predictability is really what we would say is the root of all scientific discovery. You have to have a predictive value in order to know that the thing works. So when we look at things like public health and you're dealing with things like numbers needed to treat, which is the common statistic, and you have to treat 200 people with a medication in order for one to benefit, that is no longer medicine. The doctor is charged with treating the patient in front of them, and that involves evaluating risk and looking at what's going to work for that person. If there are a man or a woman, it's going to be a different thing, right, which is a whole other topic we could talk about, right? And so I just, I think there's so much to learn. And it's a very exciting time to be helping and teaching the doctors.

And honestly, the personal trainers are so open to all of this stuff. And they're so smart about how the body works in so many ways. And so teaching them, they can really be the facilitator of driving health metrics in gyms in ways that doctors don't have time to. And so that's a really exciting avenue for us. Emily, I appreciate broken science and I appreciate you joining us. Oh, thanks for having me. And hi, Susan. Here you're there in the background.

Hi. You know what? I just have to say one thing about pregnant women getting vaccines. I remember thinking, why are we doing this? These young people don't need this. They're pregnant, maybe first time. They're all excited and they have to get a vaccine because, A, they have to have it for work or they'll get fired. Or they want to go to dinner with their family and they have to have a COVID card.

or they want to fly on a plane and go see their grandmother. Or it was mandated because we couldn't live our lives without vaccine card. That's right. It's wild. You know, actually, Susan, what public health did to us. One other thing that you'd probably be interested in is in this Fauci dump of information was an earlier text that I did a threat on where he's pressuring Wollinski, CDC director, to override her vaccine panel, hers, right?

And that's another really interesting point. he's not at CDC. She should be more powerful than him. And what he says to her is you have a reputation problem. And the only way you're going to remedy it is if you defer to me and listen to me, which I'm like, what kind of logic is that, right? Wow. And so I can't remember what it was.

It was like three to six or something voted against boosters for healthy people who were health care workers. And he convinced her to override it. And that's all in those emails. And in doing so, the state of New York, all these places mandated boosters for health care workers, even though the vaccine panel themselves said they don't need them. So that goes right to your point. California sure did. California sure did.

And yeah, and I can't wait to see what the communications were about school closures and why they made Rolenski reverse on that too. She was for a minute in favor of school openings and magically closures. And by the way, Redfield is now talking quite openly. he's discussed it on this show a couple of times, but he's now saying it in the traditional media that he was sure that Fauci usurbed his position. And he went to him, why are you?

It's not your position. This is my job. And he told him to stand aside, essentially. And same thing with Scott Atlas. I mean, there's a lot of people that he just overrode. And that, that hubris, again, hubris is a fatal flaw. go watch, you know, the Odysseus, the Odyssey, and you'll see where he goes bad.

It's a constant theme. I'm hosting a show called Ahead of Alzheimer's, which is on Substack and YouTube, and it's really trying to get people to, we're trying really hard to let people know that if you are diagnosed early, there's something you can do about it. And so the goal is really to get approval for early screenings in regular, visits. And I interviewed Redfield for that show. And we were talking a little bit about Fauci. And he said, I knew we had a problem when he was hosting press conferences and I was CDC director. Like, that doesn't, that's odd. Right. Yeah. So there's a lot more to that. But I'm going to write,

all of this is all going to be in my new subject. So go to let's start with the. And I can't wait to see the, maybe when the Bill Gates stuff starts dumping, we'll bring you back to talk about that. So it's dumb. It's out there. It's crazy. Yeah. Okay. All right. I just say it's crazy. It is crazy. It's all crazy. Super crazy. Rod, again, we're coming in and back. He, we've got a lot to talk to him about, but we also have a call. Two calls made for him.

Let me see if they wanted. Yeah. Okay. We have a couple of calls that I think would be very good for Rahm. And I think I'll go right to them after this. Dr. Drew here. Fatty 15 was discovered working with the Navy's fleet of dolphins. A brilliant veteran epidemiologist realized that dolphins deficient in this odd chain

fatty acid were helped by replacing that fatty acid. They didn't get the conditions. Turns out humans have similar deficiencies. It supports healthy glucose metabolism. It gets into the cell membrane and decreases the pool of available oxidizable species that can lead to ferroposis. So it is considered the longevity nutrient. If you'd like yours, go to doctor.com slash fatty 15. I don't see the profession doing anything to really build trust besides you. be on here. Thank you for having me. You and I see the world the same way. What is it like for you to be the most chiseled and best-looking man in media? Giving us the information we need. Thank you for the truth. My pleasure. We are going to take your calls at 8333-D-R-D-R-A-W. All right, Ron Yogender is

anesthesiologist. He works with long COVID. He's a friend of ours. You can follow Rom. Dr. Yostradamus. And also at COVID long haulers.com. Follow him. He's funny. Rom, are you up for a couple of phone calls to start out with? Sure, I didn't realize that you guys take light phone calls, but it's rapid fire. Hot seat, let's go. We do it. We do it.

And then we'll talk about your findings with this is a caller name and who has been trying to talk to you for a year. I'm very curious to hear what she had. Maybe this will get in. She's the mother of your child. This will back into the long COVID topic. Ann, thanks for calling. Uh-oh, she's still there. Hang on.

The long hauler COVID test of Dr. Eugendres, but my rantees levels were almost 265,000. Definitely not from the vaccine because that's not a snowball chance in hell. I would have ever taken that vaccine. And I don't believe I suffer from long COVID, but I have had MECFS my entire life, dysotonomia, hypersomnia, and I'm in my 50s now, and I believe this has probably been going on my whole life,

just haven't had the right test done. And when I was listening to your show a couple of years ago with your screenwriter friend Howard, when he was talking about his intolerance to anesthesia, I mean, I totally have that as well. And when he was talking about how he's part of a Reddit group that everybody with the long COVID and the Vax injuries, they have the intolerance to anesthesia and alcohol, same with me. And all these like narcolepsy and hypersomnia conferences that I've been to long before COVID ever started,

we all have the same problems. I've never drank alcohol, but even if I smell it on someone's breath, I get ill. So, I mean, like the way the long COVID and the vaccine injury people feel, that's the way I felt my whole life. Yeah. So, Ann, are you still there? Can you hear me? I'm still here. Yeah, I can hear you. Okay. We missed a little bit of your opening comment. I suspect based on what you said that you were going to say you've had a syndrome that is identical to COVID and vaccine injury well before COVID existed. Is that correct? Yes. I've had MECFS. hypersomnia, dysotonymia, my entire life.

Okay, we got it. We got it. I got you. Okay, so let's see what Rom has to say about that. Thank you. And it's, and her ranty's numbers were way high, which I think is fascinating too, right? Yeah, I think it's important that one thing is single solitary values in clinical medicine can be meaningless, right? we have to look at clinical context, whether it's biomarkers or physiological markers or blood work.

But the interesting thing that Anne brings up is a condition called MECFS, which has been documented in the literature for the last 30, 40 years. And it's been a conundrum for allopathic medicine and many alternatives and naturopats have really been looking into MECFS. And one of the main problems, and this is the problem we are encountering with long. long COVID post-COVID vaccine syndrome and many other chronic inflammatory diseases, is there are no validated biomarkers. We're looking at subjective scores on these patients.

So, for example, Anne's saying she has similar symptoms as a long COVID and a vaccine patient. She's not claiming to be a long COVID patient or a vaccine. She's had this for many years. So then the question becomes, how do we study Ann? And that's been the major conundrum. And the work that Bruce Patterson and I have been involved in the last six years is really looking at biomarkers, looking at objective scores, objective biomarkers, and aligning it with subjective scores, and to be able to tease out these different cohorts of patients. Because the problem is, if you take an ME-CFS patients like Anne and you are enroller into a long COVID study, your long COVID trial is, you know, we have a completely different immunization. neurological pattern here.

So the mistake, in my opinion, is like we're looking at symptoms. So we're looking at someone saying they got fatigue. Everyone coming into this clinical trial because you got fatigue. Well, is it possible and worse than her ME-CFS after a COVID infection? So is she a long COVID patient or is she an ME-CFS patient that got exacerbated after COVID? Right. So look, so I think the way to think about it is we get confused and certainly pay patients get confused and the difference between a syndrome and a disease.

And you're talking about a syndrome that we have not characterized yet with biomarkers, with a mechanism of action, why it's happening, that sort of will end in natural history and a treatment. It all characterizes under your heading of disease, even though it shares syndromatic symptomatology with other conditions, which is kind of what's interesting. She said two things I want you to comment on. one she said this intolerance to anesthesia which i've never asked you about it and it's something i have seen in these long particularly the long vax patients and the other thing she said is alcohol makes her

worse and i had long covid and alcohol made me better one glass of wine made me better two glasses of wine made me worse but it was reproducible every every every time i tried it so what do you make of that with the with the alcohol part i i i i not exactly sure uh with the anesthesia part being an anesthesiologist, I actually just published a paper about a year and a half ago on the perioperative clinical management on long COVID specifically, but I'd extrapolated a lot of information from the MECFS research to develop these guidelines for the perioperative, perioperative medicine and for anesthesiologists around the world. And I've given several talks in Europe and in Morocco in the past couple of months on this very

subject because it is something that is coming into the forefront. Unfortunately, MECFS patients like Anne have been dealing with this for decades and because long COVID now, because of the number of patients, we're looking at over 20 million in the last, you know, some of these studies that have come out, which I do question because we don't really have a clinical, a diagnostic definition of long COVID. So could those numbers be even more as possible? With anesthesia, there is a lot of documentation that there is a lot of intolerances.

Some patients developed histamine intolerance, like an MCAS, mass cell activation syndrome. So they get really sensitive to, there's a sensitivity to all sorts of medications there. And a lot of times what we try to do is to do regional anesthesia, less general anesthetics, less airway manipulation, for patients that are having some airway issues, cardiovascular issues too. So I've written a couple of papers on this, got two other papers on perioperative guidelines on it. What we do see in patients with chronic inflammation, that there is some sort of dysregulation

possibly associated with the histamine pathways and the mass cell pathways, which does play a key role. There's a lot of the medications we use in anesthesia can cause a histamine. release, for example, succincticoline, which is a paralytic agent we use in commonly use every day in the anesthesia as a paralytic can cause histamine release. And so there's also evidence that some of these chronic inflammatory diseases can affect metabolism of the drugs.

And we do see that with a lot of long COVID and vaccine injured patients. There's a lot of issues with not only sensitivity but also metabolism of all sorts of medications here and I feel like that is a feel that quite frankly we should be doing more research into. Is there any it all smacks of

some other than in these inflammatory processes like a mishandling of oxidized species or something. Is there any focus on sort of antioxidant

sort of mechanisms that might be useful in treating this? That's an interesting question, Drew. Years ago, I did a, I think it might have been in one of your shows. I talked about, there are almost like two phases.

If we're looked specifically at, let's say we're going to talk about long COVID or any of these chronic inflammation, you have to put the fire out and regrow the forest. So you've got these patients that have been chronically inflamed And what happens is all their the oxidative pathways,

everything has been depleted, the gluteothions and all of those things with these reactive species have taken over. It sounds like. And the question is, where do we put the, where in the treatment algorithm

do we have to fit these medications in? And my, you know, our approach has always been put the fire out with the things that we're researching and we're doing clinical trials on and regrow the forest. And I think that's where the NADs and the glutath ions and some of these regenerative medicine,

longevity medicine approaches come into place. It's funny. I had a conversation with Chuck. I'm blanking in his name. He's the head of metabolism now at City of Hope, who really isolated and provided nicotinamide riboside as an agent. And he, during COVID, was identifying NAD as a D. a potential useful adjuvant to decreasing some of the inflammatory activation.

But let's go to another call. This is John. John, Dr. Ogendris, here with you. Go right ahead. Thank you. Really appreciate your show and the guests you have on and the topic's excellent. Thanks, John. And I do listen quite a bit.

But I wanted to say mine's a little bit off topic. It's still within the COVID category. Back in January of 2020, let's see, when did COVID start, 2020, I had direct relationships with people that were in Italy or training that were in the military version of counterintelligence and stuff. Anyway, they were friends. Well, when they got back, they were telling me about some things, the Italians and the people they were with about COVID already. And that it more or less, it started in somewhere around July of 2019. I guess I'm right on my dates. Anyway, the got me interested because I had.

no idea what COVID was or anything about it. But what I started to do, and I do statistics a lot. Okay. So what I started doing was I was pulling data. There's a lot of websites from the different states, started pulling data and looking at the demographics and everything that I could get. And I started with small states like North Dakota, South Dakota, et cetera, where I could pull the data down and start analyzing it and looking at that data and looking at where, demographically, where it was by city, counties, and look at it and say, okay, what is it hitting, what is it, you know, type people and stuff like that. And what I found was it was, even though those areas, the population was dispersed, I found

commonality that it was a very low, what do you call it, contamination, where people were getting COVID and getting analyzed. So I kept looking at that and expanding the groups. Anyway, I'll stop that. I'll just say I did a lot of analysis on it and came up with a lot of stuff very early on that is starting to come out now more and more and more detail. And I guess my point was in the early phases of it, how many doctors, you know, really understood it. And people taking the look early on, and I did it for two years, okay? And I looked at it as it was not as critical out there. it was not as devastating on people.

And also, I think a lot of us, children. Yes, a lot of us, you're absolutely correct. A lot of us sense that right away and were shocked by the behavior of what usually is organizations is just advise doctors on how to proceed with the care of their patients. The fact that they usurped civil liberties, the fact that they advised. wise governments and states who shut everything down was shocking and bizarre. At the time, I just said to myself, well, I'm a good citizen.

The governors, I guess, are planning for the worst case. It seems ridiculous to me. And there's certainly no one suggesting they should close schools, but they'll probably only do this for a minute because it's so insane. But the reality is that as I have seen the sweep of that moment in history, it is fundamental. that we believed what was coming out of China and then it was amplified by what happened in Italy, which was completely different than anything in the United States. And what was coming out of China was abject lying.

And we went with it. And then we had these people in the administration that silenced anyone who raised their hand and said, hey, this can see something going on here. Winter, you had a question you want to talk to any doctor? Yogendra also. Hello. I am COVID vaccine injured.

And we have been without any treatments, nothing on the horizon. I also had long COVID prior to the vaccine, very mild long COVID, and then the vaccine just sort of did me in. I've been sick for many years now. We still have no treatments, nothing really on the horizon. And I was wondering if I could ask Dr. Yogendra what he was. thought was the biggest barrier to why we're sort of here with nothing. Okay, when we're standby and listen carefully because I know he's got something to say.

So she's asking, what is slowing down coming up with good answers and what good answers have you come up with? Let's do both. There aren't any good answers. I mean, it's not something patients want to hear. I think right now we are, you know, with all the things going on with Fauci and we are sort of litigating the last six years and I understand that. But as a physician, as a clinician, who sees these patients in my daily practice in the operating room and also does long COVID and vaccine research and sees patients through a telemet practice, it's unfortunate. It's unfortunate that there is, as of right now, I don't see any.

anything in the horizon. And I'll say right, it's not what any of us want to hear. The truth of the matter is that there are some fundamental problems with studying with how our approach to chronic inflammatory diseases has been over the last several years. So, for example, when we are doing our long COVID study, we are working very closely with the FDA. And recently, we had a meeting with the FDA, very smart, intelligent, and I know there's a lot of controversy with the FDA, and some people may not like to hear that. But the people we dealt with, very, very respectful individual, scientists and very knowledgeable individuals. They ask this very fundamental question to our team. It said, you guys have designed this clinical trial. You're studying, you know, this intervention

with Moravrak and Staten, and you guys are using these, what are these called subjective scores. So, for example, fatigue or dysodonomia, have they been validated for long COVID? And that was such a profound question. And we said, well, no. It's been validated for individual symptoms. So, for example, there is fatigue scores, fatigue severity score, crime is fatigue, 7A, 10A scores, compass 31, or disautonomias. but it's not, no one has thought about specifically using the scale for long COVID or for the actual disease you're studying.

So the question the FDA is asking, so the intervention, if it fails or succeeds, is it due to the drug? Or is it, or let's say the drug, a study fails. Is it because of the drug, the intervention you're studying? Or is it the tool that you're using to measure? Is that incorrect? And when we look back to date, no one has validated any of the studies, any of the scales that we're using. So putting into question the last six years of long COVID research, which we were hoping then could build upon for the vaccine injured. And here's the other problem. Back in 2021, when Bruce and I found a mechanism behind the vaccine injured, put out all this data.

and we talked a lot about this on your show, Drew. That was the critical time period to really look into it. Because see, now what's happened is you got someone that comes in and says, I'm that's injured. What does it mean? What is the, do we have a diagnostic criteria? No. Someone that's a skeptic, and you see a lot of physicians, a lot of people out there are going to say,

well, I don't know. How do you know? Because here's the problem. After a COVID infection, the immunology of the vaccine injured changed. after, you know, and here's the other problem, too. You had many long COVID patients. They were told by the experts to go get vaccinated because it was going to be a cure for long COVID.

If you don't believe anyone watching this live stream, Drew, go Google it, Washington Post. It's all there. I mean, all of this is memorialized now. Right. So you have all these cohorts of patients, backs injured, got COVID after, got COVID, long COVID, got backs injured.

So you got this mismatchewish mess. of patients, how do you study that? We don't have any modeling. Now, the one thing we do have is Bruce and I, the paper we finally, you know, we took four years to publish, which we've talked a lot about, Bruder. That is a modeling of what we call a pure Vax injured patient. It was 50 patients.

It's a small cohort of patients. We understand the criticism, but we don't have anything else to go with. You can't study these cohort, these patients. So then what do you do? So we were hoping that we're going to build what our research on long COVID would help us understand the vaccine injured. Now, I do want to make one important point, Drew, because I see this all over social media. And there's quite a bit of physicians. And I'm not sure what their intentions are.

They downplay long COVID. And they say long COVID is really the vaccine injured. We have blood work from 2020 before the vaccine rollout. All documented. It's all time stamped. So we did find the spike protein six months after. a COVID infection. So I think a lot of these physicians and scientists that are

that pushing that narrative, I don't know what their reasons are, but they're wrong about this. These are two distinct group of patients. The similarity is they were introduced to the spike protein, thus causing a vascular inflammation on both cohorts of patients. So you can understand why, since all eyes research are in long COVID, we can build upon the vaccine injured. But the problem is there are critical flaws

with the long COVID research. The government has given, Congress has given close to $2 billion to a group called the NIH recover program that we have no accountability where this money has gone. They've spent this money

on not validating any of the scores. The FDA has actually told our team with very little resources do the job that the NIH has failed to do with $2 billion. There's U.S. senators that have no idea who runs the NIH recover. Because they're not giving us the money. We've talked to them

for over a year. They're refusing to fund us. And we've talked to Secretary Kennedy. We've talked to Dr. Badacharya. They're helping, but there's a lot of stonewalling going on. The old guard still runs the show. The old guard still controls the money. So we're so focused right now on Fauci. There's a whole network of people that are still there. The old guard is Still there, Drew. They're just waiting for the time and then strike back. So, John, thank you for the call. Winter and Ann. Are there things they could try that might be effective? Well, the important things we've got to get back to the basics of medicine. What we learn in Gen Bio in college. All of this, you know, here's the thing, Drew, this is the one thing that just drives me nuts about this whole thing.

It's just the fundamentals and the principles of medicine. What we learn in the first two years, years of basic sciences, a lot of people have deviated from that. And they come up with things. And it's just things simple. Yes. So I think what we need to go is we need to validate the clinical scales, whatever the scales they are. And then we need to then, you know, study whatever intervention. But there needs to be a mechanism. There's no mechanism. They're studying Kim Chi and long COVID. They're studying magnetic helmets and long COVID. It's like anything they're just going to

throw it out there. It's like, what is the mechanism and they can't give you an explanation? It's an inflammatory. Well, every Tylenol has anti-inflammatory properties. So there are some people, hang on, there's some people that have persistent spike antibodies at very high levels. Isn't that something we could sort of look at since you've said we've zeroed in on the spike as the pathogenic mechanism of endothelial injury? And we all agree with that. That's an easy one. But somebody is still producing spike antibody might be having some spike production or spike presence. I've seen the theories on that. I've seen some of the discussion about that. Here's the big X factor in that hypothesis, subclinical infection. So you can have someone, let's say, has a vaccine injury and they test,

they do the testing with radians and they find spike proteins in there. Here's the question, was that spike protein from the vaccine or was that a re-reacted? an infection that is a subclinical infection. Why don't we just, why don't we consolidate the whole thing into spike injury? Just call it all spike injury and studying it accordingly. Who cares what initiated it? It's all spike injury. Let's see if we can help these people.

I think, so here's the thing. I think it's a great idea, Drew. I think unfortunately right now, so what we found in our research is there are two distinct immune patterns. spike from the virus, spike from the vaccine, causing vascular inflammation. But they're two distinct immune patterns, just like with ME-CFS, just like with Lyme.

Symptoms are the same. You have some vascular information, but the pattern is different too. But I think I always call them cousins of each other, long COVID and the vaccine injured. They're cousins of each other. Now, on a positive, if there's a positive thing to all of this, we are now going to start validating the scales.

We met with the FDA. They're pretty close to giving us the green light. It's at the University of Arizona. You should know. You should know these conditions have been around for a long time, right? And back, it all used to funnel into psychiatry because they were all told they were depressed or there's something in the brain, but it's not neurological.

And so back in the 80s and early 90s, eyewitness psychiatrists trying crazy stuff. And they had, they were trying to get the biological markers and they had a viral particle in the bone marrow that they were following. And it was all just super crazy bad medicine, bad science, but desperation to help these people with these syndromes that you heard from Ann is just this horrible, disabling thing. So, you know, it's about time we got.

to this. It's kind of it's been around for a minute. I'm just glad it's moved out of really into the scientific realm and good careful questioning is underway. It's how it all ended up under Lyme disease too, which may yet

be part of the story here, but it all ended in Lyme. It started with depression, went to mononucleosis, chronic Epstein bar, and then Lyme. And none of it was real. Well, none of it was accurate. Some of it was real, none of it was accurate.

And it was a sloppy mess that hopefully we're going to slog our way through now. Thank you, COVID. We'll see, I guess. Interesting. You bring up Lyme, 30% of our long COVID patients have testing positive for Lyme, have Lyme markers. So when we develop our protocol on our screening, we have a very rigorous Lyme. We're using an FDA cleared Lyme serology test. is, is that something epi, has some epi, or is that line?

They're holding it up in line because it's people assumed it, but I'm not sure. I don't know. I mean, we're asking these questions. But listen, my internet is screwing up a little bit, which starts to happen after a certain period of time. But I think this was really good. These were great calls. I think all the callers, I think they're very smart.

and also dramatic in terms of what people suffer with this thing. And Godspeed at the beginning with Bruce, another Bruce Patterson. And I don't know if you've heard what I said. My internet is really glitching right now. So I'm going to have to sign off. Rom, again, Godspeed. We'll talk to you soon.

That was good. Thanks, for. Appreciate it. All right. Talk to you soon. All right. So I don't know if people heard much of what I said there. Oh, and my phone is picking up everything I'm saying.

Where are you going to text this to? Text what to. Have some trolls. I don't know why this topic always gets trolls. It's funny. Where are the trolls? On the restream? Dr. Fauci's emails are demonstrating the scientific method in action,

asking hypothetical questions and citing your evidence. Yes, 100%. That is actually true. Why didn't he go public with that? We also, COVID-19 deaths are caused by severe COVID-19 infection. Yes. That's true. That's alpha and delta.

But he's saying if you weren't vaccinated, you were more likely to die of COVID. That we don't, there's controversy on that. I happen to believe that we did get less severe illness in the elderly who were vaccinated, but that is now a point of contention. It didn't affect infectivity or transmission. We now know that. And did the RNA vaccine prevent over 2.5 million people? from COVID-19 death?

No. And we actually don't know the number on that. And yes, Dr. Fauci was conducting science in his conversations with his peers and then did not, and showed the public an entirely different point of view. And I think that was an ethical problem. And then the governors followed suit and then physicians listened to that. and that was a huge, huge mess. Okay, we have to wrap this thing up.

We appreciate you all being here. All of our guests have been great. And we appreciate the discussions online, the restream. I want to know where CBNP got his medical degree first before I'm going to listen to his medical misinformation. Like it was like Emily Kaplan was saying, we don't want to become evangelical in either direction. We want to do good science. Put the list back up again because we've got a couple of days. is we have Thursday and Friday this week.

Friday is at noon. Thursday it says 4 p.m. I don't think that's correct, Caleb. I think it's a two. Mike Hathwood, a recovering person, my old co-host on Love Line coming in here. I think we have a different cohort with him. And then I can't read.

So we're not going to be doing Wednesdays in the future. It's going to be Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, at 3 at 2 p.m. Pacific, 5 p.m. Eastern. So we can keep a consistent time. What's that, Katie? I see some Wednesday shows actually on the calendar still. So again, it's part of our brand now that we have to figure out the calendar at the end of every show. But I do see someone on Wednesdays at 4.

But I want people to know that eventually this Wednesday show is going to go away. September, we're switching. Not until September. But we have a few Wednesdays coming up. So we're just warning you all. And yes, Sour Girl STP, we have Salty coming up as well. That'll be fun. It's been a long enough time.

I think we're in competition with Salty at this time, too. I think his shows at the same time now. All right. We don't like to compete with him. But he's once a week, is he? Or is he twice a week now? Any event, excellent show, excellent guest, excellent callers, excellent conversation online.

I appreciate all of you. And we will see you tomorrow at 2 o'clock Pacific time. Atah. Ask Doctor Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky. Emily Barsh is our content producer. 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 an immediate danger, don't call me. Call 911. If you're feeling hopeless or suicidal, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800273-8255. You can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at Dr.due.com

slash help.