Ask Dr. Drew - Is mRNA a Vaccine or Gene Therapy? Why Does Dr. Drew Still Vaccinate Elderly Patients? w/ Tom Renz & Ex-Pharma Executive Sasha Latypova – Ask Dr. Drew – Ep 352

Episode Date: April 30, 2024

Who fact checks the fact checkers? Attorney Tom Renz refutes a recent AP “fact check” and alleges that the real “disinformation” is calling COVID mRNA shots “vaccines” instead of “gene therapy” – and says the FDA itself admits this in documents from 2020. Sasha Latypova – a former pharmaceutical executive – returns to discuss why Dr. Drew continues to vaccinate elderly patients despite warning against mRNA use for younger people, resisting vaccine mandates, and fighting against lockdowns. Tom Renz is an attorney from Ohio conducting ‘Lawfare for Freedom’ by fighting corruption surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic at state and federal levels. Find out more at https://renz-law.com and follow him at https://x.com/RenzTom Sasha Latypova is a former pharmaceutical R&D executive with over 25 years of experience in clinical trials, clinical technologies, and regulatory approvals. She owned and managed several contract research organizations and worked for more than 60 pharma companies worldwide. She interacted with the FDA as part of a scientific industry consortium on improving cardiac safety assessments in clinical trials. Follow her at https://x.com/sasha_latypova and read more at https://sashalatypova.substack.com 「 SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS 」 Find out more about the brands that make this show possible and get special discounts on Dr. Drew's favorite products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors  • 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 • COZY EARTH - Susan and Drew love Cozy Earth's sheets & clothing made with super-soft viscose from bamboo! Use code DREW to save up to 40% at https://drdrew.com/cozy • TRU NIAGEN - For almost a decade, Dr. Drew has been taking a healthy-aging supplement called Tru Niagen, which uses a patented form of Nicotinamide Riboside to boost NAD levels. Use code DREW for 20% off at https://drdrew.com/truniagen • 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. Get an extra discount with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew • 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 「 GEAR 」 • NANLITE - Dr. Drew upgraded his studio with Nanlite: the best lighting for film, TV, and live streaming podcasts. Bring your vision to life at https://drdrew.com/nanlite 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 Portions of this program may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. Always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health. 「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician with over 35 years of national radio, NYT bestselling books, and countless TV shows bearing his name. He's known for Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Teen Mom OG (MTV), The Masked Singer (FOX), multiple hit podcasts, and the iconic Loveline radio show. Dr. Drew Pinsky received his undergraduate degree from Amherst College and his M.D. from the University of Southern California, School of Medicine. Read more at https://drdrew.com/about Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Well, I'm just watching our little pre-show clip on Rumble. You all need to sign up to Rumble immediately and watch the show just before 3 o'clock so you can see the clips of these extraordinary interviews we've had, and that one was a doozy. And it reminds me of my own VAERS report, which I submitted for a 99-year-old patient after a cardiac event within minutes of the vaccine, and I was able to deal with it and whatnot. No follow-up, no nothing, nothing. It should have been a hospitalization because she was 99 and they refused it.

Anyway, we'll talk more about that. Tom Ranz, Sasha Latipova is in here. Tom is a consulting attorney from Ohio. Lawfare for freedom. He's fighting for corruption surrounding the COVID vaccine and the COVID-19 experience. In particular, you know him from this show, Sasha Latipova.

He's a former pharmaceutical R&D executive, over 25 years of experience in clinical trials. And she was just sort of sketching out for us a bombshell that she'll be delivering in a few minutes. So stay with us. We'll be right back. Our laws as it pertains 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. Well, Mother's Day is upon us, and GenuCell's Mother's Day sale has arrived as well. Perfect timing, because Susan and I have upgraded our bundles with even more of our favorite skincare products, now for over 50% off. We've been working with GenuCell for almost two years, and because GenuCell makes really the best skincare products in the world, you'll see. In fact, you can see how my skin corrected and repaired

in this moment from the show live on our stream. And we know it's important to you. GenuCell products use naturally effective proprietary ingredients that are non-GMO, plant-based formulas made in the USA. Just some of the reasons GenuCell has 400% the customer loyalty of other skincare brands. I know I'm a snob about the products I use on my face. Everybody knows it. Every time I go to the dermatologist's office,

they're just rows and rows of different creams. And then when I get to the counter, they're overpriced. All kinds of products that you can all find at GenuCell.com. For now until Mother's Day, order Susan's Essentials Package to get her favorite ultra ultra retinol and vitamin C serum, as well as other skincare must-haves. Order right now at GenuCell.com slash Drew and get a free luxury spa box that includes their incredible neck treatment, a free gift, plus free shipping. That is GenuCell.com slash Drew, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash D-R-E-W. So we have some interesting guests on the Twitter space today. I appreciate you guys being there. And I'm actually, I would like to try to get you guys an opportunity to come up to the podium and ask your questions.

I know some of you will be challenging some of the material being presented here, but we got a lot to get into. And so I want you, hopefully, I can't promise there'll be calls today, but we were talking about maybe doing that. Let me tell you about Tom Renz. You can follow him at Renz, R-E-N-Z-law.com. He's on X as Renz Tom. TomRenz.com also. Also at Tom Renz on Substack. He has been just sort of slowly looking at documents and trying to make sense of things.

And I forget. Let's bring Tom in. I forget, Tom, how you got involved in all this, but I remember your incredulity at the beginning, and it just has kept growing and snowballing since. Well, it has. It has. And the way that I got started was, from my perspective and act of God, I was actually working on a master's in health science. So, you know, in my mid-40s, and for no reason that I could point to to this day, I decided to take a master's course in health science. And when COVID started hitting January 2020, well, if you're doing master's work, you study what's in the news, right? And so when I started looking at the epidemiology, it wasn't making sense, right? I'm looking at these numbers and I'm looking at what's going on and I'm seeing that in the worst case scenarios, they were talking about

maybe a 4% case fatality rate, but any credible person looking at the numbers could see that it was going to end up substantially lower than that. And more importantly, when I tried to get source data, there was always an asterisk, and then another asterisk. And when that started happening, the Masters in Health Science kind of stepped aside and the lawyer kicked in, because we got that BS detector thing going on as an attorney, right? And so I start looking, and nothing was adding up, right? So I'm looking at a comparison, right? I'm looking at a, I tried to write a paper at one point comparing TB and old influenza outbreaks and some of these other things, their case fatality rates and their reproduction rates, things like that.

None of it made any sense because we're talking about COVID as though it was going to be the end of the world. It wasn't in the ballpark of being as dangerous as original SARS or the original MERS, and nobody even knew that was happening. Nobody cares about TB, and TB is way more dangerous. But we locked down the world, we shut down everything, and the numbers were a fraction of what these things were looking at. And they knew it at the time. So I was incredulous. And then I filed my first big case because I was sitting there and they lock us down for 14 days.

And as an attorney, I look at the law related to these lockdowns. And 14 days to flatten the curve was really 14 days of house arrest. And the Constitution does not take a vacation because we call an emergency, right? You can declare an emergency as president, but your law is, your authority is limited always by the Constitution. And the Constitution does not give you the right to put people under house arrest without due process in this country. So I filed a suit. The first suit, and it really kind of put me on the map, was filed in September, beginning of September 2020.

And it was several hundred pages. I want to say six to seven hundred pages, somewhere in there. I had about everything you could need. And we, by September of 2020, were able to show using government documents and government evidence that the masks don't work. Social distancing didn't work. All the things that they were pushing for another two years were lies. And the problem is. We certainly know, Tom.

Certainly know the social. Now they finally admitted social distancing was made up out of thin air that that they knew was respiratory virus they had concerns about fluid transmission but very quickly obviously respiratory virus in which case 30 to 60 feet would be required and no one's ever been able to use yeah distancing to limit a social outbreak of a respiratory virus. No, no. So, I mean, listen, here's the thing. If you're a liar, why would I trust you? And from day one, they have lied to the public about this. And so once I realized that, I realized that everything that they were going to say going

forward, we needed to double check and verify. And it's turned out that literally you could always tell when the government was lying about covid because they were speaking anytime they spoke it was a lie well you know i found when they would go after somebody with serious credentials who was a decorated professional they would always go after those guys to crush any questions or dissent and i thought oh well that's that's where the problem is. So they were turning up the volume of the propaganda and turning down the volume on anybody with other opinions with cancellation.

Well, look at Johnny Anitas, right? So Stanford professor of epidemiology, literally one of the most respected epidemiologists on the planet. He had a reputation for being the guy, when you put out a study, he was the guy who was going to find an issue with it, right? And he comes out in the summer of 2020, and he says, listen, case fatality is going to be a bad flu season. I mean, it's going to be nothing. And I can't remember exactly what his number was, but it was like 0.2-ish. And it turns out he, of course, was dead right. But when he did, they eviscerated this poor guy. I mean, literally one

of the most respected epidemiologists that you could ever name. Yeah. And I'm always making excuses for the behavior just to try to understand it. And one of the things I thought at the time was, well, maybe this is a manufactured virus. They're not telling us it has potential to change into something really awful. And they're afraid of that. But Tom, I want to bring Sasha in here just a couple of minutes. You and I had two things to talk about before we bring Sasha in here. One was you're talking about the lying and the lack of ability to change direction and the propagandizing. This was the behavior of a centralized bureaucratic authority. And at the time, we had a president that responded to that bureaucratic authority

affirmatively and bought into their stuff. He seemed to be pushing back a little bit, but still went around with it and has never really taken responsibility for some of the things, or at least talked about even, what he was thinking at the time. Or what went wrong, or what went right, or what he's thinking now that he's learned a little more perhaps. What do you say to that? Well, I say that you're correct. I mean, I've taken the unenviable position of trying to defend Trump's actions and behavior despite the fact that to this day, I can show it's absurd. I mean,

we have the State of the Union, and he's tweeting about Pfizer mRNA vaccines to cure the mRNA cancers caused by his original Pfizer vaccines. Here's the problem. You know, when I look at Donald Trump's first term, and the reason that I still support his actions is you've got a guy who's been under attack nonstop by everybody on the planet. And particularly with COVID, you have a situation where even some of the best and brightest scientists on the planet didn't recognize the lies. I mean, it was honestly an act of God. It was luck that I happened to be looking in the right place to find this stuff at the right time. It's not that I was special. I saw it early, but it was luck. So you get Trump, and we've heard since then.

Deborah Birx literally said, my job was to lie to the president every day. Well, Trump is a savvy businessman, and maybe you like him as the president, maybe you don't. I did. But Trump had to rely on his advisors. This is not an area he's going to know.

And so you fast forward, and the guy is constantly surrounded by an advisor, and this is what you've got to do. I mean, if you're the president of the United States, you've got an advisor on everything. You can't be an expert in economics and health and science and defense. I mean, no one's an expert in everything. So you listen to your trusted advisors, and if you don't, you're out of luck. What happens when all of your trusted advisors in a particular area are corrupt? And that really is the nature of the bureaucracy in the federal government around health. The entirety of HHS is, to my mind, with, I mean, I'm sure there's a few notable exceptions, but just about the entirety is corrupt as can be. They're bought, paid for, and owned by big pharma.

And, you know, Doc, to this day, I just dropped, you know, what I would say is a pretty important bombshell on Twitter about corruption in the Trump campaign, right? Not by Donald Trump. Donald Trump is in court every day getting sued. But Donald Trump has, as the leader of his campaign and the leader of his pack, a woman named Susan Wiles, who the Hill says is the most powerful Republican you've never heard of in the country. Well, of course she is. She's got Trump's ear and she controls the schedule and controls who's meeting with him and controls this, that, and other. Of course she is, right? Well, Susan Wiles also works for a company known as Mercury LLC. Mercury LLC represents Pfizer. They represent Gilead. They represent Gabby. They represent the UN Foundation. And the thing that all these guys have in common is they're all making money off of pushing these poisons. So is it a surprise that to this day, he's being told by the people

he trusts, no, there's a lot of people that like these vaccines. I am 100% in disagreement on that. I think that this, to my analysis, Doc, I think this is probably the single most important one issue type thing for an election in the history of our country. 25% of the people in this country, they lost jobs, they lost friends, they lost family, they lost loved ones, because they refused to get this jab. And then another however many percentage of people watch their loved ones die from it. These people are not going to forget. They're not going to forgive.

And I firmly believe that this could be the single biggest risk because nobody likes Joe Biden. Joe Biden's been a disaster, in my opinion, and Trump should be soaring to the presidency. But I think that this is the single biggest risk to his ascension to the presidency. And I pray he gets it right because I think we need him as president. I support him 100 percent, but I do not support him on this issue. And as a setup to bring Sasha in here, talk to me about the FDA cancer and gene treatment notes. Yeah, so this is a really interesting thing.

My wife is fighting cancer, and so I've done a lot of work on cancer. And the cancer that we're seeing, and one of the things I just saw, so I was just at, and this is a personal story, I was just at the cancer ward with my wife, right? And I see this beautiful little girl, baby in my eyes. I'm an old man, so everybody's a baby in my eyes, but she's probably eight, nine years old, getting wheeled down by herself, obviously fighting cancer, and a gurney. I mean, just to get this test, it was one of the most heartbreaking things

I've seen in a very long time. And you see a lot of sad things in the cancer ward. And when this is happening, I'm thinking about the research. We know without any question, going back to 2006, the FDA published a document that said that gene therapies can, as a delayed adverse reaction, can cause cancer. Going to 2015, they reasserted and they defined gene therapies to include mRNA vaccines. They didn't specifically say it, but the way they defined it would include these mRNA vaccines. Fast forwarding to 2020, they again recognized that these would qualify as gene therapies now i i love where sasha's going to go with this and i'm not going to steal her thunder because i'm very excited for her to say it and i'm excited to jump on board with it but these these air quotes

gene therapy products were known to have a delayed cancer risk in them they were known to have a delayed cancer risk in them. They were known to cause all sorts of problems. And I would argue that these specific products, the specific products that are the mRNA poisons that we're seeing for the COVID vaccines, I would argue that they not only knew that there was a risk, but because of the way these specific spike proteins were designed, I would say that they were well aware that it was a risk, but because of the way these specific spike proteins were designed, I would say that they were well aware that it was a likelihood that these would eventually cause a cancer explosion. And I would point to the fact that we started Operation Moonshot right after

we launched these COVID vaccines as part of the evidence to that. I think there's a lot of other evidence, including, like I said, the FDA documents that state it. Okay. So you used a very provocative word there, which is likelihood. And that's something I want Sasha to address. In the sort of Twitter tweet we put out, and then the title of this whole show is, why did I give my patients the vaccine? I feel like this is a good time for me to sort of clarify my position. I don't boost anymore. I stopped boosting. I have a lot of very elderly patients. I had patients die of COVID, older patients. I can kind of, the patients that were particularly at risk were people obviously overweight, but people with certain clotting disorder, inflammatory disorders, that sort of thing, boy, they were just destroyed by this thing. In any event, I was worried about those patients. They wanted the

vaccine. I did my best to give them informed consent, and they wanted the boosters. So, you know, I thought this was good at the time. Again, things were not as clear as they were now. And I didn't see any, after we started vaccinating, I didn't have any hospitalizations or almost none in my elderly patients. And I certainly didn't have anybody die of COVID. I did, as I reported in the opening remarks here, have a serious vaccine reaction

just a couple of months ago for someone who wanted the booster. And I didn't recommend it, but she was in a nursing facility where they gave it to everybody. Because she was 99 years old, she didn't want to go in the hospital. In fact, she refused to go in the hospital, but I managed her as an outpatient and got her through it. But because it wasn't a hospitalization per se, of course, it doesn't reach any kind of VAERS threshold of being significant,

which is pathetic. And I have a report number and a follow-up and nothing from VAERS. This 99-year-old nearly died because of the vaccine that day. Now, the big thing I worry about with VAERS is that to the extent that the FDA is sending somebody out to look at these reactions, it's just a guy. I'm sure he has some training, but no one can determine whether the vaccine caused a reaction in temporal proximity to the injection. You can't do that. That's why you have to have forward-looking, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover studies and whatnot. That's how you take the issue out of there of sending somebody in and just a guy decides. Oh, I guess this – and that guy evidently decided my patient didn't have a vaccine reaction.

So, Tom, we're going to bring Sasha Latipova. Go ahead. Go ahead, please. I will say one thing to that. The CDC, the courts have recognized that VAERS is not a reliable system. But as I've talked about, I think we've talked about here. They had almost a dozen different systems set up to collect this data, including the Medicare, Medicaid documents, which I've had

whistleblowers. We've provided data to numerous people on this. The medical data that we've seen from the Defense Department, from the insurance companies, all these different, there is plenty of data to show this and they are collecting it. We have the documents that show they're collecting it. They're just lying again. That to me is, if that ends up being true, it's literally unbelievable to me. It's breathtaking to think about. It's unbelievable to think that that's actually happening. You're saying it's so?

I don't know that it's not. Fair enough. Tom Renz is here with us. As I said, you can follow him at, let me get all the stuff, renz-law.com on X at Renz Tom. He reverses it R-E-N-Z. And coming up, Sasha Latupova, we're bringing in here. She has a sub stack. Sasha is obviously easy to spell, but Latipova is L-A-T-Y-P-O-V-A, L-A-T-Y-P-O-V-A. That's her sub stack and Sasha underscore Latipova on X. We'll bring her in to this conversation right after this. Latipova. Let's talk about aging because everyone wants to know how to slow it down. For almost a decade, I've been taking a healthy aging supplement called TruNiagen.

This supplement boosts NAD. That's something that cells can't live without. It's done with a patented form of nicotinamide riboside called NR or Niagen. It's more efficient and more scientifically reviewed than NMN or other NAD boosters. TruNiagen is truly the best way to boost NAD levels, and it's made by Chromadex. They're the gold standard in the NAD space.

Dr. Charles Brenner, the scientist who discovered the NAD boosting potential of NR, explains. And the center of the metabolism that allows the conversion of food into energy is NAD coenzymes. And NAD gets disturbed in the aging process. And as we're exposed to conditions of metabolic stress, Niagen, which is the form of NR that was developed by Chromadex, is the best and the only fully legal form of NR. And this is really the gold standard for NAD boosting vitamins. I love this product. I urge you to try it. Go to drdrew.com slash truniagen

for 20% off your order. That is drdrew.com slash truniagen, T-R-U-N-I-A-G-E-N and enter drdrew at checkout, D-R-D-R-E-W, enter it at the checkout for 20% off. We all know the value of a good night's sleep. We feel better, look better, have more energy to spare, but you could be missing out on all of those benefits if you're sleeping on sheets that

are too hot or too cold or just plain uncomfortable. I have the solution. Cozy Earth Bedding. Cozy Earth is the softest and most comfortable sheets, blankets, loungewear, and more. They use premium viscose from highly sustainable bamboo, and we sleep in them regularly. I wear their t-shirts. Susan wears their pajamas. Cozy Earth Bedding comes with a 100-night sleep trial, which means you have up to 100 nights to sleep on them, wash them, try them out. If you're not in love, just return them within 100 days for a full refund.

Susan and I love them. In fact, we have Cozy Earth sheets on our bed right now, and they made a huge difference in our sleep. If you've never tried Cozy Earth, we have some awesome news. You can save up to 35% off Cozy Earth right now. But hurry, this offer will not last. Go to CozyEarth.com, enter my promo code Drew at checkout for up to 35% off on your first order. That is CozyEarth.com. Enter my promo code Drew at checkout for up to 35% off on your first order. That is CozyEarth.com. Promo code Drew. C-O-Z-Y-E-A-R-T-H. CozyEarth.com. Code D-R-E-W. You asked for it and the wellness company has delivered. The medical emergency kit replete with ivermectin, prescription antibiotics, and more continues to fly off the shelves. We keep

one here at home. And there are three new kits you need to know about, and more are coming. The Contagion Emergency Kit was inspired by the high demand for the medical kits. In that Contagion kit, you'll find ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, antibiotics, budesonide, and a nebulizer. And a must for your next trip is the Travel Emergency Kit, something I made sure exactly what I give my patients is in this kit and some more. The kit includes remedies for jet lag, variety of infections, even GI ailments. Imagine your flight getting grounded anywhere, say even in the US, and you start getting sick. You do not want to be at the mercy of the US healthcare system or any healthcare system. At home, we keep the Ultimate First Aid Kit on hand. It has over 20 essential supplies and medications for situations when time

is of the essence. Order one for your car and your go bag. Because these kits contain prescriptions, your purchase includes a telemedicine consultation as well as an instruction manual. Go to drdrew.com slash TWC for 10% off. That is drdrew.com slash TWC for 10% off all your orders. I'm very excited about these kits. Go to drdrew.com slash TWC for 10% off all your orders. I'm very excited about these kits. Go to drdrew.com slash TWC. Okay, we are back. Sasha Latipova, a pharmaceutical R&D executive for over 25 years, clinical trials, clinical technologies, regulatory approvals.

She owned and managed several contract research organizations, worked for more than 60 different pharma companies worldwide. She interacted with the FDA regularly as part of her job. She can be followed on X at Sasha underscore Latipova. I can't get the second, Latipova. I keep wanting to put the accent on the first syllable. I apologize for that. Her sub stack is again, same. Let's bring Sasha on in. Welcome. Thank you for being here.

Hi, Dr. Drew. Thank you for inviting me. So before you came in off the air a little bit, you sort of were starting a frame where you said doctors don't know anything. And you went into a very interesting conversation from there and I thought it'd be good if we just started right there. Well, what I mean by anything, we were talking about these, you know, vaccine science and law and my point was that most of this crime, I treat it as an intentional crime. So most of it has to do with understanding the law

and also understanding pharmaceutical regulations, which unfortunately practicing physicians do not. They're treating patients, and they believe what the authorities tell them, the health department, the regulators, and what pharma reps tell them. I mean, they're busy, but we should be reading our own literature. I mean, we should be looking. The question is, the literature adulterated. But tell us more. What were you specifically thinking about when you say that?

So, as I said, after looking into this, and I started with VAERS, by the way, and I totally agree with Tom that the regulators are lying about, NCDC is completely lying about VAERS data, and they do have those dozen different other databases that are much more accurate. And so they know precisely how many deaths and injuries are due to the vaccine. And they're not even in court filings. They don't deny it. They just lie to the public. When they have to respond to court, they say, yes, we know, but it't deny it. They just lie to the public. When they have to respond

to court, they say, yes, we know, but it's all legal. And that's correct. Because the evidence of the intentional crime is the changes of the US law that have been done going back to even late 80s, starting in late 80s. And then more recently, the partnership between HHS and Department of Defense and also evidence of premeditation of this crime goes back to around 2016, 2017. I published on my Substack leaked audio from AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soro and VP responsible for monoclonal antibodies, Mark Esser, discussing this in late 2020. So they described that the Department of Defense approached them in 2017 to start working on a program where Department of Defense will identify viruses that will cause pandemics and then the pharma companies will respond with drugs and vaccines made in 60 days. Let me stop you.

But again, I always try to be reasonable with these things. But I want the defense, if we have a bioterrorism event, I want the defense to have a relationship with pharma where they could do that. No? It's not possible to develop anything within 60 days that's that's fiction and that's exactly how experienced drug developer mark esser responded initially to this he said i thought it was science fiction and that was correct reaction because it is science fiction it's a narrative it's a fake story that these guys at the department of defense

manufactured because they want to develop biological weapons, but they can't because bioweapons convention prohibits them from doing so. So this is the story that they sold to everyone, including Congress and pharmaceutical companies. And pharmaceutical companies quickly were convinced to throw away their skepticism because there was money involved, of course, and, you know, for no particular deliverables. And so since 2017, they've assembled a consortium. So Department of Defense assembled a consortium of over 300 companies, including pharma companies, academic institutions, and all kinds of other organizations, where they were, you know, keeping this base of people who will agree to do this, from which they've selected ultimately six or ten companies that participated in Operation Warp Speed, got billions of dollars,

and the deliverable was emergency use countermeasures, prototypes, and demonstrations purchased through other transaction authority, which is a very secretive mechanism to buy prototypes without disclosing anything to the Congress, to the people, you know, where the money is going. Of course, all of these contracts were no bid awarded to friends and cronies of Robert Kudlick. And then, you know, and by law, emergency use countermeasures under public health emergency are not pharmaceutical products. They're not regulated as pharmaceuticals. They do not have any consumer safety protections that you expect from them.

And it's a legal impossibility to conduct a clinical trial using emergency use countermeasure because you legally cannot provide informed consent and IRB does not imply. So that's why I'm saying when physicians are told this is a vaccine, it's safe and effective. And when you read all the law that applies and doesn't apply to emergency use countermeasures, it becomes very clear that this is a premeditated, very carefully planned, long-term executed strategy to deceive everyone into taking these poisons. And also to address what Tom Renz just said, I am very sorry that his wife is sick with cancer. It's a tragedy. I just had a guest in my house whose 18-year-old daughter

was injected with Pfizer and she has cancer. I sat across numerous people who lost their children to these injections. Some died immediately, some deaths were gruesome. And these people have to go and testify to lawmakers and anybody who would listen and recount the story over and over and over again. And this is a massive, massive crime, and it needs to stop. Now, FDA was fully aware that these things will cause cancer because they've written numerous guidance documents. That's how they regulate industry. So even in 2015, and I read those guidance documents,

2015, 2013, even more recently than that, they wrote extensive guidance documents. 2015, 2013, even more recently than that, they wrote extensive guidance documents explaining to the manufacturers who wanted to develop mRNA products that they need to study, especially cancer, that these products can cause death, that these products can cause fertility issues, blindness, strokes, cardiovascular issues. All of that is written because that's called regulatory knowledge. They have this knowledge. And they told manufacturers, you have to study these risks and you have to exclude them.

And they were also not allowed to even study it in Healthy Volunteers because it was considered unethical. It was considered too dangerous. So then we come to 2020. All of a sudden, all of this is solved. This is a joke. Okay, so to me, that's where I became extremely suspicious and started looking into it for myself.

But that's what I'm telling you. It's a premeditated crime. The regulators knew. And the military conducted this fake exercise to capture all these pharma companies and make them make these weapons. Tom, let's bring you in here to respond to what Sasha was just saying.

There's a lot and it's mostly legal. So I want you to give us your thoughts. Well, I mean, there's an immense amount there, right? So, and the devil is always in the details but that's the key here right so let's let me give you a great example so when we talk about whether these gene therapy products are gene therapy products one of the things that we see and i'll relate this to the medical so and you can tell me when i got it wrong doc but you know they say talk about the gene therapy products right and? And they say, well, they're not gene therapies because they don't rewrite your DNA.

Well, first of all, that's not true. They found SV40 virus in there, which is a retrovirus, which does have the capacity to reverse transcribe. They found all sorts of issues in there. I mean, we know that SV40 can be delivered into the cell through the lipid nanoparticle. There's all sorts of issues in there. Also, you are, in fact, introducing genetic material into a cell. That is the purpose of this vaccine. So, it's literally putting gene therapy into a cell and then saying that's not gene therapy. You're putting genes... Well, hold on. But hold on. We're kind of mincing words here, and this is why I want to go back to Sasha a little bit.

Because for us, when we think of gene therapy as a biologist, we think of CRISPR. We think of DNA being inserted into gene sequences. But Tom, you pointed out that legally they put a definition that included a description, this is the SV40. This is a different thing. And Caleb is interested in this, which is the plasmid that contaminated the vaccine, which is another topic we'll get into. So take that off, Caleb. That's a different topic. That's plasmids. That's plasmids. Different thing. This is whether or not the messenger RNA, which is a transcription. It's what's called messenger RNA, right?

It takes DNA, converts it to RNA. The messenger is sent out. It's converted to a protein. But Sasha, I'll let you answer that. How is this gene therapy? Because for me, when I first started hearing people say that, I kind of pushed back. Yeah, gene therapy is not limited to CRISPR. And gene therapy as a class was, you know, so mRNA technology was always in that class from a regulatory perspective.

And that's where the guidances come from. Because they have ability to enter the cell. And if something can be delivered into the cell, so you can't control where these deliveries go. For the longest time, this technology had a problem of breaking the cellular membrane because we have all kinds of defense mechanisms to protect the cell. And for the longest time, they couldn't deliver the cargo into the cell.

And then when they solve that problem, it's like first you can't get your mail and then your mail gets sent to all zip codes in the country. They couldn't control where it goes. OK, so because it can get into the cells that are rapidly dividing, during the division, the nucleus disassembles. So by just throwing stuff while the nucleus is disassembling, here you go. You are now incorporating whatever you delivered into the genome. And most of the time, it's just damages it, it tracks it. And that's one of the mechanisms of cancer because now the cell is confused.

And if it's a rapidly dividing cell, it's going to start creating these. Tom, we're going to get into a little biology here, Tom, before you give me some more legal stuff. But I've seen that and I've seen the data on that. And I just don't understand how that gets even into the nucleus, let alone interferes with the DNA replication. So I worry about that. However, the plasmid stuff, well, that's a little bit different. So talk about plasmids and the SV40. And go ahead and comment on what I said, too.

No, I want Sasha to talk about this. Tell people what a plasmid is, what's concerned about SV40, and then go ahead and respond to my statement that i don't get how how pieces of dna get into the nucleus even and do anything unless the nucleus is even when the nucleus is open even the dna is open i don't see quite how it gets incorporated but go ahead yeah so so the sp40 is another method by which the this can happen what i just described because it is known in science as a nuclear targeting component. Exactly how it sounds. There is a lab at the University of Rochester, upstate New York, where I'm very familiar with them, Rochester, New York, called Dr. Dean's Lab. Dr. Dean is his name. And you can look it up on the U of r website and find it and his whole research explains how sv40 or

its components can be used as nuclear targeting uh component to deliver to again break into the cell walls and then break into the nucleus of the cell and so by having this uh component of sv4 it's not the full sv40 virus that used to contaminate polio vaccine and was determined to cause cancer it's a it's a it's the most uh important component of it that they're using and again it has the same functionality so that's that's the that's the uh attachment that you need to have to break not into the rapidly dividing cells and RECM, but to break into any cell and get into the nucleus of the cell, even when the cells are not dividing. So, yes, no, I understand.

You explained to me why it's there. Right. That is a concern. So it's almost a little, if it weren't so concerning, it's comical. So I've been, you know, I think everyone is concerned about gene editing and about CRISPR and gene therapies generally, and particularly these, let's call them DNA adjacent therapies and whatnot. And not to take anything away from the people that develop CRISPR and all these wonderful

things, but there's grave, grave, grave, grave, grave issues. And we know that China actually has been messing with it in humans already, which the world reacted to very powerfully, appropriately. But I bring all this up only to say that I read the New England Journal of Medicine every week very carefully, and it usually comes into my inbox during the show. Lead article, welcoming the era of gene editing and medicine. Lead article. So there's this kind of, I hope they are not forging ahead without the appropriate caution, but I just, I sort of have to say that on the heels of what you were saying. Caleb, do you have other questions before I bring Tom in for defining? I know you want to know what cyclic GMP was, which is a messenger that the cell uses after something binds to the surface.

What's the other thing you had a question about? I had just prepared definitions for a lot of the things that were Sasha's concerns. So I just have those ready to go on screen and I just jumped on them. Okay. So you can put up the SV40 again, go ahead. Because that's, she says, you know, what is that doing there? And that's, that's kind of an interesting question. And then it was in a plasmid, which is what they use to make the RNA, right? That's a small circular piece of double-stranded DNA. And they're supposed to be

washed out of the vaccine or at least essentially washed out. Okay, Tom, let's bring you in here and you can respond. Sasha unloads a lot of stuff that I can't respond to because of its legal nature. So I'll have you pick up if you don't mind. Yeah. Yeah. Well, so there's a reason that i i jumped into that when you asked me about the law right so first of all this goes back to the point that i made earlier duck i can point to you and and we've discussed a number of times where they've outright lied i can literally show you the paper in fact during the break i emailed uh c Caleb a document that lists a bunch of these different databases that the government said they were going to check for injuries. Right. So this is this is demonstrable lying.

So when we talk about this and when we have scientists who risk everything, risk their credibility, they risk being attacked, they risk all these things to put out this data. And the only response we get from the government, who are known liars, is, oh, they're wrong. And then they don't actually provide any data or evidence to the contrary. Why would I trust a liar? I don't. So we have the Cleveland Clinic study that shows negative efficacy of these vaccines over time. We have all these different things where legitimate scientists have shown that everything that the government promised was a lie. Okay, why does this matter from a lawyer's perspective? Well, because I'm of the belief that this was known ahead of time, right?

I actually presented in front of Marjorie Taylor Greene. She had a hearing in Congress, and I went down there and I presented to her and I had from a whistleblower medical records of a soldier. I can't say any more than that. And those medical records show five different encounters in the year 2014 and 15, I believe, going into 15, where this soldier says five different times, this is his official medical record or her official medical record. I've never said which said Moderna COVID-19 vaccine five times. Now, why in a record? And these were I put my name on a declaration under penalty of perjury, stating that I had done the requisite work

to verify these records. Why would an official medical record of a soldier, how could that mistake happen? How could that mistake happen? Why in 2014, 2015, would someone have written Moderna COVID-19 vaccine? How would they have even known that was a thing to write? Because this didn't exist back then, right? According to what we're saying. But when we ask these questions, they're thrown out. I would pose this, and I know that this is a stretch, but here's the thing. In science, you're supposed to be able to pose a hypothesis. I'm a lawyer, so I'm going to pose a legal hypothesis or at least a narrative hypothesis.

I'm going to pose that this stuff was developed a long time ago. I'm going to pose that Sasha is dead right, that the EUA and all these laws that apply were done and used for a reason. See, you've got to understand, she is dead right about the fact that we have so many layers of liability that there is no one that I could even come close to suing for this, right? So you have, the Department of Defense is contracted to distribute these vaccines, which aren't vaccines. And so if you wanted to sue anybody for getting them, you'd have to sue the Department of Defense. Well, good luck on that one, right? Then they distribute it with PrEP Act, CARES Act, all these different things going on, and they call it a vaccine, and they do this. There are probably five to 10 different layers

of legal immunity around these. Why? Why, why, why? This is not something that you could have came up with real quick, right? This is not a legal accident. The amount of effort that went into the planning to ensure that there was absolutely no even possible legal recourse for the people dying and being murdered by these is monumental. This would be, this is just as a lawyer, I can't even begin to describe the complexity and the effort that it would take to create this many legal shields and to do so. I mean, it's mind-blowing. So these are, in fact, I mean, whether you want to call it, I don't believe they meet the definition of vaccine, first of all, right? So the Supreme Court ruled not that long ago on the major questions doctrine. And in that case, they said that there's limitations to what these administrative agencies can do. And this would certainly apply here. So I don't think that legally these would stand as vaccines. And if we get the chance, I can't wait to test that in court.

But even if they don't, even if they don't, I still, you could give me your patient, Doc, or I could take any of a thousand other patients at the drop of a hat. I mean, we've got the React 19 group, all these different groups of vaccine injured people. I can take the most compelling and obvious story you've ever seen. I mean, we've got stories of people who went in, they got the shot perfectly healthy and literally dropped dead. There are stories like that that exist. I could file a suit on that, and I would be thrown out of court immediately, and i'd probably be sanctioned because the the law specifically says that i cannot sue over that i can't sue you go get the shot and drop dead i can't do a darn thing about it yeah that's that's something you can't is there something you can do so what what i have been trying to help and assist multiple groups with, you can do legislative action.

So first of all, an attorney general of a state can initiate criminal action. So all of this liability protection and all that, that's all civil. So and that's what Tom is describing. It's absolutely true. People are trying to sue for liability and it's a dead end. It's a complete dead end because they built a castle within a castle defense system, and that took a long time. But you could do criminal, but you need a prosecutor who will do it.

And so far, everyone we talked to refuses. The highest-ranking person I personally talked to was Attorney General of Idaho, Raul Labrador. He agreed with me and my colleagues, but said our federal courts are too corrupt. That was his answer. Too corrupt? Uh-huh. Yeah. Well, Tom's smiling at that.

I'm shocked at that. Oh, doc. So, but Attorney General can initiate criminal action because this is murder, premeditated murder. But, and also, these laws can be nullified. They're unconstitutional. They're void on the surface because they're violating constitution in so many ways and all the human rights. So, I know how you get a case, Tom. Tom, you accuse Trump of murder.

Then they'll go right for it. Absolutely. That's why I'm saying that prosecution is so fake. They could get him any time on this, but they don't. They prefer this, you know, big show, right? Well, there's trillions of dollars on this, right? And you see the upcoming mRNA cancer vaccines, which I find to be completely ironic. You've got all of these different things.

They're incorporating it into shingles, RSV, flu shots. They're incorporating it. Everything is moving mRNA. Doc, as a scientist, we can go back and forth. We can say, okay, maybe it gets into the DNA. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it changes your genes. Maybe it doesn't.

But guess what? We can't argue about the fact that typically there would have been 10 to 20 years of studies to determine whether or not it does. And if it did, it wouldn't have been moved forward. In this case, you have a disease with a case fatality rate, not that far dissimilar to a bad flu season. And yet we push together something or push this thing out. And we not only push out this dangerous, untested technology, but we pushed it out and then used the fake law that they essentially created to push it out to then propagate a whole ton more of these drugs, right? They use COVID to blow up this whole gene therapy technology stuff. And I'm going to tell you, I'm going to go out on a, you know, typically if I don't have a piece of paper, I won't say it. So I'm going to tell you that I'm speculating. I feel as confident telling you this as I've been about anything I could say. For some reason, these people are

hell bent on controlling the genome. And by these people, I mean the people pushing this technology. Now, you can ask yourself whether you believe that's for nefarious purposes or not, but you just saw the headline in the New England Journal of Medicine. And I could, if we had another four or five hours, go through all the stuff that I think qualifies as evidence suggesting that. I can't prove that. But what I can tell you is that there is an immense amount of evidence that I could put in a courtroom. And I think that I could overcome the preponderance of an evidence standard to show that this was absolutely part of the goal to get to... I mean, they're just, everything is about controlling the genome. Well, you know, a couple, a bunch of things.

A bunch of things. Sasha, as somebody who worked in pharmacy, you know that there's been conversation for at least the last decade and a half about changing the paradigm from the cell surface to the nucleus, right? I mean, there's been, so there's going to be purposeful directed stuff going that way, not with therapeutic intent, right? I mean, there's been, so there's going to be purposeful directed stuff going that way, not with, with therapeutic intent, right? And, and cancer, when you're treating, well, I don't know. I don't, I'm, I'm saying I'm making that case. You're making the other case. So wait, wait, wait, Sasha, before you go. And the other thing is in the setting of cancer, you take much different risk, very different risk stratification for what we do with our therapeutics.

We cause cancers all the time with our cancer treatments, with our radiation, with our chemos and things. And so to do mRNA vaccines, it's been thought of in cancer for quite some time because it's a setting where the risk is reasonable. Sasha, go ahead. Well, that was true before this 2020 scenario. And I believed regulators. I worked in the industry. And as I said, this category of product was developed for very serious, severe terminal conditions such as cancer. Cancer was one of the areas where they were trying to develop them properly through investigational FDA compliant rules, clinical trials. And they could not, they failed. They tried for so many years, for decades, and they failed. And then that's why I became so immediately concerned because I knew that this is inherently toxic product. It will cause cancer. And now they're saying, oh no, we inject children and pregnant women with it and it's prophylactic vaccine.

So I agree with Tom. That's such a huge lie that you can no longer believe a single word that they're saying, no matter what they're saying anymore. And so that's why I'm saying that they, by doing this, they destroyed all the trust that anyone with a brain and independent thinking could ever have in the public health agency or a regulatory agency or what. And now it needs to be completely investigated and then restructured. And then we need to figure out how to regain that trust. And Doc, if I can just interject one other thing, I understand, again, and by the way, my wife is not vaccinated. Her cancer does not have anything to do with the vaccine. She just had bad luck. But I will say this. Maybe you want to say that with someone

who's got a terminal cancer,'s worth the risk right my wife stage four maybe okay but but but but why the shingles vaccine why rsv why the flu shot why everything else and again why not rsv is not you know a bane to the human existence. I mean, yes, it's an annoying thing, and it does cause death sometimes, Like, I'm prepared to excuse everybody in the emergency. Like, okay, we're in a hurry. You took on their incredible risk. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't pay off. We could argue for years about that, but let's go back and do the work now.

Let's go back and do the proper testing. And what you get back is, oh, no, no, the whole, we did 7 billion vaccines. We have the test. We did it in real time. And, you know, that's not a test. That's observational data. So Sasha, respond to that. Well, right, exactly. I'm sorry, my dogs are barking. Exactly. They have never gone through a proper approval process with this because,

as I said, they tried for decades. They failed. All of a sudden, they went on the market as EUA countermeasures under public health emergency. Those are not pharmaceuticals. They are devoid of consumer protections. They're devoid of compliance with FDA. And by the way, FDA removed largely the regulations of biopharmaceutical manufacturers. And that happened even before 2020. Scott Gottlieb did that. So they removed the requirements of the inspectors to go and test the product independently and to go and inspect those plants at least every two years. So they removed all that as administrative rule change.

So now all these behemoth biopharmaceutical manufacturers that are making vaccines for humans and for animals, and mRNA also for animals, and there is also mRNA pesticide already being approved. So they're unregulated, completely unregulated, because we're still in the public health emergency. COVID public health emergency is not over. We still have the PrEP Act coverage until at least end of this year,

but they will extend it. And they have all these new other public health emergencies that they're constantly announcing because they can't they cornered them so they put themselves into this lying more and covering up with lies and now they're in such corner that they can never end this because am i remembering this then it all comes out so yeah and so am i remembering correctly that was one of the first sort of flags you threw was on the shift in the manufacturing administrative rules regulation. You were like, wait a minute, this is, I've been, if I remember right, just to sort of put a shine a little light on your comment, you were somebody that ran that kind of equipment. You did it. You were used to running these manufacturing situations, and you were used to the standards of care of that.

Yeah, so I was under the requirement to be in compliance all the time. As a contractor to large contractors to large farmers, I was always, my company had to be able to withstand audit at any time by pharmaceutical company, by a large CRO, small CRO, or by the FDA. And so we were obsessed about quality, obsessed. You know, and when I saw what they're doing, how they're removing all these regulations and quality requirements, I am telling you, this is extremely, extremely bad. Even if they, in theory, can say maybe this mRNA

will fix this kind of cancer at some point, they can't make it. They can't make what they're saying they're making. And it's full of contaminants, as my colleagues are testing independently, which FDA does not do anymore. So our colleagues are testing this independently, and they're constantly finding these extremely dangerous contaminants, including plasmids, including E. coli, including endotoxin, and heavy metals that are not supposed to be there at all, and all kinds of other things. Tom, have you met Sasha before today? I have followed Sasha's work. I've seen a million times, and I've used it as a basis for research, but this is the first time. I feel like you should reach out because you see how compelling she is.

Why aren't other people that have been in this business as concerned as you are? Sasha. Some are. I have some colleagues who are very concerned, you know, like Dr. Mike Eden, probably, I guess, the highest ranking person in the pharma. He's ex-chief science officer for Pfizer. We're friends and he speaks about the same issues and the same problems. There are some other colleagues in, you know, what's called pharma regulatory space that are speaking internationally. I know people in Australia and France and in Canada.

But there are so few of us and there's machinery. So again, everyone working currently... Why? Why is that? Why do you think? Because people who are working in the industry, the minute they speak up, yes, they lose their job. They lose their clients. They lose their contracts. Same with lawyers. A whole bunch

of them are federal contractors. They're conflicted they can't i want to speak on that i had a case uh that i was assisting a friend on and i can't i can't go into specifics but his particular case was very high profile he had retained one of the most powerful and respected law firms in the state that he was in. I mean, these are big shot people, ex-hot politicians, ex-this, ex-that, big, big people. They were very skeptical. As they got going on the case and started following the evidence, they became believers. They realized his lead attorney, who was a partner in the firm,

was a firm believer in what he was doing. The case was going to be a win for him, right? It was going to be a win. And as things were moving forward, all of a sudden, he gets a call from these guys, and I was involved. And they say, well, we can't do this case anymore. What do you mean you can't do this case anymore? Well, the partners have agreed that they're going to accept some other clients and there'd be a conflict, so we've got to drop you. Now, there's some questions whether or not that was ethical to do,

but at the end of the day, you don't want a lawyer representing you that can't or doesn't want to fight your case. Turns out that the clients that they accepted were a major hospital system and one of the attorneys on the case took a job for a pharmaceutical company. So this was something that happened. They took out most of the good lawyers and y'all were stuck with people like me. So this was not an accident. This was absolutely planned. And then I want to throw in one other thing because I saw when the comments were coming

up on the screen, I want to throw something out to you. And, Doc, I'm throwing this out to you specifically. If I told you, and I'm throwing something out that I want to be, sound absurd, right? I want this to sound absurd. If I told you that there is active work being done on creating the Internet of bodies, people's bodies, connecting their bodies directly to the internet for monitoring, for whatever they want to do with it. If I told you that that was actually not only being done, but that the process was truly advanced, would you tell me that sounds absurd? Because it sounds absurd to me.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I mean, that's what you're saying. Sasha's laughing. Well, let me tell you why i mean it's let me tell you well let me tell you why there's there's a a governing body it's called ieee okay they're like uh they're a standards board right they they do they create standards for internet communications for technology things for different things like that, right? They're a very well-respected thing. All of the big industry tech people work with

them. Run a search on internet of bodies there. There are numerous studies on how to connect people's bodies to the internet, how to collect data from your body to the internet. This sounds like science fiction to me. It sounds absurd absurd to me can you imagine your body being connected to the internet i can't believe that and so i didn't believe it but then i read numerous not one study not two they have standards already created for this and i bring that up for a reason a lot of what i've talked about today to me seems, seems like science fiction, right? I mean, remember, in 2019, I was fully a believer in vaccines. I didn't know about any of this. I thought it was all gobbledygook. So I, to this day, still find myself being skeptical. But we talk about the

internet of bodies, and I think it's one of the most profound examples I've ever seen. Because to me, that sounds so absurd and so ridiculous that it's just beyond me. But then when I go and I look at the documentation, I'm an attorney. I follow the evidence. The evidence just is what it is. The science is what it is. I'm not making it up. I can't make the science. I'm an attorney. I look at it. I look at the evidence. I read and interpret it, but I can't create it myself. So I'm looking at this. I'm an attorney. I look at it. I look at the evidence. I read and interpret it, but I can't create it myself. So I'm looking at this. I'm seeing standards.

I'm seeing protocols, things that allow your body to. So the reason I bring this up is when we're asking you as a credible scientist to believe that maybe these people who have not stopped lying for four years now, maybe these people who have done things, I mean, that we can show that they knew people were dying and that the vaccines were ineffective. We've got their words, their documents, their this, their that, yet they continue pushing it. I just got to tell you, I've got to a point as a skeptical person where I just had to start thinking, you know, maybe we really do need to consider whether or not these things are true. The evidence is pointing to it. And, you know, if you talk to, I'll read crime things now and then, you know, you'll read about these serial killers, right?

You read about a serial killer and say, well, yeah, hey, I killed 50 people. Well, that sounds absurd, right? No, you didn't. But if they start pointing out bodies and you get the first 10 bodies, should you not believe them another 40? I mean, at what point, when enough evidence is presented to you that these psychopaths are literally just doing this stuff, at what point do you start to question and say, you know what? Maybe these guys are actually that nuts. Maybe they really are that bad. Maybe there is intent.

Maybe there is motive. I can only follow the evidence. And that's what I would challenge you with that, Doc. So let's just kind of wrap up by maybe saying or trying to look forward to, are there any organizations who are actively trying to, other than yourselves, are there any governments? Is the British Parliament? Is the UK looking at?

Is there anybody that's sort of a part of what you're describing as sort of a cabal? Which is just, I feel like i'm in this living in a simulation thinking about this as something happening but but but okay um is there anyone who's breaking the into the say in the vault so to speak that we should be watching or anybody that any in any organization other than yourselves that there? I mean, I guess it would be, Sasha, it would be the criminal cases coming from the state attorney generals. Go ahead, Sasha first. Yeah, so I would like people to be aware of the mechanisms to nullify these laws.

So one pathway is criminal prosecutions. And technically, they can be done by any prosecutor, even county prosecutor can start a case. But the problem is the investigation and budget. And then, you know, the attorney general of the state needs to provide sort of coverage for this kind of scale of the crime. So that's one pathway. Second one is nullify these laws. States can easily nullify laws. Marijuana is still federally criminalized, right? But so many states decriminalized it, and that's called nullification. They said, we disagree with this law, and we're going to nullify it. And these laws are evil laws. There's actually a category I just learned about this. There's a category of law that's called evil law. And this falls square into it.

We need to call for a commission on international evil, and have reasonably honest science as opposed to what we have now. In your opinion, Sasha, is anybody doing the kind of science that you used to be required to do for your products that you were bringing to market? Is there any country, any organization? Not doing it generally, but doing it on the vaccines, because lots of people push back with data. Vaccines, definitely not. I spoke to some scientists who anonymously who worked in that space, and they told me how they got their grants withdrawn, their companies put out of business, all kinds of, you know, almost criminal acts, some of them got killed. Whoever wanted to develop sort of, you know, really safe vaccine or spoke up about dangers of this kind of technology, they got rid of. In science, all the money is doled by NIH.

If you don't affirm their dogma, if you don't affirm that mRNA is the safest, most wonderful technology, well, guess what? You're not going to get funded. That science is not going to happen. That's where we are right now. And Tom, don't you like us biologists just saying that, oh, a criminal case, quick and easy, no problem. That's our perspective. But what do you say? Well, I mean, there's some truth. There are some criminal options.

And there actually is. I've got one civil option. And I caught so much hell when I said this. I've identified one civil case that I think could actually work. There's a couple of loopholes that we could leverage, but it would cost between five and $10 million to do the case. And not because I need to make five to $10 million, but because I would have to pay a full-time staff of five or six or seven lawyers and two or three paralegals nonstop for three, four years, plus experts, plus travel, plus all that. I mean, my cost would be $5 to $10 million if I made zero on it. The problem is there are certain things that could be done.

Now, I will tell you that there are certain criminal cases that could be filed as well. I'm very much of the belief that there are some places there. But, you know, there's not a state AG in this country, I think, that'd be willing to file that. Ifullough, I don't want to speak out of line, but I would absolutely do whatever I could to assist in that, to whatever capacity I have. The problem is, though, is the corruption that we're seeing, even at the state level, is so monumental right now. I mean, it is absolutely incredible. There are legal opportunities available. There's a couple different things that we could also do to potentially stop this that would be, you know, there may not be muddy damages, reads it all. And they sneak in 14 different, more layers of protection and 14 more layers of this and 14 more layers of that. And so, I mean, honestly, time is of the essence. And, you know, ultimately there's a reality. We, the people, have always had control of this country.

Now you can argue, and a lot of people will tell me, well, we don't anymore, the corruption, the people at the top run it. But we do still have something to say about things. And ultimately, if we the people want to get this done, then we the people have to support it. You know, I've given, I spent for three years, I don't know if I've ever told you this,

for the three years of my work on COVID, I did not send out a single bill for my legal work, not one. All the people who want to complain about, I did this, I did that, I didn't bill one of them. So, hey, sorry if you didn't like what you didn't pay for. No one can do that forever. And you aren't going to get a team of doctors and lawyers that can do that for four years on the kind of case that's going to end up in the Supreme Court and do that well without support. So if we the people want to back it, they're going to have to back it. Otherwise, we're kind of stuck with what we get. Because honestly, the only other alternative

is influencing our legislation. So I do like my own little show. I mean, you got like a bazillion people that follow you. I got like four. But I do that for a reason, right? Because we're trying to activate people to push their politicians, to push their local elected officials, to push some of these people into action. We're trying to tell them, hey, you've got to get active. Lawfare, as I've defined, it's three parts, legal, political, PR. PR is the foundation of it all because if we the people aren't involved, it doesn't happen. And ultimately, all law is a manifestation of the will of the people. If everybody's driving 60, nobody gets a ticket for it. But if one guy's driving 80, he's always going to get a ticket. If we the people are behind something, we can make it happen. But that's our best bet right now. Last quick questions here. Susan, anything from you?

Caleb, anything from you? I've got one last. No, you hit it. Okay. Caleb, anything? Did we get all your terminology covered? Yeah, no, no. You got it.

I had a question. I totally forgot it. I've been paying so much attention to the conversation. Okay. Sasha, what would be, I don't want to use a word like wrong. So what if the regulatory standards have been loosened and things are brought to market that are more dangerous than usual for people that are otherwise healthy? Why not leave it up to the medical providers to make that, to guide those decisions? I mean, it's like, you know, it's 150 years ago. That's the way it used to be.

We would have to figure it out for ourselves and decide what was right for our patients. What if that's the world we end up living in? Well, that would be one way to go, but we're not in that world. Today, the medical professionals are not free to provide informed consent. They're not allowed to say anything negative about vaccines. If they do, they will lose their license. The health board will come after them. So they're instructed to lie to people, and they are instructed not to tell the truth.

Some organizations. But, I mean, some of them are mindlessly doing what their superiors tell them. You're allowed to sort of say, I've got some concerns here and bring out your concerns. Tom, you're saying no, though. For a while there, you were not. I'll grant you on that. For a while, it was scary when you

looked like you would get in trouble if you were to speak honestly. Well, I represented a lot of the doctors who did. Yeah, it's getting worse. And actually, this was the case a long time ago. I ran into that with my children when pediatricians were telling ridiculous things, especially for somebody who works in the pharmaceutical industry. And as I said before, doctors have a very vague idea of what goes on in pharmaceutical

regulations. Nobody understands it. As far as, you know, I've met numerous physicians. I've worked in the industry. We've worked with many, many medical doctors and research scientists in prestigious universities. They have really vague idea of pharma regulation. And now they are not allowed that you must follow the script. Also, you must say what Epic system tells you. So everything is programmed into Epic. They're becoming just a bandage to Epic

system. You're talking about the electronic record. You're right about that. The electronic record is really problematic. Why do you think Obamacare couldn't be rolled back? We're becoming box checkers you know as opposed to uh you know okay so here we are uh it's it's disturbing to hear all this stuff it's it's hard for me to process i'm listening i i'm i accept what you guys are saying i i'm trying to anticipate the pushback people are going to to i suppose you guys have experienced the pushback people are going to. I suppose you guys have experienced the pushback already. Well, I'll give each of you, before I wrap up,

what is the pushback you get, Sasha? The pushback that I get is it's not possible. These are, you know, you don't understand. These are clinical trials. So people who just basically regurgitate back what the hhs is saying and calling me a conspiracy theorist and that's basically the pushback that i get and and uh and i i ignore that and that's why i don't really widely participate on social media i'm just writing sub stack and that's a subscription based uh it's you subscribe you for free but but you still have to subscribe so uh you know why I'm like, I am here to deliver

information to people who want to understand what's going on, and I'm not interested in those who are just here to regurgitate HHS narrative. And Tom, what kind of stuff are you getting? So here you were in front of Marjorie Taylor Greene. I'm guessing that had a reaction. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I mean, I haven't really had too much trouble because my job is to argue with people. So what I've had is kind of a different angle, right?

So they started out, and I did legitimately go through a period where I got death threats or people that would offer me jobs that I'm not qualified for and paid way more money than I should ever get. And just, hey, but you shouldn't fight this anymore. I did go through that. I haven't had that for quite some time. Now what I get is more, yeah, once in a while I'll get some community notes buffoon who will say something. But that doesn't really register because I'm a soulless lawyer, right? So the only real pushback I get is the censorship. And I have an immense amount about that. Yeah, well, we'll see,

we'll put stuff out and we'll see, you know, thousands of reactions on Twitter and, you know, like 100,000 impressions. We'll see, you know, when you look at it and compare it to other places and Twitter does a great job. I love Elon Musk. I love what he's done. But remember, they're subject to regulations too. We got the FISA stuff. We got the investigations.

So we'll see some backdoor stuff. We do get some very direct attacks that I don't feel comfortable talking about publicly because if I do, I'm going to empower the people doing it to try and step it up. And so are there any legitimate or is there any feedback you either of you have gotten that has helped refine your position or been legitimate? When I came on here. Sasha? You mean like any pushback that I got that was that sort of legitimate made you think oh yeah that's yeah it seems right huh i'm refining my position i mean you know what i mean because i mean because let me just tell you i'm watching the streams here i'm like oh people

are going full they they they take this material and they go way downstream and all kinds of other conspiratorial ideas, which is not our point. Our point is trying to stay with what you guys' opinions are. Go ahead. Yeah, I basically, yeah. So on these sort of jump into, oh my God, this is the global cabal Bilderberg, blah, blah, blah. Right, right.

I always tell people, stay back. You have to investigate. And as I said, this comes after three years of very very deep investigation so i i i can prove in the court of law what i'm saying this is a crime needs to be treated as a crime scene and when you look at the crime scene you look at who pulled the trigger who who pushed the needle and uh secondary who paid them and so that I have very well documented. And so that's where I'm focusing on. Well, Sasha, we appreciate you coming,

sharing your thoughts with us and sharing the screen with a soulless lawyer who supposedly... What do you want to say, Tom? You want to make your last comment? No, he's not a soulless lawyer. That's what he said. That's what he called himself. I told him I wasn't going to let him get by

with all the aw shuck stuff today he's like i'm just a soulless guy from the country on a good day i'm a soulless lawyer on a bad day i'm much worse you know at the end of the day though doc i you know we talked about some stuff today that you know i i always every time i've came on this show i brought your receipts and i've always taken great pride in that. And I understand that a lot of this people take and they take it in places where I can't provide receipts on, right?

But I would challenge anybody that wants to argue with me. If you want to argue with me legitimately, because Doc, the first time I came on, you were much more skeptical on a lot more fronts. And over time, you've been very reasonable. You've been mind-blowingly open-minded on this. And I've been really honored to have this conversation. And I hope that this can preserve as a model for other conversations with other people.

There are three headlines in my head that I keep wondering what is up. One is, why are we pushing the vaccines on the young males? I've seen myocarditis, I've seen SV, supraventricular arrhythmias, I've seen all this stuff and people with a zero risk for the vaccine from the illness, zero, zero, zero. And I don't care if it's one in 10,000 cases of myocarditis, half of those are persistent and that's too many for an illness that has a zero risk. And so why that? That's confusing to me, number one. That's the most obvious confusing spot, number one.

Number two, why not go back and do the formal testing? Why don't we, I guess there's no money for it at the EUA or whatever, but somebody should be suggesting that. Yeah, right, that's number two. Yeah, and number three is, there are whole viral vaccines out there that are excellent for covid why aren't we talking about that why are we talking about covaxin why are we talking about

other whole virus vaccines we're just it's not even mentioned it's not even brought up as hey you know you may want to talk to your doctor about other options part of a conformed consent if you have concerned we don't have concern about the mrna vaccine but if you do talk to your doctor about whole virus any idea why they would not just completely shut out of the conversation why Sasha any uh other than sinister any ideas am I misrepresenting the whole virus well I don't so I I personally don't believe in the vaccines anymore after this and I did yeah but after this I'm like i don't want to touch this area because it's also a biologics product that has the same deregulated biologics uh problem

i i get it but can you think of anything that would have them not using a decent vaccine maybe it's not as effective or something but it's fine it's still an option this should be discussed as part of informed consent it should be yes so If this was honest, if the regulators were honest, if the story was honest, it was a terrible rush and we didn't know, they would have corrected themselves long ago and they would have also considered these other alternatives. And they wouldn't have pushed it and forced it onto pregnant women, which is another interesting category that they are just hell-bent on injecting

with all sorts of things, and children. You know? So that just gives you – and by the way, the pregnant women population was identified in Moderna military contract. They said, oh, we need this for 4 million pregnant women in the U.S. specifically. So I'm asking, under what scenario is this okay? Tom, your last thoughts?

Sometimes evidence comes from inference, right? If I see you leaving a crime scene and I, you know, I didn't see you shoot anybody, I didn't see you kill anybody, but I go in there and I see a dead body, there's no one else there, and I see you leaving it. I can infer reasonably that you may have had something to do with that. You asked why they're not looking at full virus vaccines. Well, again, I can provide you dozens of documents, dozens of things that all suggest they're pushing towards these genetic therapies. Right. They're pushing. I I would suggest to you that that's what we need to look at.

And what we really got to do, because I don't have the evidence to show, I mean, listen, everybody has been asking me for two, three years now, say it's depopulation. I can't prove it's depopulation, but let me tell you what I can tell you. There is absolutely indisputable evidence that these vaccines are unsafe and ineffective. There is indisputable evidence that they were not properly tested, that mRNA vaccines are probably largely unsafe, and that we bypassed all the traditional safety measures that responsible scientists would require before they would recommend something like this by inference much like seeing someone leave the crime scene

why would we do this now maybe it's not depopulation. Maybe it's just deep pockets. You can decide what you want to believe on it. What I can tell you is that the evidence is quite clear that it's not because it's for the best interest of the patients or we, the people. There's no reason that, as you said, you'd give this to a young male. There's never a reason for that. There were no healthy kids that died of COVID, none. There were no records. We've looked, we've looked, we've looked. We couldn't find any healthy children that died of COVID. Why are we doing this? There was no proper testing at all on pregnant mothers. Why are we giving it to pregnant mothers? There is no reason

that we're doing this. And whatever the reason is, it's not the best interest of the public. And what we need to focus on is not trying to necessarily prove something that we can't prove, which is the motive. It's that it's quite clearly a bad decision. And whatever the motive is, it ain't good or we wouldn't be doing it this way. Well, we certainly need more information. We need more fresh air. We need to understand these things more. And that's why I've been doing this.

And I appreciate your efforts, both of you, what you're doing. Any last words from either of you? Tom first and then Sasha. Tom? I just appreciate the open-minded discourse, Doc. And I hope, hope, hope, hope that we're able to continue this and that we can expand this because we have got to get, we've got to get this true, this is questions. We've gotten to a point that we're not supposed to ask questions. Well, if we can't ask questions. Well, hey, that's a

great point. And I totally agree with you. That's been my whole thing. I'm used to discourse as part of science. Would either of you be willing to come back and take calls from my listeners? I saw a lot of people lining up who feel very differently than you, but I just don't have time to get to it. But maybe just bring you each back individually, and we'll do a whole thing of back and forth and see what people say. And again, my whole thing is keep it civil, everybody. We're all professionals.

We all have, it's okay to disagree. My two guests have very, very, very specific experience built on long experience in these areas. And I'd love to hear a challenge. I like that. I think that's a good thing when things are challenged. And like I said, you might refine your opinion. You might, I don't know,

you might refine your argument at least. But Sasha, last words. Yes, absolutely. I agree that open dialogue and asking questions and having an open discussion is the way to go. And this is how you can have people honestly debate, understand the topic, and then change their mind as necessary. So I'm delighted if anybody wants to have an on-air question-answer session. Absolutely.

I love answering questions. And I have a lot of evidence. Okay. Susan, how does that sound to you? Caleb, you guys up for that? Sounds great. Yeah, let's do it. I think it's overwhelming

with both of them being bombarded with questions. They have way too much to say. Yeah, they have a lot to say and it has to be kind of a controlled environment because things get out of hand so quick and so easily

in these conversations. So, all right. I know a little bit about hosting these things. So, I try to do the best I can. I mean, we might get a troll, but you just have to let it go. Oh, for sure you will, but that's okay. Listen, that's part of the deal here and that's fine. But in any event, so those of you that are on Twitter spaces, it's very patiently waiting. Please come back, watch our schedule. We will bring each of these guys back for a specific Q&A kind of session with our listeners. And that's the way we do it. Those of you who are out on other platforms,

we set up a tweet at X, what's it called now? It's still called Twitter Spaces? X Spaces. Yes. X Spaces. X Spaces. And you line up, you raise your hand, I bring you up, and that's that. And so I've given, let me, I guess, give again both of your guys particulars. Where do you want people to go?

I'll let each of you say it. Yeah, so for my Substack, it's called Due Diligence and Art, the name of the publication. And it's saschalotypova.substack.com. And Tom? And for me, please go to TomRentz.com. We're grifting hard these days, so please support us in any way you can.

We got a grift to keep in business, so I get called a grifter all the time, but I don't bill for most of my legal work, so I got to keep the family fed. So for the soulless lawyer grifter Tom Renz we appreciate you being here and we are saying a prayer for your wife it's a lot to go through stage 4 of anything and so our thoughts are with you and her

alright guys thank you guys thank you everybody we'll do this again with each of these guys for questions and let's just put up the schedule that we have here. We had a quick redo. Harmeet Dhillon's going to come in on Tuesday, is that? And then May 1st, Mike Lindell.

May 2nd, Kyle Lucey. Peter McCullough will be in Florida with him. And yeah, we'll kind of keep this going. So appreciate you all being here. And we'll see you now. This is the end of the week for us. We're a little early. We've got a big event coming in our family.

We'll be back on Tuesday. Let me double check that it's at 3 o'clock. One second. Yes, it is at 3 o'clock on the 30th. We'll 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.