Ask Dr. Drew - Major Red Flags: FDA Approves Bird Flu Self-Amplifying mRNA Vaccine Trial w/ Dr. Clare Craig & Jessica Rose – Ask Dr. Drew – Ep 428

Episode Date: November 25, 2024

The Defender reports “Arcturus Therapeutics announced earlier this week that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a “Study Can Proceed” notification for its investigational ARCT-2304 vaccine candidate.” Jessica Rose PhD says there are “major red flags.” The Defender also reported that “In clinical trials for the self-amplifying COVID-19 vaccine offered in Japan, “five deaths occurred among the injected in study phase 3b. Injected participants experienced a 90% adverse event rate (74.5% systemic, 15.2% required medical attention) after the first dose in study phases 1, 2, and 3a combined…” Dr. Clare Craig, BM BCh FRCPath, is a diagnostic pathologist, author, and co-chair of HART (Health Advisory and Recovery Team). She studied medicine at Cambridge and completed clinical training at Oxford. After 15 years in the NHS, she became pathology lead for the cancer arm of the 100,000 Genomes Project at Genomics England. She is the author of “Expired: Covid the Untold Story” and advocates for public education on COVID. Find more at https://hart.org and https://x.com/ClareCraigPath Dr. Jessica Rose is a Canadian researcher with a Bachelor’s in Applied Mathematics and a Master’s in Immunology from Memorial University of Newfoundland. She holds a PhD in Computational Biology from Bar Ilan University and completed postdoctoral research in Molecular Biology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Biochemistry at the Technion Institute of Technology. Her recent work focuses on descriptive analysis of Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data. Find her at https://jessicasuniverse.com and https://jessicar.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  • CAPSADYN - Get pain relief with the power of capsaicin from chili peppers – without the burning! Capsadyn's proprietary formulation for joint & muscle pain contains no NSAIDs, opioids, anesthetics, or steroids. Try it for 15% off at https://drdrew.com/capsadyn • 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 • CHECK GENETICS - Your DNA is the key to discovering the RIGHT medication for you. Escape the big pharma cycle and understand your genetic medication blueprint with pharmacogenetic testing. Save $200 with code DRDREW at https://drdrew.com/check • 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 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 Portions of this program may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. Always consult your 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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

two more wonderful guests today both are returning uh dr jessica rose will be here in a few minutes you can follow her on jessica loves mjk on x or jessica jessica's universe.com her sub stack is jessica 5b small b3 of course jessica has a degree in applied mathematics, immunology, computational biology, molecular biology, biochemistry. She's going to bring us up to date, as is Claire Craig. They're both going to be talking about, amongst other things, self-replicating mRNA vaccines. Dr. Craig is a diagnostic pathologist, author and co-chair of Health Advocacy and Recovery Team. She's been with us before and after 15 years in the NHS, she became a, been a pathologist,

training was at Oxford. She has lots of information and the book is expired. We're gonna talk about that and more after this. Our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre. A psychopath started this. He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction, fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous.

I'm a doctor for f*** sake. Where the hell do you think I learned that? I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people. I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat. If you have trouble, you can't stop and you want to help stop it, I can help.

I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. Joint and muscle pains are exhausting and frustrating, but I've got a over-the-counter medication i'll introduce you to that provides great relief using the power of check it out chili peppers capsidin is made with a proprietary formula that contains no non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents no opioids no anesthetic or steroid nothing no chance no chance for addiction, no side effects, no chance it's going to interact with other medication you might be taking. Capsodin contains capsaicin, which is the substance in chili peppers that burns your tongue. That gives you that burny feeling. And of course, I've recommended capsaicin creams to patients over the years,

but other capsaicin creams burn your skin. That's what makes Capsodent so unique. In clinical trials, Capsodent has actually been demonstrated not to burn. I've been using Capsodent to relieve my pain in my hands and my wrist from carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis. The results have been amazing. I use it every day during my show and I highly recommend it. Get the pain relief you need from various sources, even backaches, sprains, bruises even. Order now at capsidin.com slash drew to get a 15% discount plus free shipping. That is C-A-P-S-A-D-Y-N capsidin.com slash D-R-E-W. As I said, the great Jessica Rose

will be here in a few minutes, but now we're going to bring Claire Craig in here. Her ex-handle is at Claire, C-L-A-R-E, Craig, C-R-A-I-G, Path, Claire Craig Path. And also hart.org is the UK's health the untold story. And she can be found, let's see, where else can we get to Dr. Craig? Well, obviously she has been on, gosh, I'm blanking on the nurse's YouTube channel. Help me, Caleb, that has been so great throughout COVID, particularly post COVID era. Dr. Claire Craig.

Dr. Claire Craig, thank you. Welcome to the program. Dr. Campbell, right? I saw you recently on Dr. Campbell, right? I saw you recently on Dr. Campbell's YouTube channel and I was enraptured with your information and update and now we got to talk about amplifying RNA vaccines as well. Welcome back. Thanks very much for having me back on. So I guess let's start with the book what what can we expect to learn from reading expired

so the book expired is really about the the story of 2020 you know we would we were told all sorts of things that were not based in fact and and it's kind of it tells a story about where those sort of myths arose and it's kind of I dug into the history of it and it was quite fascinating I really enjoyed writing it um around sort of the myth of the droplet spread which was so fundamental to all of the beliefs and all of the policies that came out of that and it's a book that sort of takes it apart scientifically and shows that lockdowns couldn't have worked you know we're always hearing that they didn't work but actually they couldn't have worked and they couldn't have worked because the virus is spread through aerosols,

which can spread long distance through the air. And that's why the time between any kind of new variant and the spike of a wave is the same time. And it's why you had spikes rising in rural areas after lockdown, because these waves are not in human control. They can never be in human control. And it was absolutely insane to pretend they could be. And so, yeah, that's what that book really focuses on. It's really about the virus and about, you know, the kind of exaggeration of the deaths around the virus and about how the virus spread. And I remember last time we spoke, you had sort of embedded that history in the early days of being contaminated and smells and how we got we finally got over that the idea that these were transmitted through the air and smells and now we've got something that is transmitted through the air and we can't get that back in our thinking that's really that's exactly

the kind of the you know that's the hypothesis in the. It's this problem that we have that when science gets politicized, which it really was back 115 years ago when people were arguing about germ theory and miasma theory, people get really entrenched in their views. And when they're entrenched, they lose the nuance. They sort of adopt beliefs that aren't quite evidenced. And you have this thing fighting it out. And of course, the germ theorists won, but when they won,

they brought some of these unevidenced myths with them. And we're still living with the repercussions of it today. This country, I don't know about the UK, but this country has a long history of doing things like this. People don't understand the opioid crisis is exactly the same story. We developed morphine sulfate and the hypodermic needle.

Then physicians addicted millions of people to opiates. And then the Harrison Narcotic Act came out here that literally jailed 20,000 physicians as the source of that epidemic of opiates. For the next 40 years, doctors did not use opiates except under the most extreme circumstances. By the time we hit the 70s, we have people living for decades with cancer and cancer pain that we would not give them pain medicines to. Now a pain medicine group rose up and said,

oh my God, pain is what the patient says it is. Pain is the fifth vital sign. You are opiophobic and the answer has always been there in the poppy flower. And we need to use as much as the patients say. And of course, my patients took full advantage of that. And those same doctors killed my patients by the hundreds. So there we go. Having made it a legal issue, a political issue, not a medical issue, you get repercussions going both directions. And the interesting thing to me about that opioid story is Deborah Birx used the same playbook as the opioid pain medicine group did to bring upon the opioid pandemic here in the United States, which was she went from state to state and got the regulatory agencies, the political powers that be, the state

medical societies to sign on. And that was that. And then it was on. Right. And one of the other overlaps, of course, with the whole opioid story is the Oxycodone and is it, oh, I've got the names. It's getting me as Purdue, isn't it? The company. The Sackler, the Sackler family, the Sackler company. And they had this whole idea about, well, how are we going to sell more of this stuff? We're going to tell people that drug failure is breakthrough pain and you need more of the drug. So when you have failure, you have more of the drug. And of course, that's exactly what was adopted with the COVID vaccines as well.

That, you know, the vaccines failed. What do we need when failure? More of the drug because we have breakthrough infections. Isn't it weird? It's so odd how, you know, you could put it like a ledger together and, you know, document topic by topic how the exact same thing went on in this pandemic. And we need to, maybe we need to have like a dynamic explanation and a frame, a name frame for it that if it shows up again, people can go, oh, it's that.

Because we've now come to understand this notion of a mass formation, which is sort of how the populace reacts to these hysterical sweeps, these things, hysteria is that sweep across the land. 20% sign up, 70% just keep their head down, want to be left alone, and 10% go, hey, this is bullshit. Now, but there needs to be a similar way of understanding. That's your next book, Claire. I want you to write the next book about these phenomenon and what we should call them. And please choose a pejorative name. It shouldn't be something lovely. So can you bring me up to date? Go ahead.

Well, no, I was just going to comment on that as well. And I think you're right. And I think one of the things that I've observed over the last few years is this sort of invention of vocabulary that gets used a lot by people in power so there was the invention of some vocabulary like the term pre-bunking so pre-bunking is this idea that you can immunize a thought so you can give you can take it something that you're worried that people are going to start getting concerned about and that's you know that's

going to cause you harm as a powerful person and you um start sharing that but you you muddy the well you know you add to it something that's untrue you then can disprove the untrue bit and then the truth gets discarded along with that and um and then when people meet again the truth they think oh no no i've already looked into that it's not true so they so they gave this a term right now and what we don't have what we haven't done is give things terms for the sort of opposite effect and the and the problems that have been caused and i think you're right if we have the right vocabulary it would really help and one of the one of the examples of having the right vocabulary is the word infection right the word infection gets used as if it um as if we all have the same

understanding what that means and actually it's used in lots to mean lots of different things infection, right? The word infection gets used as if we all have the same understanding of what that means. And actually it's used to mean lots of different things. So some people will say that you have a COVID infection because you've breathed contaminated air and that's enough to get a positive test. And so they'll say you've got an asymptomatic infection because you're not symptomatic. Well, is that really what we mean by an infection? Isn't that just breathing air? We all do that all the time. And then, you know, people could have the virus enter a cell and their immune system deals with it. So they're still asymptomatic. And why are we calling that an infection?

You can't become infectious to anyone else in that scenario. When surely the word infection should be reserved for somebody who could infect somebody else, because that's what the word infection is, it's a reaction you get from the public. If you've got an infection, it's, oh, I might catch something from you. So we shouldn't be using that word

to describe things that are not infectious. Yep, I agree. And certainly infected and infection are different words. Also, I saw on X today, somebody put a headline up, oh my God, the NHS is reporting that people are vomiting

from norovirus in the UK. They're vomiting from the norovirus. And I thought, oh my God. So what is the implication? That we should now shut down society because somebody might throw up? And or is it, and this got a little more fundamental to me, that people are unwilling to accept the fact that they are biological agents and as such get sick, infectious and otherwise. It feels like the very nature of who we are as biological beings is being discarded or at least resisted yeah and i can't help thinking that a little part of that is that the baby boomers have got to the stage where they're worried about their own mortality you know every stage of their life the world turned itself upside down for their benefit you know they were teenagers and they had the sex revolution and they you know at every stage and here they are approaching mortality and the society is being turned upside down while they're doing it.

Interesting. Let's see your next book. Let's put that in the ledger book. So before we get into the replicating mRNA vaccines, do you have any updates for us on vaccines in general? Right. So, well, you mean the COVID vaccines? Are we talking bigger than that? I mean...

Well, I know you're always in the zone in these topics. So whatever is on your mind and whatever you need to update people about. So the thing that's concerning me the most at the moment is that there seems to be, every now and again, like some messaging gets through and you're allowed it on YouTube and people start sharing it even maybe gets into some media properly and the message that's being shared a lot at the moment it's an important message i'm not saying it doesn't exist

but there's this message going through again and again about the dna and the jabs right that message is really penetrating and um and i just wonder why that is and I can't help thinking that it might be that that's the kind of issue you can say you've solved and then try and resurrect the mRNA platform's reputation and say well we've corrected the COVID problem and we're going to keep this platform

and I think there's a lot of other problems with the mRNA platform that have not been heard and that are still being censored because they're problems that are much harder to fix. I mean, this isn't necessarily an easy one to fix, but you know, it's sort of, you could persuade people you'd fix that one. And so, you know, what I've seen in the big picture, if you just look at what happened when those vaccines rolled out, we had from spring 2021, a massive rise in the working age population,

people who couldn't work because they were long-term sick. And that kept rising up until 2023. It happened in the USA at the same time as in the UK. And we had hospitals suddenly being overwhelmed when they had not been beforehand. And they were being overwhelmed in places like Australia that hadn't really had COVID but they had also had the vaccines at the same time and then we saw this big uptick in cardiac problems so we had this big rise in ambulance calls for cardiac arrests which has not come back to normal a big rise in people turning up at A&E departments with cardiac problems and a rise in excess deaths which were cardiac deaths so the

biggest problem we've had from these jabs has been a cardiac injury and mortality and that message hasn't got through whereas the problem we've got with the DNA in the jabs it may well be that these are a cancer risk and I think the fear of cancer and the fear of dying and the large number of people who have taken these things mean that that gets traction because people think it might have happened to them. Whereas, you know, some of the other problems about injuries, they're not really about the person, you know, the message we're trying to get through to people is

most drugs, when they're harmful, don't harm all the patients. It's always a minority that gets injured. It's not every patient that's injured. And so the message we need to get through to people is stop thinking about what you've done to yourself because it's not helping the situation because you're sticking your fingers in your ears and you're getting scared and you're refusing to listen. Think about what this has done to other people. If we can please focus on that, then we might actually get somewhere.

And I think the cancer story, because it's so emotive, is people are kind of hanging onto that and worrying about that, when actually, although I think it might well be real, it's not got the same volume as the cardiac problem, which is big. And so what you get in this country is tons of pushback on that observation as having been caused by COVID virus itself.

So the question becomes, how do we tease out what's COVID? I've been asking this question since 2020, which is what's COVID? What's vaccine? What's vaccine plus COVID. Right. It's not that hard to do because we were, I mean, you know, this was sort of a little miracle that happened whereby huge swathes of the global population did not have the COVID problem until the vaccines rolled out. And you can use that as a control group because the timing of any problem should be different for the you know europe and the usa which had covid well not all of the usa

actually you could probably divvy the usa up into regions that did and didn't have much in 2020 but you know broadly there were regions that had it in 2020 and there are regions that didn't really have a problem until 2022 there's a two-year. So if you're not seeing a two-year lag in the side effects of these, you know, in the problems that we're discussing, then it's not COVID. It's something else that everybody had in common, which is the vaccines. And more broadly, you know, when you've got a respiratory virus infection, the respiratory virus replicates in the mucosal epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract and those cells you know become little virus factories and they replicate and they die

and that's it makes a bit of a sore area which causes you to have a cough but broadly it all happens on the lining of your lung and you can sometimes detect RNA in the blood and people who get sick but even Fauci wrote a paper in January of this year where he's saying, well, you know, when we detect RNA in the blood, often it is just that. It's just debris from the virus. It's not whole virus particles in the blood. And so the number of people that actually had circulating virus, they would have been really super sick and the tiny, tiny number. Now, the number of people who've been injected with a product that makes cells all over the body turn into spike protein factories, and then you get circulating spike, that number is enormous.

And of course, spike is a pathological protein. And it you know these vaccines had the entire spike sequence they have 1,273 amino acid protein building blocks they switched out two only and the AstraZeneca didn't switch out any of them so the entire most pathological part of the virus was being made by cells in the body and was circulating in the blood so yeah that's what caused the problems. You know, I don't want to, I understand you being a scientist about it completely. That's how we should approach this. But actually, when you go back to first principles,

it's bluntly obvious it was a vaccine, not the virus. And then the mechanism for the myocardial, or again, what do you imagine the pathophysiology is at the cardiac level that's creating this spike in cardiac events? You know, I hear varying different theories about it. Well, I hear yours, I won't adulterate it. Right. So I think I have a variety of theories, you know, I'm keeping a lot of theories going because I think we don't know this you know the evidence is still accumulating and that's fine um and so the big the big question is how much of this is from inflammation of the heart so the myocarditis story um you know is bigger than what's been presented by the regulators and how much of it is just bond or coronary artery disease causing infarctions in people um and how much of it is

potentially a bit of both actually so if we take the myocarditis story first we know that there were people who had myocarditis and got very sick at the time and had to be in hospital but what we also know is that when three different studies follow people up prospectively after their third doses and measured what happened to their heart having just been given a dose they had three percent of them had a huge rise in the heart enzyme troponin in their blood which showed that they had heart damage so three percent is an enormous figure when you're vaccinating a huge number of healthy people um so we know that that heart damage was way more than what turned up in hospital. And what happens when you damage your heart, the cells can't repair themselves.

They're gone forever and you get a scar. And of course, the heart has a very delicate electrical system. So any kind of scarring could mean that you short circuit in the future. And so there is a risk of cardiac arrest forevermore for people who've had myocarditis. And we don't really have a handle on how many people that is and how much of a risk that is. But you would just have sudden cardiac death with no other thing going on. Now, of course, when you have a sudden cardiac death, doctors generally assume it's a heart attack. And so especially if you're of an age or if you've

got other risk factors they'll say well that was just a cardiovascular disease that we see you know fairly frequently and so unless you're doing post-mortems and actually really looking into it those are going to be diagnosed as if they are atherosclerotic narrowing of coronary arteries cutting of the blood supply to the heart, damaging the heart, and then death. And so trying to tease those apart, it's really impossible with that proper investigation, which hasn't been happening really anywhere in the world. And we do have evidence that these vaccines cause huge inflammation because of all the circulating spike. There's a lot of inflammation going on in the vascular system. And when you've got inflammation, that is a risk factor for atherosclerosis and narrowing of your heart arteries. So there's a mechanism there for why

you would have an acceleration in atherosclerosis. And then going back to the inflammation in the heart, we don't exactly know how the vaccines were causing that inflammation. So the kind of regular, the sort of the common myocarditis, well not common, it was always rare, but the myocarditis that we had before these vaccines would be post-viral and you'd have a thing called molecular mimicry, where one of the molecules on the virus looks enough like a molecule in the heart that the immune system gets confused and attacks your heart, right? So that could have happened. That's potential. The spike has a lot of homology, so a lot of similarity to human protein. So that's a possibility.

We've seen in postmortems that the spike protein itself was in the heart muscle. So if you've got this product going in and attacking heart cells directly and expressing a foreign protein, then the immune system is doing its job getting rid of that foreign protein. It's a terrible idea to give that to people, but the damage to the heart then is just part of that process of getting rid of a cell expressing a foreign protein. But the other thing to understand is that the mechanism, this kind of mRNA, but also potentially the lipid nanoparticles has been causing problems beyond the COVID vaccines. So Moderna had a trial with an EBV mRNA where there was a myocarditis problem. And then also there's been HIV mRNA where they're sort of saying, well, you're not allowed to be in the trial if you had a history of myocarditis.

You know, well, why is that? You know, you're just going to keep gambling with people's hearts like this yeah i i do believe that the spike generally causes an endotheliitis and so it makes sense to me that both covid and the vaccine and the two together maybe the worst would cause coronary disease but i don't see where the virus itself is infecting the heart. And yet we do see spike from the vaccine, right? Would that be a reasonable way to frame that? Yeah, absolutely. And you know, what you said about trying to blame the virus, that's exactly what happened when in 2009, 2010, with the Pandemrix vaccine that caused narcolepsy, they blamed the virus. It's really obvious to try to blame the virus. But if you look at myocarditis rates overall, you say, well, what happened? You know, when was the surge in myocarditis? Nothing happened in 2020. 2020, there was still myocarditis,

and some of it may even have been caused by COVID, but it was at the same rates as any other year. So if it was being caused by COVID, then it was replacing other viruses that would have caused it otherwise, right? So nothing happens in 2020. Spring 2021, massive surge in myocarditis and pericarditis. And I think some of that surge is young people who, when they had the vaccine, nothing much happened. And then they're exposed to COVID after they're vaccinated and their immune system's like, oh, I know this one, and then it attacks the heart. Oh, that's interesting.

I've not heard that theory yet. Not the unvaccinated. That's interesting. And by the way, no pericarditis from COVID that I'm aware of. And I remember when I had COVID, I've told this very many times, I had my fever like 103, and I was climbing stairs, and my pulse was 60. I went, uh-oh, I think this thing is affecting the heart.

But that was COVID itself. But let's quickly, we're going to take a break in a minute, but give us a little sketch on these self-replicating mRNA vaccines. That just sounds odd and spooky to me. What's going on there? Right. So, I mean, they seem to just have free reign to do any kind of crazy experiment at the moment.

And the idea that these vaccines are meant to be protecting us from a virus. So you say, well, what is a virus? A virus is an encapsulated code that can replicate. That's what a virus is. And now we've got so-called vaccines, which are encapsulated code that can replicate. You're like, like well at what point are you giving people a vaccine at what point are you just giving them a man-made disease you know i just think it's a really crazy thought to want to do this and the mrna that they use in

the first place we don't know even now how long it takes to degrade we don't know what happens to the synthetic nucleotides that were the building blocks of that RNA sequence, whether the cells carry on using it and recycling it and making proteins last longer than they should. We don't know. And yet here they are saying, well, now we're going to have one that can replicate itself. So I just, I think, you know, we should be pulling back massively from this whole platform, not experimenting with crazier ideas. I want to get into this further because I love that frame.

So I want to say it again so people understand it, that a virus is a code, a DNA or RNA code, surrounded typically by a protein sheath or shell that allows it to get in the cells. The mRNA vaccines are a protein, are a RNA code that is encapsulated in a, this case, a liquid nanoparticle that allows it to go inside the cell and take over the machinery, which is what a virus does. That they are the same is a fascinating construct. And I want to talk about it in the context of the ethics of doing so, of creating these things. Now that it's replicating, it fully is a viral particle, essentially. I mean, the whole idea of being viral is that it replicates. It is a viral particle, and why we don't apply the same standards to this as say we do to CRISPR and monkeying with DNA.

To me, it should be almost identically the same. But let's take a little break. We'll talk about that. We have Jessica Rose in about 15 minutes. Dr. Claire Craig is here. You can follow her on ClaireCraigPath and hart.org, the UK's health advisory recovery team. And do get the book.

The book is expired. There it is. The COVID, the untold story. Back in a couple of minutes. The wellness company knows that taking charge of your family's health care is a top priority and being rationally ready. And who knows what the future will hold for us now TWC has a service to cover your family's medical needs including and especially prevention for just $100

a month the one wellness elite membership includes two free medical grade nutraceuticals per month free prescriptions for over 800 of the most common medications access to concierge telemedicine, available at a moment's notice, and a 15% discount on all supplements and the emergency kits. 15% off the emergency kits. That's quite a saving. So if you're spending $100 or more

on supplements and meds every month, this plan will already save you money. If you sign up for a year, you'll save $200. And when you use the link drdrew.com slash TWC, you'll get 10% off the first payment to the One Wellness Elite membership. Check out One Wellness at drdrew.com slash TWC and get 10% off your first payment. drdrew.com slash TWC. It's all there. I want to teach you about pharmacogenomic testing. This is changing

the way we approach healthcare. By analyzing a patient's genetic profile, pharmacogenomics helps physicians personalize drug treatments for more effective results. First, it enhances medication efficacy by predicting how a patient will respond to a specific drug, reducing the trial and error process, especially in mental health care. For example, it can guide the choice of various medications to minimize side effects and improve outcomes. In the long run, pharmacogenomic testing leads to cost savings. It shortens the time to find the right treatment and avoids expensive side effects. It also supports more personalized care, helping physicians make better decisions, and ensuring that treatments are tailored to each individual's unique genetic makeup.

Test simply requires you to swab your cheek, then you send in the sample to our lab. Discover the power of personalized medicine with pharmacogenomic testing. Tailor your treatments based on your unique genetic makeup. Reduce trial and error. Avoid side effects. Find the most effective medication for you. Take control of your health today. Go to drdrew.com slash checkgenetics. That is drdrew.com slash checkgenetics. I'm excited to bring you a new product,

a new supplement, Fatty. I take it. I make Susan take it. My whole family takes it. This comes out of, believe it or not, dolphin research. The Navy maintains a fleet of dolphins, and a brilliant veterinarian recognized that these dolphins sometimes developed a syndrome identical to our Alzheimer's disease. Those dolphins were deficient in a particular fatty acid. She replaced the fatty acid,

and they didn't get the Alzheimer's. Humans have the same issue and we are more deficient in this particular fatty acid than ever before. And a simple replacement of this fatty acid called C15 will help us prevent these syndromes. It's published in a recent journal called Metabolites. It's a new nutritional C15, pentadecanoic acid, it's called. The deficiency that we are developing for C15 creates something called the cellular fragility syndrome. This is the first nutritional deficiency syndrome to be discovered in 75 years and may be affecting us in many ways, and as many as one in three of us this is an important breakthrough take advantage of it go to fatty15.com slash dr drew to receive 15 off a 90-day starter kit subscription or use code

dr drew at checkout for that 15 off or just go to our website drdrew.com slash fatty15 that's brilliant and thank you drew who's dr drew where is he dr drew dr drew claire craig on ex claire craig path uh and jessica rose will be here in a second jessica loves mjk uh so before the break uh dr craig and I were talking about the ethics of manipulating the genetics of biological entities. And she was pointing out how much this replicating mRNA vaccine is, in fact, by any description, I don't want to say it too strongly, at least approximates a virus. How do we deal with the ethics and why aren't we applying the same ethics that we do to other genetic manipulations? Right, so just taking that analogy a bit further,

the kind of conventional mRNA ones, they enter a cell with the cell actively uptaking them. They don't just sort of drift through like a ghost through the cell wall. The cell takes them up. And so in theory, they can't get back out of the cell. But we've seen studies showing that vaccinated people for four months at least had little bubbles of their cell membrane with spike attached to it circulating around the blood.

Nobody ever looked to see if there was RNA in it, but there were these sort of, you know, pseudoviruses circulating in the blood in the vaccinated people. So if you can get into a cell and you can get out of a cell, that's like, you know, part of the sequence of what a virus could do. What these replicating ones, one of the differences is, as you pointed out, their capsule is lipid rather than protein. What that means is they haven't got anything on the surface that allows antibodies to bind to say this is something foreign that we need to get rid of. So they're actually like kind of stealth viral type things because they've got nothing, the immune system can't attack them until they've already done something in a cell. So that in some ways they're even worse than a

virus would be. But yeah, the ethics of it is something that has just been sidelined and it's been done very intentionally. And there are lots and lots of strict and difficult experiments that have to be done in order to do anything to do with genetic therapies. And those were all bypassed on the basis that we were in an emergency and then we were going to call these vaccines. And it's as if the word vaccine has this kind of, you know, all-powerful sanctification of a drug when the drug is still a gene therapy. And it should have had to go through all of the hoops that gene therapy drugs go through. And now that they've done that,

they seem to think, well, we can carry on down this path. And we don't have to, first of all, go back and do the work on the products that billions of people have had, which have not been done. And second of all, just carry on with these crazy experiments. And so what were the things, I don't know if this may be unfair to sort of ask you off the top of your head, but what were the usual, I don't want to say even experiments,

the usual considerations that were bypassed? So there's sort of fundamental points around checking whether or not a product like that will enter the DNA, what kind of rate at which it will sort of get into the human DNA. And, you know, the sort of thing I was referring to before around how long it lasts and what happens to the nucleotides after the product's broken down, what it does for fertility and the germline, you know, all of that wasn't done. It wasn't done. And they just said, oh, we didn't do this. And they were quite open about it because they didn't need to lie because the

regulators weren't making them do it. And the regulators still haven't made them do it. That's the real scandal. It's not even been done in retrospect. And I was looking today at something Pfizer said at the time back in 2021 on their website, when they were talking about how they had a whole team of people who did gene therapy. And they got that team and they just pulled them into the COVID vaccine and worked because they had all the experience of their mRNA technology and their lipid nanoparticles because that is what gene therapy is. They were the experts in it i i wonder if there's another way to back into this topic through the incredible outrage and the response of the molecular what we used to call molecular biological community to the chinese scientists who use crisper to create a set of twins that that was so outrageous uh the level i'd love to see some of twins. That was so outrageous.

The level, I'd love to see some of the ink that was spilled on the ethical transgressions of that scientist. And again, using our little new ledger theory that we're gonna one day develop the opposite reaction that was used in this case to excuse and obfuscate the usual considerations. Yeah.

And, you know, of course, the to replicate it and make a particular protein. And the protein, you know, if that kind of sequence ends up in your DNA near a whole load of different genes, which are growth genes or replication genes or anything like that, that is a cancer risk. And that sequence should never have been there at all. The DNA should never have been contaminating these vials. The regulator wasn't told about this sequence. And the sequence would have been through a software that would have labeled up what was identifiable and recognizable within it. And that software would have identified these sequences. But what was submitted to the regulator had had that information edited out. So that's not sort of accident or an oversight.

Somebody has actually said, well, we're not going to tell them that that's in there because it's a bit of sequence that human cells will respond to and that it's not good for humans to have. That's essentially what was going on there and i think there's something about the DNA which is a beautiful thing and you know our DNA does have within its human DNA bits of viruses from over the ages that have sort of you know changed what we what we are and who we are. But the idea that humans are now interfering with what is a sort of divine code, if you like,

there are reasons that we have very, very strict rules on this because you can't undo messing around with your DNA and you certainly can't undo messing around with DNA that might end up in the eggs and sperm and end up in the next generation. Dr. Craig, I can either let you go or keep you as we bring Jessica Rose in here to be a part of this conversation. I want to interview Jessica a little bit. Do you have time to stay with us or would you rather kind of wrap it up?

We'll get you on a stay. Okay. So Dr. Craig will stay with us. Again, you can follow her on claire craig path on x now jessica rose jessica loves mjk jessica's universe.com jessica five small b3 is the substack and jessica you heard a little bit of the conversation we were just having let me start with asking you the question i was sort of asking Dr. Craig, which was why we didn't apply the same bioethical considerations to these products, in particular, this self-replicating vaccine,

which essentially approximates a virus in and of itself. Why we don't use the same bioethical considerations that we do, say, with CRISPR technologies and the outrage that we expressed when a Chinese scientist used CRISPR. We went nuts about that. And yet here we are doing something awfully similar. What are your thoughts? Because they're calling them vaccines and not what they actually are. So, yeah, really nice to hear everything that Claire said. If I may, before I explain exactly what the self-amplifying lipid nanoparticle technology is and why it's more horrifying than the previous version, the modified mRNA LNP tech, I'm really happy to hear that the DNA story is prolific because from my point of view,

it's not prolific enough. It's so important for all the reasons that you brought up about the regulators not doing anything about this residual DNA, which is far above EMA limits, because they're claiming, first of all, they claimed that it wasn't there. Then they checked and they confirmed that it was. I'm talking about Health Canada, the FDA, and the EMA. And now they're saying that it's not a problem. This SV40 promoter enhancer, for example, which is a nuclear localization sequence and a known gene therapy tool is very bioactive. And they're claiming that it has no functional role. We have FOIA emails that verify this. It's horrific. So the whole story implicates cancer in a nutshell. I mean, residual DNA in products

that aren't supposed to contain residual DNA and certainly not at the levels that we're finding. This is horrific. I mean, it has all sorts of implications for the genome. You know what, Jessica? I think we all three agree on this, but I'll let Dr. Craig address this. I think she was saying that she's worried it will become a false flag, that it's something they could solve and then say, see, everything's fine.

Am I getting that right, Dr. Craig? The thing about it, if I may, is that this is all, I'm going to throw in a pun here, this is all packaged together with the lipid nanoparticle technology, which also is implicated in this new self-amplifying product. So the whole thing is going to go down. I don't think that they're going to just say, okay, yes, we solved the DNA, the residual DNA problem. Personally, I don't think they can because of why it actually got in there, which is because of RNA-DNA hypoformation. They have been trying to mediate this problem since 2021. We also have a document that proves that. So they've been trying. Moderna's done a better job, according to Kevin McKernan, but I, I would push back on that.

I think that this is the doorway into removing this entire platform from the market. So yeah. And, and, and if, can I comment about the cardiac thing as well, because I, hold on, hold on one second, one quick second. I'll get the good dad Craig's response to the first thing, and then we'll go to Karina. Go ahead. I don't think that Jess is wrong. And the point she's saying there about it,

that this is DNA that's actually in a lipid nanoparticle, which would deliver it into the cell with a nucleolux, like localization signal, which drags it into the nucleus. There's all sorts of aspects of it which are really not great. And and as she said they're not very good at getting rid of it yet my worry is if this becomes a story the fact that all of these cardiac deaths have happened will just be forgotten about and you know that both things need to be talked about they're both there's a sort of the thing that has happened that has killed people. And there's this sort of ongoing risk together.

And so, you know, I don't think one story should be dominating over the other. And the cardiac story, I don't feel, I guess neither of them have completely hit home, have they? But I'm just hoping that cardiac story doesn't get buried. I have good news on the subject. Just today, I reposted a little Senate hearing with Alex Antic, who's a senator in Australia, asking one, I think his first name is John Skerritt, yes, who is a professor, I'm not sure what he's a professor of, about the death of a seven-year-old and a nine-year-old Australian children due to cardiac arrest in temporal proximity to getting the COVID jabs. And the guy said, the professor John Skerritt said that it was more common than people think dying children, prepubescent children dying of cardiac arrest, which is false. And that there's no linked signal in terms of adverse event reports and pharmacovigilance databases to the COVID shots. You know, of course, I had to go right away and prove him wrong on both counts.

There's data from the TGA that proves there's no reports of cardiac arrest in prepubescent children like that. And in VAERS, there are thousands of reports of cardiac arrest. We're not talking about myocarditis or any other cardiovascular issues. We're talking about cardiac arrest leading to death. There are thousands of them. And just to give you some statistics here, in terms of temporality, 32% of those reports were reported within 24 hours, 38 within 48, and 52% of all the cardiac arrest reports were reported within seven days. So this is absolutely linked.

I want to put a little finer point on that. If you remember in the Pfizer research, the original study, they eliminated the first two weeks. The first two weeks didn't exist. Anybody lost in those two weeks was just blinded to the study. Interesting, number one. And then number two, last time we were together, Jessica, we were with Dr. Joseph Freiman, who was pointing out a doctor,

he was describing such a case of an eight-year-old or a 10-year-old who died immediately following the vaccine to the team at FDA, whose response at the time was, oh, well, I guess it must have fallen through the cracks. And by the way, still no response last I checked. Yeah. Senator Antic was very polite, probably more polite than I would have been. And Claire, you guys both know what I'm going to say here. The response to hearing about the possibility that a therapeutic product that the children didn't need killed them engage the possibility that there is a causal relationship and the data really really demonstrates that there is and every single person knows by now they've heard of somebody suffering from the shots or suffered themselves i mean this this is it's not a secret anymore it's it's it's. It's preposterous that anybody would sit there and deny the possibility. Let's just put it that way. I'll be clear.

And then you want to tell us some thoughts on the myocardial mechanism, the mechanism of myocarditis or something. You said you wanted to comment on that yeah no i think claire summed it up beautifully and i agree with her i mean it's uh the molecular mimicry doesn't just apply to the cardiac tissue this there are peptides in that spike protein for which there are human homologues uh and you know we can we can have the immune system attacking anywhere. There's even a paper out there that demonstrates that it can attack immune system cells. So this is really bad. I'm going to ask you to speculate even further. Is it possible that some of that was constructed in the lab, so to speak, to sort of have this as a bioweapon with a maximal downstream effect?

Yes. And the reason I'm saying yes emphatically three times is because there's no way that the people who designed the spike protein, it was designed and it was codon optimized, didn't run that stuff through the various bioinformatics softwares to predict whether or not there were amyloidogenic peptides, which there are, whether there was a super antigen site, which it's been documented there is, whether or not there were many homologs to human proteins in there. There are. Jessica, we know what you mean.

You have to explain that to the public in there. There are. Jessica, I'm going to, we know what you mean, but you have to explain that to the public at large. All that needs to be deconstructed for people, just simply, if you can. Homologues, codons, those are the words people don't know. All right. Forget about the codon optimization. You guys don't need to know about that for this.

But basically, if you, everybody knows that the sequence for the spike, you know, it's a sequence of letters which are encoded by nucleotides. So a peptide is just a shorter sequence of like within that spike protein., if you chop that up into little bits, let's just say, for example, some of those little bits have exact, um,

it's the same sequence in human protein. If you're catching my drift. So they're, they're not, they're not similar. They're exact. There's like a hundred, a hundred percent sequence homology.

So if you can imagine let's back away from that in in there's no way i'll bend i shouldn't say no way because genes are funny that way but that's not something typically that you would see in a corona bat virus well i i don't i don't know if it would be typical. I don't think it would be typical. But it certainly is strange that there do seem, many, many, many of these. And some of them are actually linked to the female reproductive system as well. But I should tell everyone about cell family and RNA before I run out of time. Okay, hold on. Before you do, I want to make sure we hang on. And Dr. Craig, I want to make sure you don't have anything to say about what Jessica just, she was dropping bombs all over the place there. I want to make sure you have a reaction to any of that.

No, no, I agree with her. I think that it was manmade. I think there's plenty of evidence that it was manmade. And there's, you know, there's stuff in that spike that's really nasty. And so, you know, the idea that it would be trying to mimic a human, yeah, sure. Okay. All right, Jessica, keep going. I'm just, forgive me.

I'm looking for the papers off the top of my head. If I can read them to people about the molecular mimicry. Darn it. I do. Oh, here they are. Wait a minute. No no i have it um so uh i can't i won't even think about sharing my screen that's too complicated so there's a paper that was published in 2020 um it's called is molecular mimicry the culprit in autoimmune hemolytic anemia affecting patients with COVID-19 and spag some other questions,

but I implore everyone to read this. And there's also potential autoimmunity resulting from molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 spike and human proteins that was published in 2022 and viruses. So just to confirm what I'm saying is true, that there are papers that people have written that document this phenomenon. A couple years ago. Yeah.

All right. mRNA, replicating mRNA. Get there. All right, guys, sit down. You're going to have to so i just recently came back from a trip to japan with some colleagues lawyers doctors scientists um because we had the ear of some japanese parliamentarians on the subject matter of the self-amplifying mrna lmp technology and um the reason why we went there was because they were about to launch it into the elderly population starting on October 1st.

We did reach people. I think that we actually made a difference. They did go ahead with administering these products. Now, this is a COVID SARS product. This has the spike gene inside, and I'll tell you all about that now. In my opinion opinion it's completely moot you know like nobody needs to be injected with this stuff because everybody's had an experience with it and a challenge and or a challenge but the uptake the good news is the

uptake was apparently quite low so this is very good news from the point of view of people's awareness having improved. However, because of the nature of these products, you know, it kind of makes me wonder if it's not quote unquote too late. So let me tell you what this is and how it's different from the modified mRNA. It does utilize the same lipid nanoparticle technology. The only thing that's different in the formulation that has four fats is the cationic lipid. So it's still an ionizable cationic lipid, which is the only thing you guys need to know is that it's highly toxic. And those toxicity issues haven't been resolved. So all the compendial standard issues and the good manufacturing practice issues are probably going to carry right over with these new products.

We know how careful they were with formulating and manufacturing these modified mRNA products. We can see because they have residual DNA in them. So we can assume, I'm speculating here, but we can assume that we're going to have similar problems, at least from the point of view of the lipid nanoparticles with this new stuff. So now let me scare you. What they've done is they've taken something called an alpha virus. This is a genus of viruses in the family Togaviridae. Don't ask me how i remembered that um but these geniuses have uh borrowed a wonderful tool that these alpha viruses use to self-replicate their own genetic material called an rna dependent rna polymerase so like many things in biology, we humans look at them, we marvel at it, and then we try and mimic it in the lab for making therapeutic products. I call it mad scientism.

So just like plasmids in bacteria are used in biotech, what these people decided to do was to take this alpha virus and this copying machine enzyme, extract out the subgenomic components, which are the bits of the alpha virus that it uses to give it infrastructure. By the way, the virus that they used is called Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, and that's as scary as it sounds. I was going to say, the toga viruses is German measles and equine encephalitis. That's what they cause. That's right. So the actual virus that they—

And they use the actual Venezuelan one, yeah, which is the only one we don't have up here in Southern California. We have everything else. Maybe soon. So the story develops. So they're using the construct of this Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus because it carries this gene called RDRP. That's the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that allows that virus to optimize its own survival by being able to copy its own genetic material so like I said instead of the the the virus junk

and the replication machinery that they take out they substitute in the spike gene so that's the stuff that they put into people in Japan now I'll say more thing, and then I'll tell you why I'm worried about this. So on November 11th, the FDA green-lighted the phase one trialing of this exact same technology for H5N1 virus. This is this bird flu virus that they're using in the same language or they're using in the same sentence with the word pandemic. It's even in like the word pandemic is even in the title of the phase one study. And what they've done is instead of inserting spike genes, they've inserted the hemagglutinin and the neuraminidase uh genes from the h5n1 so that in in and of itself is kind of scary and and here here's what i'd like everyone to do now as a thought experiment uh and and the reason why i'm concerned so as part of the phase one trial, there's, okay, there's 200 people in it,

18 to 80. The inclusion criteria list was anemic. They only had three points. The exclusion criteria was also, you know, really low. Basically anybody who had a serious adverse reaction to the modified mRNA shots is excluded. And the inclusion criteria, this is just a point of interest to make you think, included people who were able to get pregnant. You know, if you are of childbearing age, you should protect yourself during the trials. I just want to throw that there. Shocking. Nowhere in the inclusion or the exclusion criteria is there any mention of how many shots of the modified mRNA stuff they got, which begs questions about counterindications, or whether or not those people may be carrying

replicating alpha viruses. Now, we're going into hypothetical land here, but we have to because of something called RNA recombination, which is a real possibility here. So imagine one of these people is infected with an alpha virus of some kind. All the alpha viruses have this RDRP gene that allows them to photocopy their own genetic material. Let's say they don't have many symptoms for some reason. So they get into the trial. They have some cells. Let's say that some cells have active replication going on in them

and this this actually brings us back to that excellent point that Claire made about infection because unless you have a very high viral load due to a lot of viral replication going on in many cells you're not really having an infection so let's's just say you have a few cells with viral replication going on. Now, because these new self-amplifying RNA guys are encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles, we know that once someone gets injected with this stuff, that it has the potential to traffic everywhere. So let's hypothesize that one of these lipid nanoparticles reaches a cell in the body that has an active replication going on of an alpha virus. What could potentially happen here, and this is hypothetical, but it could happen,

is something called RNA recombination. So during the replication cycle, there's something that the virus can do called template switching. In the presence of this foreign RNA that's introduced into the cell via the lipid nanoparticle, which is, you know, very efficient Trojan horse way to introduce foreign genetic material it can swap out the photocopying paper let's say if you want to think about it that way and form chimeric RNA now there is a possibility if that happens because it does happen that you could actually end up with a a new virus now whether or not that like there are a lot of things that have to line up in order for this to happen. So everybody don't get too scared yet. But the thing about this is,

and I'm going back to what you and Claire were talking about, this has to have been tested. This has to have been done. These questions need to have been answered way before anybody was injected because we're dealing with gene-based therapies. And you can't go back from this if we mess this up. And you're actually potentially looking at an actual biohazard in the making. So it also begs the question, why are they talking about pandemics with H5N1 bird flu all of a sudden? What do you think?

NC. I certainly think that's a sign that they're messing with the virus. Same with the monkeypox. Why does, I mean, look, we had indigenous dengue fever break out in Southern California from a mosquito in Southern California

the first time in history. The press, unconcerned. It was a major, major, major story in my mind. I didn't know that happened. Well, there was about six weeks ago. I believe there were a couple of cases. Yeah, big, big deal. But in the meantime,

a single clade one of monkey pox shows up off a plane from Denmark or something. And oh my God, there's a headline on the front page of every newspaper. The way this is being reported, the distortions and the lack of understanding of what they're even talking about and what is important and what's not important is making me insane. So I will ask you this question that I asked at the beginning. Why are we not holding the same ethical standards that we would for CRISPR generally? Why don't we? What happened? Is it hysteria? Is it that just the fact that it's slipped through and being used so widely, they're just kind of leaning into it? What do

you surmise? And let's get Dr. Craig in here on that as well, but Jessica, you first. I think motive has changed. Yeah, the definitions are changing, the motives have changed. Maybe it has a lot to do with your point about people just not understanding and and i i tend to to veer toward that because like just to give you an example self-amplifying phase one trial if you even try to explain to the 200 participants what they were being injected with is there any chance that any of them would understand the implications the potential like you know devastation to the to even to the environment because if something goes wrong these alpha viruses um they can they're shared among many mammalian species

so it's like we're not just talking about messing up our own, you know, let's say gene pools, I suppose. When you're talking about gene-based therapies, it can translate, pardon the pun, to other people. The point is, yeah, I think the way to say it is not just the individual, say, cancer risk downstream, the many other risks. Dr. Craig, are you still with us? And I want to get your thoughts on this same topic. Go ahead there. I am still here. And I just, I can't help thinking it's something around scientists seeing that the sort of DNA world is a final frontier and that there's some sort of, you know, we have to do this because this is progress. And I think they've managed to convince a lot of powerful politicians around them that this is progress. And I think they've managed to convince a lot of powerful politicians around them

that this is progress. And the reality is that a lot of what they are claiming that these products can do is based around mythology in the first place. So, you know, when Jess is saying, well, people don't need these injections, they never needed these injections. You know, they were never ever needed and a lot of the sort of stories told about viruses and about pandemics are mythological they're not based in fact and they've and they've over time they become more and more scary it's

incredible how the numbers escalate over time if you look through history so like 1918 at the time they thought it was about 20 million people who died and that was probably an exaggeration and now people like the welcome trust will say it's 150 million like well what happened there because they could count dead bodies back then you know they're pretty good at that so there is this whole fear based thing that's driving all of it, which is, it's not good for us. Hysteria, hysteria, mass formation.

It, it, it, it feels like that's been a lot of the story of the last five or six years. Is there more to get into Jessica? We have, we run the cycle.

Is there to cover the topic to your satisfaction? I think so. i just i can't emphasize enough how uh people should stay well away from um any gene-based products that includes the modified and and the self-amplifying stuff is it's even like more red flaggy to me um and uh because the potential quite frankly like when you start messing with genes like i said before there's no predictability here and we actually could end up screwing ourselves pardon my language um like i i know that fear is a huge component and without it, you know, they wouldn't have gotten away with what they got away with in the first four years. And I think that, you know, people absolutely need to be based in knowledge and not fear. But at the same time,

man, we have to scream to the rooftops,ops like enough with the gene-based stuff enough with the gain-of-function research enough with the chimeric virus crap enough with building viruses so that we have to make vaccines before that guy gets us i mean the whole thing is so absurd like in my opinion like we're brilliant. Our species is so brilliant. And all of the stuff that we could be doing and all the energy and the time and the money could be spent on such amazing stuff. Not this biohacking nonsense that will end up leading to our detriment. That's all I have to say.

And Claire, any last thoughts? I'm with you, Jess. You know, I just, it's, fear sucks something out of people. We've had enough of it. And as you say, there is, we just want people to be looking to the future in a more positive way, instead of in this reckless way. Just that there are much more constructive things people could be doing with their lives.

Yeah, I'm just thinking hearing your beautiful accent and then talking about the destructive effect of fears. I had a historical sort of weird image of the idea of Winston Churchill going, shelter in place, shelter, oh my God, oh my God, we're doomed. I mean, just look at where history has gone well and where it's not gone well. It's never because of fear. It's not gone well because of fear and panic. And anybody that has addressed horrifically and genuinely fear-provoking circumstances did so with intestinal fortitude, and things went a lot better. Guys, thank you so much for being here, and thank you for all the work, and I hope you'll keep it up.

We're going to talk about Claire's book. Jessica, do you want people to just go to your sub stack? Yeah. Oh, by the way, I just wanted to mention my website is down, Jessica's Universe. I'm having domain issues. They're linking it to something that you don't want to go to. And my Substack

is also jessicar.substack.com. So I have two. What is it? Say it again. R? JessicaR. JessicaR.substack.com.essica r okay jessica r got it jessica r and then let's put up claire's book uh one more time caleb if you don't mind uh when i read that and it's a it's a really interesting expired uh the covid untold the untold story

cover the untold story uh and it's really, it goes back through his history of infections generally and our ideas about them and how we have been infected by ideas that have affected our response to these sorts of outbreaks. Thank you guys so much. Hope to talk to you again very soon.

Thank you very much. Bye, thanks for having me. Of course. Jessica's at jLovesMJK on X and Claire Craig Path. Coming up for us, we have Susan's show this afternoon. She's a very special guest.

We're not telling you who because we don't want to adulterate or have there be the potential for any claims that the psychic knew who was coming or looked her up or looked them up or something. Andrew Grohl next week with Wilk Wilkinson, Ted Ballacher, Courtney Moorhead,

Ballacher as well, Josh Bernstein, Alison Monroe. We had, didn't we have Laura? I don't know what happened to that. Justine Bateman coming in and Jeff Dye should be interesting once we get into December. And of course, Kelly Victory is sitting in for me, interviewing Ed Dowd on December 4th. So keep an eye on all that. Let me quickly glance out at the restream, seeing what you guys are doing. Thank you, Gene Feist for the comment about the show. When am I going to acknowledge the fact that I

played a part in the mess at the ONS? Can somebody tell me what the ONS is? I played a part in the mess at the ONS. Caleb, do you know what the ONS is? I'm trying to figure that out, but who knows? I played a part in the mess at the ONS, I guess. I'm going to look it up. Isn't that great that someone's mad enough at you to come on the show and leave a comment? And you're like, I don't even know.

What did I do now? What are you mad about? I have no clue. Yeah, I don't even know what they're talking about. Okay, well, good. I'm getting used to it. Let's see. Pandemic.

Many have stopped seeing their doctor. That's not good. Awful. Office of National Statistics. I caused a mess at the Office of National Statistics. Caleb, any theories how that might have happened? Never heard of that either. That's not on my list of usual complaints

that people have about you. No. I'll add it. I'll figure it out. And I'm also looking at you guys on the, oh, there's a lot of stuff on the rants I missed here. Give me a second here. The re, I had my re-cup up here, guys.

New mosquitoes are of the Aedes species. They can host dinghy, unlike the local Anopheles species is disturbing. Aedes are not naturally in home in Nebraska. That is true. And that's why the fact that, and the, of course, where do you think people go with the fact

that we have the non-Anopheles, IED species up here? First thing they do, they go, oh, it's climate change. Okay, that's what did it. That's it. By the way, there is a doctor. We should interview my friend now. He has a whole theory that the... Hold on a second, a whole theory that the Zika virus story

was also an hysteria because it turns out that really never happened. So I need to get to Dr. Emily Barsh about that to see if we can interview the doctor. I'm blanking on his name now. I've got it on here, but it's not showing up. Caleb, anything else on your front? Nope, just excited.

We got Susan's show coming up with a surprise guest later on today and big list of interesting people coming up next week. Very excited. Yeah, it's going to be very good. All right, everybody. Thank you all for being here. We'll see you at three o'clock this afternoon

for Susan's show. And I think we're in, let me double check the dates. Hold on here. We're not here on Monday. We're here on Tuesday at three o'clock with the gruel, with Andrew Gruel. 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.