Ask Dr. Drew - Marjorie Taylor Greene LIVE: MTG & The Fight For Medical Freedom w/ Dr. Kelly Victory & Dr. Aaron Kheriaty – Ask Dr. Drew – Ep 290

Episode Date: November 27, 2023

Marjorie Taylor Greene is the Congresswoman representing Georgia’s 14th District. Her book “MTG” is available now at MTGbook.com. Follow her at https://x.com/mtgreenee “In her first book, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene reveals her personal account of the battles she fights in the halls of Congress and beyond.” Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Dr. Kelly Victory also discuss updates on the Missouri v. Biden censorship lawsuit. 「 SPONSORED BY 」 Find out more about the companies that make this show possible and get special discounts on amazing products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors • 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 a discount on your first order at https://drdrew.com/paleovalley • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get an extra discount with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew • 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 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.  「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 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), Dr. Drew After Dark (YMH), 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, today will be a packed program. We've got a lot for you. You will not be disappointed. First up, we have Marjorie Taylor Greene to talk about her new book. In the second half of the show, Erin Cariotti, psychiatrist, bioethicist, one of the lead defendants in Biden versus Missouri, is here with us to give an update on what's going on there and how things are changing. Of course, Marjorie is the U.S. Congresswoman from the 14th District of Georgia. Her new book is MTG, which she says she wrote to, quote, set the record straight, which is exactly where I want to start our conversation to hear more about what her thoughts are about how she's portrayed. There's so much we could talk about, but we'll be with her for a little while, and I'll be watching you on the restream to see if there are any questions that pop up there. So stay with us. Also, of course, on the Rumble Rants, we'll be back with Marjorie Taylor Greene after this.

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 for f***ing 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 help stopping, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. I think everyone knows the next medical crisis could be just around the corner, whether it comes in

the form of another pandemic or something much more routine like a tick bite, you and your family need to be prepared. That's where the wellness company comes in. You know the wellness company, we have their physicians on like Dr. McCullough frequently. The wellness company and their doctors are medical professionals you can trust. And their new medical emergency kits are the gold standard when it comes to keeping you safe and healthy. It's really, it's a safety net. It's an insurance policy that you hope you're not going to need, but if you need it, you

sure as heck are going to wish you had it if you need it. Be ready for anything. This medical emergency kit contains an assortment of life-saving medications, including ivermectin, Z-Pak. The medical emergency kit provides a guidebook to aid in the safe use of all these life-saving medications. From anthrax to tick bites to COVID-19, the Wellness Company's Medical Emergency Kit is exactly what you need to have on hand to be prepared. Rest assured, knowing that you have

emergency antibiotics, antivirals, and antiparasitics on hand to help you and your family stay safe from whatever life throws at you next. Go to drdrew.com slash TWC. That is drdrew.com forward slash TWC to get 10% off today. Just click on that link. Of course, I misspoke. Aaron Cariotti is the plaintiff in the Missouri versus Biden case, which is now before the United States Supreme Court. We'll hear an update on that. But first, U.S. Congresswoman from the 14th District of Georgia, really interesting story. And she writes about in her book, MTJ oops, MTG, which she said, as I told you is to set the record straight, you can read her story

there. It is available now from all the usual outlets, give her a like and a good review. Marjorie Taylor Greene, welcome to the program. Hi, thanks for having me. So when you say you want to set the record straight, what does that mean? Well, when I entered Congress in January of 2021, the media created a character of me that doesn't exist. And then they proceeded to sell that character across the national media, all across America and the entire world. And I wrote this book, MTG, to give people an understanding of who I really am, my words, my policies, my beliefs, and also

the stories behind the headlines that has mischaracterized me. I also go into the issues that I think people really need to know about Congress basically peeling back the curtain and exposing why we see our federal government as such a failure. And I think people will love reading it, and I hope they pick up a copy and read it over the holidays. Can you give us some hints on what you're exposing? I know I don't want to give the whole story away for free. We want them to buy the book, but, but I give, give us a, give us a taste. Yeah, absolutely. Um, I've been intrigued, uh, watching leading into the, to the program today, uh, your, your talks and, and the, the people you've interviewed about COVID. I have a whole chapter called COVID lies and lessons.

Um, I'm not a doctor obviously, but I was one of those that didn't believe in the vaccines. I didn't get vaccinated. I fought very hard against the mandates and the mask and the shutdowns as a member of Congress. And I write about that in my book. Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, even fined me over $100,000 because I refused to wear the mask on the House floor. And the reason why I did that is I truly believe if members of Congress don't actually fight with actions, then people at home, you know, moms, dads, kids in school, and many others, they are not able to stand up to the tyrannical government that we saw in place during COVID. I also serve as a member on the COVID Select Committee.

This committee has a lot of doctors on it, and I've requested over and over again to investigate the vaccines because there's been over a million reports on the VAERS system. And I believe people when they say they've suffered terrible vaccine injuries, and I believe people when they say they've lost family members due to the vaccines. And I think it's our duty in Congress to investigate this and hold people accountable. Well, unfortunately, our committee has not done any investigations into the vaccines. And so recently, I took it upon myself to hold my own hearing. And that just happened a few weeks ago. And a lot of people watched it. We had Dr. Malone

and Dr. Biss, and I was particularly intrigued listening to Dr. Biss explain the serious problems for women with menstrual cycles, miscarriages, pregnancies, and so forth. But this is the type of thing I write, and so forth. But this is the type of thing I write about in my book, and this is the type of work I'm very interested in doing as a member of Congress. Yeah, I just want to make a little quick sidebar comment about the menstrual cycle changes with the vaccine. There's no doubt that that is happening. What has happened, though, and I am absolutely, the reason I'm speaking about this, because I was guilty of this, Naomi Wolf came on our program, was talking about

this, and I went, Naomi, menstrual cycles, every time I give somebody a medication, every time I get sick, menstrual, right, no, come on now. That is the most sexist, insensitive, pathetic point of view, and that was my point of view. So I made her come back and I apologized to her. I cannot apologize enough for being so pathetically sexist. I apologize to you as a woman. And the fact is that she had to explain to me that not only is it miserable and frightening, but some populations actually it changes their their um their reproductive practices and whether they can get pregnant or not and you know and there's many different sort of practices that women follow in different religious and cultural settings that i didn't even

contemplate and it again it's the very uh eurocentric male pathetic point of view to just go oh i'm winter's men menstrual periodsal periods, no big deal. No big deal. None to see here. So thank you for looking into that. I just had to fall on my sword again because it's so pathetic. Well, good on you. That's good. I think apologies are great. I've had to apologize before, especially publicly on the main stage. I think people have seen that for me and I don't think anything's wrong with it. I think what's important is that we continue to pursue the truth, and we certainly need that today in America. And that's part of my book, is looking for the truth, but most of all, wanting to hold

our government accountable. You know, people have labeled me as far right, as extremist. If you really wanted to label me, the best label for me is American. And I don't apologize for loving our country and wanting to uphold our laws and our constitution and our values. And I think that's important. I ran for Congress in 2020, of course, as a Republican,

but I also ran for Congress being open about my anger at the Republican Party. We know who the Democrats are, we know their policies, and we're watching them in action with the Biden administration. We've got a wide open border and I serve on the Homeland Security Committee, and I've heard the most heartbreaking stories, parents coming in talking about their children being murdered by fentanyl, the horrible stories of people losing family members from illegal alien crime, cartel members,

the awful stories of child sex trafficking. And these are the things that shouldn't be happening in America. But I ran for Congress because I blamed Republicans. I'm tired of Republicans just talking the talk on the campaign trail and on the news, but unwilling to take the necessary action to stop the terrible things happening in our country. Not only the wide open border, but also our debilitating over $33 trillion in debt that should not exist. So these are the kind of stories I tell in my book. And I think people will be interested to understand more about who I am.

And so Margie, this is where I'm kind of intrigued, which is you're a newcomer. I've seen what they do, what the press does to people. They turn everybody into cartoon figures and they never report substance. They report these weird... I remember I was in the White House once in a symposium all day and Trump unexpectedly come in and came at the end and made some off the hand comments and they didn't report anything about this great symposium and reported his kind of off the cup statements. And I thought, oh my God, I can't trust anything that comes out of this, the press. It's so crazy. But that was years ago, and it's gotten only worse since then.

And so my question is, when did this sort of passion come to you? I mean, you're a relative newcomer. I've sort of read your career paths. And how did you decide to run for Congress? And when did freedom and truth become such important things to you? Well, it kind of came across starting in like 2017, 2018. Of course, I never considered running for public office. I never wanted to be in the government.

I ran a successful family construction business and another small business. It really thoroughly enjoyed the best job I've ever had raising my children as a mother. And my kids are grown up now. And it was the Republican failure under President Trump's administration when we held the House and they did not repeal Obamacare, did nothing about it. They didn't do anything to fund the wall and the true border security we needed. But Marjorie, it sounds like you already had some very, some very, very strong feelings. And tell me more about that. I don't get a sense of where that, because you, you know, you're not,

you have a great deal of clarity about what your positions are, real clarity. And I feel like you came to Congress with that. Not everyone has those kinds of feelings. And what was, were you always somebody that argued and debated? Were you someone that came from a political family? I mean, how'd that happen? No, not at all. As a matter of fact, politics wasn't something I really discussed openly. But being a business owner, I think that's where it comes from, is growing up in a family business, listening to my parents talk about the business problems, issues they were dealing with, the economy at the dinner table. I learned a lot, but also running the business.

As a business owner, you have to sign the paychecks that help people keep a roof over their head and feed their children and their family. We have to solve the problems and no one's going to fix it for us. We have to fix it. We're also accountable, making sure that we make a profit. And if we make a loss, guess what? We go out of business. We also have to dot every I cross every T when it comes to paying our taxes following the laws because the government is unforgiving to private businesses. Yet the government is the one that seems to do everything wrong and never gets held accountable. So these are things I think that I had strong beliefs in and I still do. But I believe it

was really through running a business and of course having difficult times. If you're a business owner, you're going to face hard times like we did in 2008 and 2009. That was definitely a rough patch and everyone else gets paid and as the business owner, we get paid last. And that's just reality. And so I believe the federal government should look at the American people as their customer and provide excellent customer service and take care of the American people. And I also have beliefs. I truly believe that America is all of our home. As a mom, I believe our home should be safe, clean, orderly, well taken care of, and we should provide the best home possible for everyone that lives in our home. And our federal government doesn't do that for Americans.

As a matter of fact, we're falling apart. Our windows and doors are wide open and people we don't know are coming in. And so these are the type of beliefs I had. I hope that clears things up a little bit about how I think and my background and why I'm so passionate about holding accountability to the federal government. You've mentioned your family and your kids and your family of origin a bit. How do they deal with these attacks that you face? It's been really tough. This wasn't something we ever expected. We're just really normal people and never expected to be exposed like this on the main stage. It was very

hard for my mom, hard for my children. They've been attacked by the left. Terrible things have been said about them. And they're just innocent people. They haven't done anything wrong. But we've learned to be pretty tough and we learned we had to get tough really quick. And we know who we are. That's another good thing is these attacks haven't changed our regular life. We haven't lost friends. We haven't lost anything. And people that know us know that these are lies in the media. So that right there has been easy for us to get through it. One of the things we've been concerned about is the regulatory capture, the cozy relationship between, for instance, the FDA and pharmaceutical companies.

And in fact, I think you asked a very pointed question of the, was it the CDC director, which pharmacy, was it your question? Which pharmacy company are you going to work for once you step down? Which I will not soon forget that moment because I thought, yeah, that's the point. That's, people need to understand that. So my question is, what do you worry about that the way I do as a clinician and as somebody serving patients? What are the solutions?

And then maybe on the, well, let's say they do with that first. Yes, I do. Actually people don't realize the revolving door that goes between the government, uh, these powerful agencies into big, big pharma and other big industries, uh, such as the military industrial complex, they don't realize how cozy they truly are. And I believe that is one of the biggest problems we face as Americans. That means that these unelected bureaucrats, like the CDC director, are calling the shots, but they're doing so with their own self-interest in mind that is pursuing a career in order

to make more money once they leave these big powerful positions. This is a true problem but it's been a problem that has been going on for decades and and we can't reiterate enough how bad we need to have reforms and good policies put in place and to protect our government agencies also to to make good decisions for the American people. And, you know, full disclosure, I'm an independent. And I first became aware of this, how cozy this is and how significant this is in multiple, not just pharmaceutical, but in multiple industries, as you reference. And it was RFK, my interview with him, that alerted me to all that.

I was sort of persuaded by that. You're a Republican. He is sort of maybe spoiling people's plans. I just wonder if you have any thoughts about his run for president. Oh, I think it's great. Actually, I am a Republican, but it's funny how sometimes I find myself agreeing with people like RFK or even actually the squad. Sometimes we vote the same, which is really interesting and shocking to people.

I'm very against the foreign war. Um, that's an area where I do mix in with people on the left and other independents, uh, surprisingly goingents, surprisingly going largely against my own party. And I write a whole chapter in my book about why we shouldn't be funding all these foreign wars. So, yeah, I think RFK running for president is great. I love to hear new people's ideas. We need them in America. And I think it's a good, healthy thing. Really, my last question, Susan, do you have any questions while we're

talking to MTJ? No. My wife is here running my board and she is enraptured with this interview. And my question really is, are you optimistic about the future? Can you really, are things too ossified? Are they too, you know, where do we solve these problems? How do we solve these problems? Is it really all at the ballot box or do the courts have to, we're going to be talking to a physician, you know, that's taking something to the Supreme Court after we conclude our interview. Is it all of the above? And if so, how do you stay optimistic? I think that's a great question. I'm always optimistic. And I got that from my father. That's another thing I write about in my book is my father died of cancer. It was melanoma

and he and my mom were some of the people that were really afraid during COVID and they didn't go to the doctor and they stayed in their house and his melanoma had turned into stage four. And we found that out just a month before I went to Washington as a new freshman member of Congress. And while I was being attacked by the mainstream media, my father was dying of cancer. And that was really the only thing I cared about.

And I write about that in my book. And it's a story that I really wanted to tell. Optimism was who he was. He was optimistic and tenacious and that's who I am. And I believe it's our duty to stay optimistic and hopeful for the future. It's our duty because we owe that to the following generations. And that's how we continue to do good work and make sure that our communities, our homes, our businesses, and our government are good

so that we can hand that over to the next generation. If we fall apart in sadness and despair, then we aren't able to do a good job and we owe it to our kids and our grandchildren. A couple last quick questions. When you've been the object of the press and the distortions that come with that, you learn very quickly how profoundly biased and completely off base so many of the stories are. What's your sort of advice to people? Should they believe nothing in the press? Do we have to at least look at it

jaundiced at pretty much everything? Or how do you get to the truth? How do you get to the news? Because nobody reports the news anymore. Oh, I agree. Actually, I think you should look for the truth. There's a lot of truth in the press, but there's a lot of lies too. I think the best thing you can do as a person in any situation is be very well informed. Don't rely on one source. Look at multiple sources. Talk to people about it. And a lot of people can kind of trust their own gut instincts. That's what I did during the COVID lockdowns as I went, wait a minute, let me look at the facts and the data that's coming out. Is this really killing everyone? And come to find out, no, it wasn't. It was killing just a select amount of people that had comorbidities and were largely unhealthy.

You know, so I think it's important to be well-informed, well-resourced, and don't just blindly believe the headlines because oftentimes they're very misleading. And I can assure you of that. And you've gotten in some trouble for floating some things that you later said were sort of jokes or being sarcastic. How do you, a, was that in fact the case where did, did, did you fall victim to some sort of where you believed a headline or believed a story that you shouldn't have believed, A. And B, how do we, you know, how do you want people to understand, to see through these things as they

come at you? Because I suspect they'll come at you, they'll just keep coming at you, they're going to. And so how do we see through that? It never changes. It always keeps going. And yes, of course, I mean, at times I believe the wrong thing, which led me to the wrong conclusions. And like I said in the beginning, I said, yeah, I've had to apologize before too. And I think that's a good thing. We can't be right all the time and we aren't right for the rest of our lives. We're humans and we're going to make mistakes and believe the wrong things sometimes. But it's good to recognize the truth and move forward and say we're sorry when we need to. I think that's the right thing to do and it's the right way to treat one another. But the other thing is, is I don't think the hits are going to

stop with me. They keep coming and they keep coming on a frequent basis. So what I do is I do the job that my constituents elected me to do and I stay to my promises that I promised them. And I go to sleep, and I sleep good every single night. And the best thing is nothing changes in my personal life with the people I love and the people that know me. And so I know I'm doing a good job, and I just have to keep going. Yeah, just keep moving forward. That's all you can do. Okay, I promised my last question. So my last question really is, I love stories of Americans

that are sitting, you know, they're, I guess, Sarah Palin had a story where she was sitting at a hockey game and was having a political discussion with somebody. I said, I could be governor better than that guy that's governor. I could do a better job. And Alexis de Tocqueville is a guy I refer to all the time. He wrote a book called Democracy in America in 1820. And his position, his assessment was that the reason democracy works so well in America is we had a practice of democracy.

We practice in our classrooms and in our townships, in our counties. But part of that practice is each of us getting involved in politics in some way. I'm wondering as you, as somebody imagining that's your story, you went, I can do this and just did it. And that to me is a, that's a uniquely, to me, it feels like a profoundly American story. And I'm very, very attracted to those stories when they, when they pop up. What's your advice to other people

out there that are frustrated and thinking, God, I could do a better job than the guy that's representing me right now. Well, number one, I would tell them I agree with them because I'm there and I assure you there's a lot of better people that we should have serving in Congress. And I think being passionate about what you believe is so important because it's your passion that makes you successful. I'm a very passionate person and people see that in me. Sometimes I get just enraptured in something or an issue. But it also helps you work those long hours and get the job done. I would encourage people to run for public office. Maybe not necessarily on a federal level, because believe me, that's a very difficult thing. But I always say local politics is almost more

important than the federal government, because it's the local level politics that truly affect your life, like your local taxes, your schools and everything that you live in. So, yeah, get out there because I promise you, if you don't like the way things are being done in your city, your county or state, yeah, you are better than the people that are there. Yeah, I agree there so strongly. I remember when there was a lot of consternation during 2016 to 20, I remember looking out my window and going, boy, my trash services are great. My fire department is great.

My police department is great. The streets are great. The businesses seem good. This city, which is the city of Pasadena, I'm so grateful for them having an excellent government that works well and extraordinary public services. We've got the best water and power probably in the state of California. Marjorie, I've taken a lot of your time. It is MTG.

Let's put the book up there again. I suggest you all support her and order it now. I'm assuming, Marjorie, we can just go over to Amazon and click like we do every day with, for all of our, everything else we buy these days. That's right. And get the book. There you go. Amazon or any people book.com.

Thank you so much. Happy Thanksgiving. All right. Pleasure. Thank you. Happy Thanksgiving. Thanks for being here. So there we go,

everybody. And I was watching the, I was watching your guys' comments on the restream and the Rumble Rant. And I thought you guys would have questions. It's interesting to me that there was no attacks. Everything was very cordial. And to me, that means so much of what she deals with is just press generated. You would think people, you know, I have lots of trolls in here attacking me all the time.

And so I'm surprised that there's always so weird to me. A lot of very sort of positive. I always leave this. It's like whenever we had a, no, it's whenever we had, what was her name? Carrie from Arizona. Carrie, oh man, her name is skipping me. Carrie Lake.

When she was on the show, it's like I literally, I went to my wife and other family members and I was like, she is nothing like what the press portrays her as at all. This was just a nice woman who complimented me on my new baby and she was just kind and sweet. my wife and other family members. And I was like, she has nothing like what the press portrays her as at all. This is, this was just a nice woman who complimented me on my new baby. And she was just kind and sweet. Same thing with Marjorie Taylor green. This she's like,

this is the opposite of how she's portrayed by everyone. And so now I don't trust anything. Ladies and gentlemen, this lady, Caleb is manifesting something called Gelman amnesia. Gelman amnesia is when you know the topic, like yourself, they wrote a story on me, and I realize it's vastly incorrect and a million miles from the truth, but then I read the paper and watch the news and assume everything else they

report is true, where the fact is everything else they report is just as distorted. So keep that in mind. So there you go. I mean, I think the book deserves a read to see if you, Herb Green says he takes care of the trolls in here. You know, deserves a read and see if you agree. Because, you know, I asked her about some of the things she had floated early on and she said, yeah, wrong, apologized. But of course, that's how you get to become a cartoon character. And once you are one one they don't let up it just stays stays stays stays and you have to keep moving forward i'm still dealing with nonsense that somebody else on three or four different stories that people have said about me that then went viral that had nothing to do with the truth they come up all the time all right dr kelly victory is here with me she will be here after the break with dr aaron

carriotti we're going to get into the Biden versus Missouri case after this. Susan and I have been looking for a nutrition-packed, great-tasting greens drink for a while. And then we tried our friends at Paleo Valley's organic super greens, which is superior to what's out there on the market. Our friends at Paleo Valley, well, they think of everything, and they've created what's been called a magical green powerhouse. All three delicious varieties, pure, unflavored, strawberry, lemonade, and tropical, contain 23 certified organic antioxidant-rich superfoods, including the highest quality spirulina.

It's also free of cereal grasses, gluten, grains, soy, and dairy, and no added sugars or artificial sweeteners. And what's more, it delivers digestive enzymes, polyphenols, which are believed to burn fat, and eight essential amino acids. Imagine the time, effort, and cost of trying to make this yourself. It's impossible. Head on over to drdrew.com slash paleovalley, and you will get 15% off your first order. All the great products they have there are 15% off at drdrew.com slash paleo, P-A-L-E-O. Thanksgiving is almost here, which means it's time for the best GenuCell sale of the year. Just in time for the holidays, save over 60% off both of our personally tailored GenuCell skincare packages

at genucell.com Drew, so you can look your very best at all of your Thanksgiving gatherings. Look 10, 15, 20 years younger, guaranteed with the best natural skincare anywhere. Take advantage of GenuCell's best sale of the year and say goodbye to fine lines, crow's feet, puffiness, and dark spots. The GenuCell experience is like no other, but don't take my word for it. You will look and feel your absolute best or your money back, no questions asked. So, for results in 12 hours or less, GenuCell's immediate effects is included for free. Plus, if you go to GenuCell.com slash Drew now, you'll get a free upgrade to priority shipping. That is GenuCell.com slash Drew, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash Drew.

Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. If this episode ends here, the rest of the show is available at drdrew.tv. There's nothing in medicine that doesn't boil down to a risk-benefit calculation. It is the mandate of public health to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population. This is uncharted territory, Drew. And Dr. Victory, welcome. And of course, Aaron Cariotti. Aaron is a psychiatrist. He's a bioethicist. He was dismissed after a series of unfortunate events from his job where he was the chairman of bioethics department for quite some time and

a decorated professor of psychiatry. And for raising his hand and saying, I don't think you have the medical, the scientific justification for vaccine mandates. And that led to a new career path for Aaron. So Kelly, I will leave that to you to explore. Terrific. Aaron, great to see you as always. I've got lots to ask you about. And we want to start with, I know, let's at least start with a quick update, if you can, on the case.

I think the Biden v. Missouri v. Biden case. Give us an update on that. And then I want to take it from there because I've got lots of questions to ask you on a broader scale. Sure. So very quickly for the listeners who aren't familiar with the case, this is a case that was filed against a dozen federal agencies by the state of Missouri and

the state of Louisiana. And they were joined by five private plaintiffs. I'm one of those five private plaintiffs. And we are alleging that the federal government has been unconstitutionally pressuring and coercing social media companies to censor disfavored content online on the six major social media platforms. And where that case is at now is we had a hearing in the district court. The district court judge issued a preliminary injunction against the government, basically saying before the case even goes to trial, the plaintiffs have presented enough evidence that this unconstitutional censorship regime is actually happening. And we believe irreparable harm is going to be done to the plaintiffs and the people they're standing in for, the ordinary

Americans who are posting information online and on social media. And so we can't wait for the year or two it's going to take to finish this case. We have to intervene now with a cease and desist order to tell the federal government, you cannot do this anymore. You cannot pressure or coerce social media companies to censor content that you don't like because it challenges your favorite public health policies or challenges other government policies. The government then appealed that preliminary injunction to the circuit court, the appellate court, the fifth circuit had a three-judge panel that unanimously upheld the injunction. So now we're four for four on federal judges saying that, yeah,

plaintiffs have presented enough evidence even in this early phase of the case to establish that the government's likely engaging in unconstitutional behavior and the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of these arguments. And so they upheld the injunction. The injunction is specifically against the White House, the CDC, the FBI, the Surgeon General, and a little known agency called CISA, the Cyber Security Infrastructure Security Agency, which I can tell our listeners more about in a few moments. It's very interesting to hear what CISA has been up to regarding censorship of ordinary Americans online. The government didn't accept that now four federal judges had agreed on this injunction ruling, and they once again appealed to the highest level.

So the case is currently at the Supreme Court. We will have oral arguments very soon, and we anticipate getting a ruling hopefully in the next couple of months from the Supreme Court. We will have oral arguments very soon, and we anticipate getting a ruling, hopefully in the next couple of months, from the Supreme Court. And I anticipate the Supreme Court will agree with the other four federal judges who have heard our arguments so far and uphold this injunction. That's not a final ruling in the case. That means that the case can now go to the trial phase. And the final ruling in the case will likely take, as I said a moment ago, a year or two. But the preliminary injunction is very important because it will halt the unconstitutional censorship, or at least put a major dent in it, you know, in the months leading up to the election, in the year or two it's going to take for

this case to sort itself out and for us to get a final ruling also, which will probably likely happen at the level of the Supreme Court. The district court judge in this case, just to give our listeners some idea of what's at stake here, the district court judge in this case said if what plaintiffs allege is true, and by issuing the injunction he indicated, yeah, looks like it's true. If what we allege is true, this is the worst violation of Americans' free speech rights in American history. That's not me saying that. That's not our lawyers saying that. It's a federal judge who's examined the evidence we've presented to court and examined the defensive evidence that the government has presented saying that this is the worst violation

of free speech rights in American history. The reason that that's the case is that this is sort of the first case of its kind of the digital age, the age where by pressuring social media companies to change their terms of service, to alter their algorithms, you can end up censoring hundreds of thousands of Americans literally tens of millions of times on Twitter, now known as X or Facebook, or there was censorship even going on on WhatsApp, a platform that most people assume is a private text messaging app where you have Meta, which owns Facebook and also owns WhatsApp, controlling the number of times you could share certain articles or the

number of times you could share certain links. So a link to the Dr. Drew show, when Aaron Cariotti is talking about vaccine mandates, you might try to share that with your intimate circle of family and friends on what looks like a private messaging app like WhatsApp and have the government basically leaning on the social media companies to limit your ability to share that with your close personal contacts. This is the level of algorithmic surveillance and control that this whole censorship regime has been operating at for the last several years, as it turns out. Terrific. Let me interject here, just as a little bit of background. I was actually the first co-defendant with Donald Trump

in his case against Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube for the same thing. I was egregiously censored. And when that lawsuit was filed, it turns out Donald Trump has had a few other things on his plate lately. So that lawsuit has been somewhat sidelined. But to summarize for viewers again, and for the people who don't understand and claim, oh, well, those are private companies, Facebook and Twitter and YouTube, they can kick anybody off. It's, you know, they don't need to let you on the private companies, which is true. The crux of this case, my case with Donald Trump and yours ultimately, however, is that it is not legal for the U.S. government to farm out to another party that which they cannot legally do themselves. So the federal

government cannot shut you down, cannot eliminate your right to free speech, and they can't farm it out to somebody else to do it on their behalf. In lay terms, that's really what these cases are about. I want to change just take a little different bite at this it occurs to me that without that social media let's talk about social media so clearly the government is is at fault here the government is is committed a crime here that goes without saying but so let's talk a little bit about the role of social media without social media we would not find ourselves swimming in the cesspool in which we all find ourselves these days.

Because without social media as a platform, this element of censorship, I would submit to you, could never have happened. The homeless, psychotic guy on the median on La Cienega has free speech because he's not wedded to social media. No one can shut him down. He can pace around and say whatever the heck he wants and nobody will shut him down. You and I, because we rely on these platforms, however, we are subject to this type of censorship. So talk a little bit about your thoughts about how social media fits into this and perhaps a lot of other things with regard to the mean spiritedness of trying to decimate people's characters and everything else. No, so that's an excellent question. And it's a challenging problem, how to navigate this new information environment for ordinary individuals

that are trying to get information on things. And one of the arguments in favor of censorship, I don't think it's a good argument, but it's the argument that the other side is making, is that there's so much disinformation out there and people don't know who to trust and what to trust, that we need some sort of government or multinational corporation-based intervention by the companies or by our rulers to sort of help us have verified voices that everyone can trust. But the problem with that notion is always the question of, well, who decides what's true and what's false? This idea of giving a monopoly on what counts as truth to supposedly neutral individuals who are going to have their own interests at stake and they're going to have their own cognitive and intellectual biases at

work, that's always a recipe for tyranny. That's always a recipe for the abuse of power. That all of us having sufficient intellectual humility to believe that we don't know everything, that we have something to learn from most people, perhaps even something to learn from everyone if we listen carefully enough. And therefore, we cannot endow a government agency. We certainly can't endow the executives of a corporation that are going to be influenced by profit motives and by all kinds of other considerations. I would just say, if you want to look at circumstance history is always a great teacher in these situations and the the most uh sort of

highly developed uh purveyor of what is and is not acceptable and truthful is the spanish inquisition and the and what's just it sounds funny but it is actually exactly what they were doing. And the greatest distributor of dangerous disinformation and misinformation in history is Galileo. And so if you would like to suppress the Galileos of the future, you do so at great harm to all. So really, this idea that they know best has shown repeatedly through history. And then you can easily, of course, go to totalitarian states and Mao is, and there's just one example after the other.

But the one that much, you know, they can easily point to is Galileo. But I wonder if you could talk about CISA and that recently discovered Stanford group. Yeah. So CISA is a little known government agency. I like to ask people, how many government agencies are there? The average really well-informed American could maybe name 10 or 12. There are 434 federal agencies paid for by our tax dollars. One of them was stood up in 2018 after the Trump election. And the Cyber Security Infrastructure Security Agency was supposedly initially meant to protect us against cyber attacks and other attempts at foreign sabotage of our critical infrastructure. Okay,

sounds like a sensible thing to try to protect us from. But their first director, Jen Easterly, decided that part of our critical infrastructure was our election infrastructure. And part of our election infrastructure was what she called our cognitive infrastructure. Now this is the queen of all Orwellian government euphemisms. You may be wondering, well, what is our cognitive infrastructure? It's literally the thoughts inside of your head that need to be protected from bad ideas, like the stuff that people talk about on this show.

So CISA very quickly pivoted to censorship. And basically they said, well, we can't tell the difference between foreign accounts and domestic accounts. So we're not going to draw that distinction any longer. But the constitution draws that distinction, right? The constitution actually doesn't prevent our government from censoring information and propaganda that comes from foreign lands or from foreign actors. But it does prevent the government from censoring American citizens.

And CISA became sort of the central clearinghouse or the nerve center through which all other federal censorship requests were funneled to the social media companies. So size is very central now in what the journalist Michael Schellenberger dubbed the censorship industrial complex. The other important pieces of the censorship industrial complex, you mentioned Stanford. So there are a number of government-organized NGOs. I call them quasi-private entities because they're government-organized, they're government-funded. There's a revolving door. You talked about regulatory capture in the last segment. There's a revolving door between many of these supposedly private nonprofits and the

government. And these entities have basically been set up by CISA. And we now know that they were set up at the request of CISA. This came out just a week ago in the House select subcommittees report on CISA, that they were set up in order for the government to basically outsource its censorship work to entities that looked non-governmental. But the Supreme Court has made it very clear that these kind of government cutouts are also unconstitutional. The government cannot outsource to the Stanford Internet Observatory, to the University of Washington, to Atlantic Council, Grafica, these other entities involved

in the censorship enterprise, cannot outsource things that it would be unconstitutional for the government itself to do. If I hire a hitman and he pulls the trigger, yeah, he's responsible for that murder, but I'm not exempt from responsibility simply because I didn't personally pull the trigger. I'm also going to be held responsible. And the Supreme Court has recognized that when it comes to things like censorship. If the government can't do it, the government can't set up other non-governmental entities to do it on the government's behalf. Another thing I want to talk about or ask you to share, Aaron, if you would, is the

actual, the granular, with some granularity. In your case, this wasn't some sort of ethereal that the Biden administration or that the government or that CISA was saying, yeah, you know, don't let people, you know, people talk about ivermectin. They actually had a list. They were targeting individuals. That's right. Certain, you know, accounts.

Talk a little bit about this. This wasn't kind of an ethereal, in general, we shouldn't let people, you know, accounts. Talk a little bit about this. This wasn't kind of an ethereal, in general, we shouldn't let people, you know, you think that masks are bad. Yeah. So there was some of that general stuff to kind of attempt at narrative control. Anyone who questions this or anyone who questions that policy, you should try to, you know, you should remove them or tag them or penalize them. But you're exactly right, Kelly. I wrote a piece called the White House COVID Censorship Machine for the Wall Street Journal, where I described the back and forth between a guy named Rob Flaherty, Director of Digital Communications

at the White House and a senior executive at Facebook. And Flaherty's basically saying, we sent you these six accounts that we have flagged of person A, B, C, D, and they still haven't been taken down. And he's throwing F-bombs. He's pitching a fit. He's telling them that someone very, very high up in my office, which is the White House, President of the United States, is really unhappy with your company. And in response to that, actually, the social media companies, one thing that surprised us in the documents that we got on discovery, the social media companies actually tried to push back in many of these cases. They really tried to resist the government pressure and they were just beaten down over

time. And this is one of those cases that I described in that piece where Facebook was beaten into submission to the point where they removed accounts that were basically satirical, people doing parody accounts of the president or the first lady that were clearly jokey memes and kind of silly stuff that is obviously constitutionally protected speech. So that's the level at which this was operating. But I think it's also important for people to understand all of this was also extremely sophisticated in terms of it was algorithmically assisted. It's a little hard to wrap your head around this, but the best metaphor I've heard on this is Walter Kern,

who's a novelist, compared it to mixing a record, right? So you got this AI that's basically searching everything that's going on online. You're seeing a narrative emerge here because, I don't know, Dr. Drew had some guest on and that's starting to take hold and go viral. Now people are paying attention to Naomi Wolf. Well, we, the government censors, don't like that. We're just going to turn the volume down on the snare drum. This other narrative that we want to take hold is not organically or naturally going

viral, so we're going to turn the volume up on that. You can do this through basically controlling what people find on search engines and the shadow banning process and all these other sophisticated means so that if you're being censored, you don't even necessarily know that you're being censored. You just put something out there and 95% of your followers don't actually see it in their Twitter feed. It's also, there's some element of it that's sort of, you know, McCarthyism meets technology. You know, this is, it's the ability, that's how it strikes me. And if you're of an age that you don't understand McCarthyism, Google it, because we're really

living this, but again, in a way that is enhanced or made possible because of the technology component. I do want to dovetail back into the conversation that you and I were hearing with Marjorie Taylor Greene beforehand, the fact that she is one person of many who was targeted, sort of characterized. She decimated her personally in the media. And there's an element of social media that I would just sort of pick your brain as an ethicist, as somebody whose core profession is in medical ethics and in perhaps the philosophy of ethics that social media has not done a great service to culture and

to the way that man treats one another. It's been a mixed bag at least. I'll grant you that. Well, at least because I think because of the ability to be anonymous. I'm out there on Twitter or X as, wait for it, Dr. Kelly Victory. It's really easy. You're out there as Erin Cariotti, MD. There or X as, you know, wait for it, Dr. Kelly victory. It's really easy. You're out there as, you know, Aaron Cariotti, MD. There's no question who you are. You use your name, but the vast majority of people hide behind a shroud of anonymity. You know, they're, you know,

gypsy skittle state or something, some made up dame. You don't know who they are and they act in a way that you can act when you're in a mob or when you have that shroud of anonymity. And there's a mean spiritedness that is very, very impactful. It's not just sticks and stones. They have a way to destroy people's careers, to destroy your ability to earn a living, to destroy your family. And just kind of go down that road for a minute and tell me, as an ethicist, where you think this is going. So I agree that the ability to be anonymous basically psychologically makes people feel that they can say things and do things online that

they would never say directly to the person's face or in a mixed social setting and that has created a certain toxicity on many of these platforms. So I encourage people to not have anonymous accounts. On the other hand, we're dealing with a cancel culture that puts people in a very difficult position when they want to speak their minds and yet they're in a very difficult position when they want to speak their minds. And yet they're in a professional environment in which to do so might prove dangerous. So the very first person who interviewed me after I filed the lawsuit challenging the University of California's vaccine mandate, a two-time Emmy award-winning journalist used to work for CBS. Her name's Alison Morrow had a little podcast that she just ran out of her home. She left, um, you know,

mainstream news, went to work for the state of ran out of her home. She left mainstream news, went to work for the state of Washington Parks Department. She interviews me. We talk about the ethics of vaccine mandates, not safety and efficacy of vaccines, just the ethics of forcing people to get the vaccine. That was censored by YouTube, taken down. I know I'm censored.

Your video is no longer here. But she put it up on Rumble and other platforms. Her employer, the state of Washington, said, take that video of Cariotti down or we're going to fire you. She said no, and she lost her job. So I understand why some people choose to share their ideas, share their thoughts, even write under a pseudonym. And actually many famous authors in history have done that for their own reasons. They write under a pseudonym. Maybe we only find out who they are after they're already dead. I'm a little reluctant to take away people's ability to do that.

I think Nikki Haley floated that. Don't quote me on that. One of the presidential candidates, a Republican candidate, floated that idea the other day. And while I can see some of the arguments in favor of that, I also worry about a situation in which people can use the lack of ability to share ideas anonymously in order to destroy people. So it's a bit of a two-edged sword. I mean, I'm in favor of more civility on these platforms, for sure.

And I'm in favor of, you know, also people being able to speak their minds, people being able to be wrong. I mean, the freedom of speech implies the ability to make conjectures. I think Drew is a terrific example of the extremely rare media personality or person in public life who has publicly apologized and admitted mistakes in relation to COVID. It's almost unheard of to do that.

We need to cultivate more of that. That's really, really hard. And I commend Drew for having the courage to do that. It's really, really hard. And I, I commend, you know, I commend Drew for having the courage to do that. It's a great example for others. Um, but if, if people are afraid of being destroyed, if they happen to be wrong in one of their conjectures or, you know, they change their, their mind on something later, I think that's not, that's not a good climate for public debate and for hashing out and trying to get at the truth of things. No, and in fact, the way this show actually came into being was exactly because I had been so egregiously censored, and Drew made the platform available for us to really promote and in a way model that he and I would model what is supposed

to be the cornerstone of medicine, which is robust, vigorous debate, respectful, vigorous debate to physicians, disagreeing about stuff, you know, tossing it around, inviting guests on and saying, you know, well, pushing back. And I think you make a very, very valid point that if people have fear of being shut down or losing a job, or in the case of Allison, losing a job, that's horrific. I made a statement some shows ago with Drew. I had somebody, a caller coming on and arguing with me in a somewhat disrespectful way, but hiding behind a pseudonym. And I said, I will not argue with an anonymous, faceless, nameless person where I know nothing about you. As far as I know, you work for the Chinese government or one of the pharma

companies. And I'm not going to do that. Whether that was right or wrong, I don't know, but it didn't feel right to me. We have the right to face our accusers and at least, I think, have a robust debate with somebody whose name and face we know. But I think you make a valid point that... So we're really in... I said in my open, we are in uncharted territory, uncharted waters in so many ways right now. We had a great conversation yesterday with Joe Allen about artificial intelligence and where that is going in medicine in particular, whether or not it even, you know, I remember thinking that we'd cross the Rubicon when we, you know, when Dolly was cloned in a Petri dish, I thought, oh,

we've gone down a very, very bad road in medicine. Where do you see things going with AI in medicine? Do you think, you know, the conversation yesterday was we're all going to be replaced. You and I and Drew will all be replaced by some plastic version of ourself that has all of the AI into it and knows how to treat patients better than we do. Yeah. So I don't think that's going to happen. I mean, I don't lay awake at night worrying about being replaced by a computer or a bot or an algorithm. Technology obviously does profoundly impact medicine. I think there may be certain aspects of answering questions and providing generic information to patients about things that perhaps AI could play a role in patient education in the future on, you know, back and forth Q&A about how to do my insulin injections correctly and, you know, what's happening with my blood sugar with the sort of practical nuts and bolts aspect of my care. But I think that personal dimension, that dimension of connecting with someone who shows sincere care and concern and solicitude for me as a person, not just me as an example of an illness,

I think all patients want that. I think the fact that it's harder and harder to find that in medicine, patients are feeling that and they're very, very hungry for personalized care with a physician that they can connect with and trust. And so long as that hunger is there, I think there's going to be a huge need for physicians who are actually human beings. So, you know, AI is powerful. There's no doubt about that. There were predictions not that long ago that AI is going to replace writers, but you can still read articles that are written by AI and you know they're missing some seasoning or some flavor that that human voice brings to it. And I personally don't like reading articles that are

written by AI, even if they may be at a pure information level, sort of informative and it's kind of readable English and it's clear. It's not the same form of personal communication that you have between a writer and a reader, right? Who has an actual human voice. I think the same as a psychiatrist. Wouldn't you say as a psychiatrist? I'm sorry. Oh, yeah. I think it's especially in true in psychiatry but well but I want to say

what I do in psychiatry is this an example of what other physicians should be doing in all specialties and the subtleties of that yeah as a psychiatrist I've the what we're seeing I mean the proof is in the pudding we are seeing the very thing that was supposed to enhance connectivity enhance our reach enhance our communication has in fact done the opposite it has a disenfranchised people people are lonelier more more disconnected more than they've ever been we have more than 50% of people reporting that they feel lonely, that they are disconnected, that they don't have friends. So the very thing that was sold to us as our ability to, oh, you're going to be able to incorporate everybody and touch

everybody and reach out and communicate with people around the world and expand your circle. And in fact, people are floating in an abyss by themselves, absolutely devastated. And we're seeing it in the numbers of depression and substance abuse. No, that's exactly right. And the promise during the pandemic that we could work and engage virtually, which we're doing right now, and this is great technology.

It's really cool. It's really great. But I'm sure all of your listeners would prefer to meet the two of you in person. Right. And have a two minute face to face conversation with you at some point. I mean, that would be really special for them. And that kind of interaction would be different than what would happen if you interviewed them on your show or or had a conversation over Zoom. So I just don't see human beings going obsolete anytime soon. Few. Yeah, I am with you on that. Yeah, few indeed. I just, I don't see it. But

it was interesting talking to Joe Allen yesterday. I feel an obligation to bring up a super chat here really quick back to the issue of anonymity uh tropical rocket says many of the federalist papers were written under pseudonyms the right to anonymity is fundamental to the first amendment and liberty in general yeah and there was a time there it was a timing issue right so when those guys signed the declaration of independence and when they talked about you know putting our our basically our life and liberty at risk for this thing. They meant it. They were committing what the British government considered to be treason, which was a capital offense. And that was a very serious risk. And the dissemination of information and preparation

for the Declaration and for the American Revolution had to have been done anonymously. There was no other way to do it So it's a two-edged sword and all of the concerns you mentioned Kelly are Concerns that I share and things that bother me. I'm not a fan of anonymous accounts on Twitter and especially if I have any back-and-forth with someone to basically if they're not willing to tell me their name and Tell the other people who are listening to that back-and- forth their name, I really don't have time for them. On the other hand, I have some friends that do have anonymous accounts. When I hear their reasons

for that and when I see what they're contributing, which is often very good content, I can see that there's pros and cons both ways. Yeah. And I'm not suggesting, by the way, that I've never supported the idea that you shouldn't be able to have an anonymous account. I'm simply pointing out the danger in it because the mob, the ability, I have a particular interest in a deep understanding of mob mentality. And it's one of the most dangerous things out there, the ability for people to behave when they are anonymous, to behave in a way that they would never otherwise behave if their identity were known. People who are anonymous are capable of doing heinous things and behaving in ways that are really unacceptable. So I worry about that. And when I see again, that people get targeted and it's happened to me to quite a bit during this pandemic,

but more so to many people, you know, look back even to see, you take somebody like, this goes back way, somebody like a Monica Lewinsky, take a name from the past, whose life had it not been for social media, I mean, her life would have actually probably gone on and gone forward with that. But the ability for somebody's life just to absolutely be exposed and destroyed ultimately over something personal, I think, is really a shame.

And I think we need to probably figure out how we're going to work that. Or just society defines who it really is, I guess. Are we really a civil society or not? There's a reason that members of the Ku Klux Klan had the robes and the hoods. Because if you expose your face, then it's kind of game over for those sorts of behaviors. Good point. It's a really good point. I was also thinking about how we live in a time of irrational certitude. And someone sent me a, really, the three of us are rationally uncertain.

Rationally uncertain. That's the proper position of every clinician, every scientist. And a friend of mine sent me a Mark Twain quote that, as you guys were talking, I felt this sort of lurking in the background. He said, it ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. Yeah. No, it's so true. A kind of appropriate skepticism. The ability to say, I don't know, or I think, but it looks like this is, but I'm open to other evidence.

We seem to have lost that. But just to complicate this picture again, Mark Twain is a pseudonym for Samuel Clements. Exactly. Yeah, yeah. Right. That's right. So for one reason or another, he decided not to use his real name when he wrote,

when he wrote his books. So, uh, and I don't know all the reasons that he, he did that personally, but, uh, he's not the only,

we're getting into, uh, history. We're getting into parallel, parallel territory. Most people in the public world don't use their actual name. Uh, they just, they have some, it's weird it's very myself included i'm dr pinsky where did yeah where did dr drew come from you know well i had some reasons for it at the time but but it's it's one thing i've

learned treating celebrities almost every one of them do not you i'd have to start using their real name to reach them and they're often very touched when you actually call them by their real name. So it's really something. The clock's winding down here, so I want to give you a few minutes to talk a little bit about what you are doing now. I mean, obviously, you've got this big lawsuit going, and thank you for carrying the colors on that because it's an incredibly important piece. I am certainly hopeful you will reign sort of successful in that lawsuit because it's really a critically important lawsuit.

But other than that, talk about, you lost a position in ethics of all things for raising an ethical question. Talk about irony. So talk a little bit about what you're doing now and what other lawsuits you might have in the wings. So I have a small private practice in psychiatry in Southern California.

But most of my time is spent continuing to do work on ethics and public policy with the Ethics and Public Policy Center, which is a think tank in DC. I'm also continuing to work on this issue of censorship Ethics and Public Policy with the Ethics and Public Policy Center, which is a think tank in DC. I'm also continuing to work on this issue of censorship and getting some support from the Brownstone Institute. I've got a research group with Brownstone that's trying to unpack the details of how this censorship industrial complex is working. So we have me from the lawsuit. We have Andrew Lowenthal, who is one of the

Twitter Files journalists as part of that research group. And we're really digging in to what happened with some of these government cutouts and how they functioned, how they were set up, and exactly kind of how the mechanics of this operated, both because that contributes to our lawsuit, but also trying to educate the American public on what's happening. Because this new landscape of censorship is very different from the old days when a government official might overreach by leaning on one newspaper or one journal to suppress one article or take out a couple of pages from this one book. What we're talking about here is completely different on a scale and scope. It's hard for people to wrap their heads around.

So just trying to do more research and writing on what censorship in the digital age looks like, and what are some of the ethical and constitutional legal issues wrapped up with that. That's really taking up the majority of my time and mental space now. But I think this issue is so important to get right because if the government can control the flow of information online, they can pretty effectively control what and how people think. And once you're in a place like that, you don't need gulags and concentration camps. You just need algorithms shutting people out of public debate, and you can pretty much control the political landscape.

And I think that's not a place where most Americans want to be. That's not a society that most of us want to live in. That seems like the liability of the transhumanism thing, Kelly. That's where I could agree. That's what I said yesterday. That's what I said yesterday. My closing remarks are we will have created a world in which none of us wants to live. This is not.

I can't think of anything more important. I've talked quite a bit in recent months with Drew about, for me, the existential crisis I'm in as a physician is if I can't go to the journals, for example, the storied medical journals, if I can't trust my own ability to do research and to be exposed, to know how the heck do I even function as a physician when I can no longer trust the information to which I can avail myself? I don't know how to get out. So I think that what you are doing and addressing this issue of censorship, disarticulating the cozy relationship between the pharmaceutical complex and the medical journals, that whole thing that we talked to Bobby Kennedy about,

these issues. Because otherwise, there has got to be free flow of information, all of the information, so that I and you and Drew and every other thinking human can go get the information and decide for ourselves what is right, what is not right, tease it out, sort the wheat from the chaff, and be able to function. Otherwise, God help us. Yeah, I agree 100%. We are against the clock, guys. Yeah, Erin, we're against the clock. And I thank you as we applaud you, we support you, we are here doing what we can to sort of amplify your messages. And if there's anything else you can think of, you'd like us to be doing, I know I speak for Kelly.

If I said we'd be happy to do it. No, I appreciate that. I mean, we got a win in the court of public opinion as well as well as in the courts. So just, just being willing to explore and talk about these issues, let your, let your audience know that this is happening and, and kind of what's happening. I think that's every bit as important as, you know, what the lawyers are doing in the courtroom right now on this and other

censorship cases. I really appreciate what you guys have done. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Keep us updated. Okay. We'll be sending good thoughts. Thanks. And Kelly, I just wish you and Ron a great Thanksgiving. Are you going to be in Colorado or Southern California? Do you have a plan? I'll be in California, in the great state of California. Great.

Yes. Stay in put. Have a great holiday. Thanks. You too. And we'll see you on the other side. Yes. Have a happy Thanksgiving. Thank you so much. Yes. Yep. We'll see you next week. We will see you next week. Cheers.

All right. Perfect. See you then. And for us tomorrow, Jennifer Say, she has an exciting new documentary out. Lo and behold, the New York Times has come out and said that the school closures turned out to be a terrible thing. Who could have imagined that? Well, Jennifer was one. I was one.

Mark Garagos in here on Monday to give us an update on some of his lawsuits about the overreach, a particular local government here. And Kelly Levesque with Seamus Bruner. Tom Renz comes back. Nicole Angemi coming in. Ed Dowd coming in. Got a bunch of great guests coming in here. So stay with us. Keep an eye out. Thank you all for being on the Rants. Thank you to Dr. Cariotti. Thank you to MTG today. And we will see you tomorrow, three o'clock Pacific time. 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.