Ask Dr. Drew - More Doses = More Deaths? Dr. Spiro Pantazatos Exposes Data on mRNA with Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 135

Episode Date: October 16, 2022

Spiro Pantazatos, PhD – asst. Professor of Clinical Neurobiology at Columbia & a research scientist – planned to stay locked down through the pandemic until a vaccine arrived. But as he studied the data, he says he discovered an alarming pattern of adverse events that increased in areas that administered more doses. He co-authored a study on mRNA-induced fatality rates: data that he says has been suppressed by most major publications and journals. He joins Dr. Kelly Victory LIVE on Ask Dr. Drew to expose his findings. 「 LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE: https://drdrew.com/10122022  」 Dr. Spiro P. Pantazatos is an Assistant Professor of Clinical Neurobiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and also a Research Scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute with a special focus on biomedical informatics, computational neuroimaging, neuroscience, and mental health. Follow Dr. Pantazatos at https://twitter.com/SpiroPantazatos and https://telemimesis.substack.com  「 SPONSORED BY 」 • BIRCH GOLD - Don’t let your savings lose value. You can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it. Claim your free, no obligation info kit from Birch Gold at https://birchgold.com/drew • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get 10% off with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. Hundreds of millions of people have received a COVID-19 vaccine, and serious adverse reactions are uncommon. Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician and Dr. Kelly Victory is a board-certified emergency specialist. Portions of this program will examine countervailing views on important medical issues. 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. 「 GEAR PROVIDED BY 」 • BLUE MICS - Find your best sound at https://drdrew.com/blue • ELGATO - See how Elgato's lights transformed Dr. Drew's set: https://drdrew.com/sponsors/elgato/ 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 For over 30 years, Dr. Drew has answered questions and offered guidance to millions through popular shows like Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Dr. Drew On Call (HLN), Teen Mom OG (MTV), and the iconic radio show Loveline. Now, Dr. Drew is opening his phone lines to the world by streaming LIVE from his home studio. Watch all of Dr. Drew's latest shows at https://drdrew.tv Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

And welcome everybody. We are delighted to welcome our guest today on our Wednesday with Kelly Victory, Dr. Spiro Pantazitos. I'm hoping I'm pronouncing his name correctly. I've made my brief brush with the Greek language and believe me, it was brief. So we are, of course, out there on Twitter spaces. I finally unmuted you guys, so I see you there on Twitter spaces. Thank you for joining us. And we'll be streaming on all the various platforms. And if you raise your hand, want to come and ask a question, depends how into what we get today, whether we'll have time for questions. Generally, Wednesday shows we do not. Dr. Pantazitos is a neuroscientist at Columbia University, who, like many people, saw some data he's going to share with us. And he raised his hand and said,

should we be having a mandate of vaccines for all these young people for whom the risk of vaccine might be worse than the risk of the illness? And there are a few other bits of data that sort of rolled in on the heels of that, that suggests we're not really doing much even with the vaccine such as it is in that population. Again, it's possible to have a risk benefit age stratified vaccine policy. It's possible. We'll talk about it. Kelly Victory and Dr. Spiro Pantazitos after this. Our laws as it pertains to substances are draconian and bizarre. The 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.

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. And we used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat. You have trouble, you can't stop

and you want help stopping, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. Bet MGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long. From tip-off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with the sportsbook born in Vegas.

That's a feeling you can only get with BetMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM. A sportsbook worth a slam dunk. An authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions.

Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. I'm, of course, watching you guys on our restream chat and also on the Rumble Rants, and you guys were already spinning about the Pfizer representative who admitted that they had not tested the virus

in terms of protecting against transmission and infection, which of course they didn't, guys. Just use your brain for a little second. What they tested was the probability of the vaccine preventing infection, and the initial data was overinflated. They didn't then take those people and take them and see whom they infected. That would have been an ethical problem, and it would have taken a long time to do that. It was not something that they were set up for. They made a presumption. The presumption was if their virus is not getting through, it's going to reduce infection.

But of course, there was lots of many, many flaws. That is not the only flaw in the studies they were doing. So we'll get to that and more with Dr. Pantazitos in just a second. Also, I'd urge you all to go take a look at John Campbell. He's been going wild lately. He clearly is very upset with the YouTube policies. I guess he's gotten a strike or something because he's using that incredibly ironic, sardonic British humor to point out that he's not saying any of these things. He rolled the tape today, for instance, on the Dutch EU parliament member interviewing the Pfizer rep and him, the EU

parliamentarian, pointing out that this is unconscionable, this is possibly criminal, the fact that the government's based their entire vaccine passport policies on the notion that there was no transmissibility or transmissibility was affected by the vaccine, which of course was never proven. It turned out to be absolutely not true. And he's right. He's right. But of course, then he comes back to John Campbell and Dr. Campbell goes, well, I didn't say that. Of course, I can't say this. We're not saying that. The U2 policy absolutely prevents this. This is not our opinion, but you might want to listen to what this man has to say.

Really very funny. So let's bring our guest, and he's an assistant professor of clinical neurobiology at Columbia, a research scientist, planned to stay locked down through the pandemic because he, like the rest of the people, was believing what was coming out of the government. And he was hoping to stay locked down until a vaccine was developed. That was, in fact, the policy of our government and many governments. But he says he discovered an alarming pattern of adverse events that increased in areas that administered the most doses of the vaccine.

Again, he's a scientist. He does data analysis. And he co-authored a study on mRNA induced fatality rates, data that he says has been suppressed by most major publications and journal. And I will point out to you, there was a weird phenomenon. It sounds paranoid to say that. If he had said that five years ago, I would have said paranoid. I watched it happen real time with the mask studies there was a giant dutch uh danish mask study that everyone was waiting for it to be published in new england journal and then suddenly no and then no anywhere except annals of internal medicine finally

accepted it and then it was sort of uh submerged after that it showed that masks guess what surgical masks don't work let Let's bring in Dr. Pantastos. Welcome. Hi, Dr. Drew. Thank you for having me. Did I frame that? Did I frame that correctly? Is that pretty much your story? Yes. My story, yes. Correct. Yes. So, yeah, basically, I co-authored a study on vaccine mortality rates using publicly available data back in October. And that was in response to the mandate from Columbia University, which they announced in April of 2021.

And basically I can show some, some of the, some slides and some figures from the study that try to explain what it's about. What are the conclusions? If that's a good place to start. Yeah. So that's the study it's on research gate. So it hasn't been, the preprint hasn't been suppressed, but like you said it's been diplomatically rejected by many editors at medical journals that I've submitted it to. It did get peer reviewed at two journals more recently, but then it was also rejected after the peer review for reasons which I would say are not substantive. So in that sense, it has been

suppressed. But the preprint has gotten over 500,000 views. In the comments section, it sort of serves as an open pre-publication peer review. So I try to address lots of critical comments, which are good. It means people are thinking about it and they want to chime in and critique. Is there a general theme to the critiques? Is there something in specific they're zeroing in on that you think has substance? The most substantive critique is that some people claim that it's subject to something called the ecological fallacy. So the approach that this uses, it's basically called ecological regression. So what it's doing is basically taking publicly available CDC data where they publish the number of vaccine

doses that are administered in each state for each every day. Then they also publish the number of vaccine doses that are administered in each state for each every day. Then they also publish the total number of deaths, total deaths, as well as the total number of COVID deaths and non-COVID deaths. So you can actually disentangle all-cause mortality from COVID mortality versus non-COVID mortality using these publicly available spreadsheets. Anybody can go to CDC website and download these spreadsheets themselves, and they can replicate the analysis they'd like to. The use of a mycological policy doesn't apply in this case because we're actually taking total counts of vaccines and relating them, correlating them with the total number of deaths across States. And the term ecological fallacy normally applies when you are taking an

incidence rate or some type of aggregate average measure across States and then applying regression to that. So, so that, that was the closest. So my question is, are the causes of death coming up in any particular silo? In other words, one of the things I was talking to Alex Berenson about his observations about all-cause mortality being up since the end of the pandemic, or sort of we can argue about whether that's a factual statement or not, but that's essentially what he's observing. And, uh, he was showing the all cause mortality was all over the place. I thought it was going to be cardiac or stroke, but it was all kinds of stuff.

What were you finding? Um, yeah. So with this, the data that I was looking at, uh, you couldn't actually look at the cause. There was no cause, um, associated with it specifically. It was just the number of deaths in each state and looking to see whether those are correlated or predicted by the number of vaccines that were administered in those states the previous month. Was there an age cluster associated with it?

Yes. So you can basically look at the CDC subdivides those total death counts and the non-COVID and COVID deaths by age groups. So you can actually look at those separately. The problem is the vaccines aren't age specific. They only tell you the total number of vaccines below age 65 and the number of vaccines above 65. And then I think 18 is another cutoff. So you can get the number of vaccines between 18 and 65, and then from 12 to 18, but nothing that's more fine-grained than that. And those aren't the same age categories that they use for the mortality data. But there are some limitations in the data. But basically, I can show, maybe if we go to the second slide, I can discuss a little bit about the vaccination data. So for about 23 countries, he was basically taking, for each week, he was taking the percent increase in vaccinations in that particular country and

plotting them against the Z-score normalized mortality for that country as a function of lag in weeks. So you can see in the top panel here, what he's doing is just plotting the increase in percent vaccinated for week 13 of 2021 versus the Z-score normalized mortality for week 21 in this case. So that's a lag of eight weeks. So in that case, there's a negative correlation across those countries. And then on the bottom panel, he's doing something similar, but it's for different, for week 12 versus week 14. And that's a lag of two. So there you see a positive correlation. So the more vaccinations, the more higher mortality.

So let me, you know, when you finish a paper like this, you stand back and you give your analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the observations, right? And I remember now reading this study when you, I heard about it, it seems like it's been out a little while, and I heard about, I thought, I had one question that I wanted to ask, and if you controlled for this in any way. It occurred to me that the way that particular, that last slide, was one of the ways you could interpret it, or one of the confounding variables could be, that older people were more likely to get vaccinated and revaccinated. The older you, you know, you might have been selecting for countries with older populations for whom are at risk and do benefit from the vaccine and are more likely to roll it out. Now they may still might die and they still might not have great, you know, we can argue about whether the vaccine, how much it benefits them and whether they have excess deaths as a result. But it just, one of the confounding variables seemed to me,

it could be just selecting for older populations. Yeah, well, he also looked at age-segmented mortality. But yeah, the vaccine is not age-segmented. You're correct. So the only way that you can really disassociate that, which I do in the U S data analysis is temporally. So we know that the vaccines were first prioritized in the older age groups earlier in the year, and then it wasn't rolled out to the younger age groups until later. So when I, you know, I could show that graph now, or I can, well, I'll finish, I'll finish showing the next graph. So if we, yeah,

if we go to slide three yeah. So I'll finish showing the next graph. So if we, yeah, if we go to slide three, um, yeah, so I'll finish sort of summarizing. Yeah. So that I'll finish summarizing. This is a different graph. That's not included in the paper that that's on research gate. This is an aggregate graph. Um, that's basically showing the, if you, if you group all of those, um, correlations as a function of lag.

So week one and week three, week two, week four, those are both lags of two. And then you look at what are the percentage of correlations that are positive versus negative as a function of lag. You get this type of plot where during the week zero, you see mostly positive correlations, which are adverse, which are shown in yellow. And then right around week five, you see negative correlations, which is the blue. And then there's some debate about what that second yellow hump means. I think it might have to do with some confound from the boosters, which were given about six months after the primary series were given so like you said there's a lot of confounds with this type of analysis

and there's also covid waves that could be confounding a lot of this analysis but what i think is really neat about this analysis is that it does at least the the first five weeks is consistent with what we know about adverse events from vaccines. Usually they happen within six weeks, or that's the accepted risk window. And that's also consistent with what you see in VAERS. There's a big, most deaths are reported within 24 hours or the first day, and then they typically fall off. And that's not completely explained by propensity to report over time. So in that sense, this is informative. But the US data,

so the analysis that I contributed does control for a lot of these confounds. And I'll go back to what you brought up before, which is distinguishing sort of this age, the fact that the vaccines were given to the older age groups. So if we go to slide four, slide four, so this is basically similar to what we were doing before, where you're looking at a

correlation between vaccines on the x-axis and number of deaths on the y-axis, except you're adjusting for prior year deaths. So it's basically a way to adjust for the differences in population size and other statewide factors that might affect mortality differences across states. So in this case, so the temporal pattern you see is that you see significant, so this is thresholded by essentially correlations that survive P less than 0.05 corrected for the vaccination term. So this is only showing those slopes where it survives a stringent statistical criterion. And when you just threshold and show those slopes that show any significant relationship between vaccination and mortality, you see that earlier in the year, February, March, and then into April, it's only the older age groups where you see a significant effect. Um, and then it's not until you hit may, um, where you start seeing, uh, effects in the younger age groups.

So that sort of popped out of the data. Um, and it's not something that, um, you know, that the fact that that pattern sort of emerges, uh, to me is it was a signal that, um, you know, this is a real signal because it does match the temporal. Yeah, because it does make sense in terms of the vaccine. Yeah. We're going to bring Dr. Victory in here in just a second. The thing I really shake my head about is what happened to our colleagues?

What has gone on here that you can't get published you can't get into the usual discourse of scientific back and forth yeah uh and critique what what what you have to be silenced because you have something that looks problematic what is going on yeah that's something that i've i've spent a lot of time thinking about. So when I first had these findings, I was like, oh my gosh, I got to get this to the Lancet. They have rapid publishing. They have an in-house statistician. They don't even need to send it out to peer review. The data is publicly available. They could have their in-house statistician check it. And in a day, they could see whether it's real or not. And this is something they would want to get published before the booster, the first booster comes out. Right. And that was, that was not,

they didn't they, so I appealed their decision. They initially rejected it and they said, Oh, we already have enough COVID submissions. We can't prioritize this right now. I appealed it. I said, this is not your usual COVID submission that you get. And they essentially said, well, correlation doesn't mean causation. So we don't know that just because these results don't necessarily mean that it's the vaccine that's causing this mortality differences, right? Have you had a follow-up? Somewhat. I submitted, I'm sorry. Did you have have any follow up data to try to

yeah yeah yeah so in response to that I did sort of add a whole section about causation and when you view these data in conjunction with VAERS in conjunction with all these other independent means of confirming this data and the fact

that the actual mortality risks that you compute from these slopes line up with predictions that you would get from bears and predictions that you would get from uh bears uh deaths and it's under reporting factor but what's going on here why why yeah yeah so i responded so in a way and in a way they made you know i strengthened the manuscript But what's going on here? Why, why does it put you on? Yeah. Yeah. So I responded. So in a way, and in a way they made, you know, I strengthened the manuscript. I appealed again. I didn't hear back. Um, but I took that manuscript and I sent it to many other journals, uh, and got similar, similar responses.

So what is going on? What's your theory? You said you're thinking about it a lot. Give me, give me a thumbnail at least, because I'm trying to figure out what happened to us. or the financial conflicts of interest between journals and pharma to the extent where they don't want to necessarily publish something that might go against their sponsors. So that might be part of it. Another part of it might be at the time it was very, a little bit too taboo or too against what everybody else was saying. So I think there's maybe a fear of publishing something and then having to retract it for one reason or another.

So I think, I think a lot of it's just peer pressure and feeling hesitant to publish something that's going to be so different in its conclusions. Is there anything that's normally what we seek in medicine and in science? We normally look for the, for the outlying sort of papers to see if there's anything there. Is there, is there anybody else publishing anything that's showing anything similar?

So there was one paper in scientific reports, Sun et al that looked at EMS call data in Israel and found that there was a essentially a 25% increase in cardiac call events, specifically following the vaccines, but not the COVID waves. So that was encouraging. And I think if you visit the paper now, it still says that due to some critiques, the editor is considering criticism of the paper, but they haven't retracted it. So that's encouraging.

How about the paper that the Florida Surgeon General used to make his decision about vaccine recommendations? Was that a reasonable – I know there were lots of criticisms of it. I read it and you know, the, the, the biggest thing is people aren't comparing against COVID, which is weird to me. They're not, but okay. What do you say to that? Yeah. Yeah. Well, I haven't had a chance to read it. I was sent it the other day and I'm not on top of, um, the literature these days as much as I should be, but I haven't had a chance to read it. Um, but, um, but yeah, I don't know if you have any, but yeah, it's consistent. I mean, it's good. It's a signal. It's still a lot of signals out there and exactly what the signal is and how

serious and compared to COVID itself. I mean, this would, I can't be, people aren't rushing to answer that question. It's the question of the day. And I do not understand. I can't imagine what is causing people to delay. And to say peer pressure, I don't know. It's a little too broad. Can you tell us what day and what year this was happening to you? This was in the spring of 20. Spring of 20.

Yeah. Right. Um, summer, uh, the summer of 20. Oh, I'm sorry.

What was happening to me when you were publishing this and when you were getting, uh, yeah, almost a year ago, actually almost a year ago, uh, 2021 October.

So I started, I sent the, uh, the first version beginning of October, and then I put the preprint on ResearchGate around the middle of October. So this will be the one. Let's take a little break here. I want to bring Dr. Kelly Victory in, too. She's got lots of questions for you. We really appreciate you being here and sharing your data with us.

And, again, we're just trying to get an approximation of the truth, which is something that seems of little concern to anybody these days, which is so nutty to me. And I don't know how you get at the truth without looking at all aspects of something and considering every piece of whether controversial or contrary or confirmatory data i i don't understand it um and kelly will tell you we were talking just uh before the mics heated up about someone from the cdc it was dr paul offit who you know made the observation very similar to what you're worrying about and was told his services are no longer warranted and And that seems to be the mode, which is eliminate, silence, marginalize anybody with an alternative position. In the meantime, people may be dying unnecessarily. And that is, I can't even believe those words fall from my lips.

They may not be. Maybe they're not. Maybe we can sort of nail this down and the risk reward is worth it there seems to be signals suggesting otherwise we'll take a little break and then we'll bring dr kelly victory in to talk to dr pentastos consumer price index yet again going up stock market in turmoil what's our government doing to quell the surge of inflation that is gutting American families? Oh yeah, they're spending more money and adding to the burden.

Don't bury your head in the sand while your savings get decimated. It's time to do something about this. Visit birchgold.com slash drew. Now I don't give investment advice, but you can visit birchgold, B-I-R-C-H, gold.com slash drew. Birchgold will send you a free info kit

on protecting your savings with gold in a tax-sheltered account. Great people with almost 20 years of experience converting IRAs and 401ks into precious metals IRAs. Don't let your savings lose value. Visit birchgold.com slash drew and claim your free, no-obligation info kit from Birchgold.

You can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it. Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, and thousands of satisfied customers. Check them out now. Visit birchgold.com and secure your future with gold. Do it now. For a long time, I've been talking about the holy grail

of skincare, GenuCell, and the amazing results that both Susan and I have seen. I'm a big fan of GenuCell's Silky Smooth XV. It's a moisturizer soaked right into my skin instantly, and with its immediate effects, I saw fine lines and wrinkles visibly disappear within 12 hours. Susan loves GenuCell's Vitamin C Serum. Infusedst vitamin C absorbs to the deepest layer of the skin thanks to GenuCell's proprietary skincare technology I am a snob when it comes to using products on my face the dermatologist makes a ton of money from me but when I was introduced to GenuCell I was so happy because it's so affordable and it works great I was introduced to the Ultra Retinol Cream, which I love at night. All the eye creams are amazing. People notice my skin all the time,

and I'm so excited because it's actually working. And right now, GenuCell has bundled my favorite products and Susan's for you to try today for up to 60% off retail pricing. That's right. Save up to 60% on my favorite GenuCell products today. Just go to GenuCell.com slash Drew to see what's in our bundles and receive an extra 10% off at checkout when you enroll in their personal concierge at checkout. That again is GenuCell.com slash Drew. G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash D-R-E-W. Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. 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, public health, to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population. This is uncharted territory, Drew. And welcome, Dr. Kelly Victory. Of course, ER doctor, board certified, as well as training in public health from Harvard University. And I just fell upon a tweet that I wanted to read really quick, which is, Drew, you need to stop being dumbfounded. It's a bad look for you.

And he said, it's not complicated. I'm afraid it is complicated. It may be a bad look for me to appear and be dumbfounded, but I don't think I will ever get over this. I think I will remain dumbfounded that what we've been through. Even once we fully explain it, I will remain dumbfounded the remaining,

my remaining days on earth. I don't think I will ever feel anything other than dumbfounded because this has been so extraordinary from the beginning. I've just been like, what, what is going on here? But Kelly, I'll let you take over for a while. I'm not pulling myself out completely from Dr. Pentazos. Pronounce your last name correctly, by the way, Pentazos.

I would say Pentazatos. Pentazatos. Pantazatos. Nay. Yes. Okay. Okay. I will let Kelly take over. That's okay.

Thanks. Thanks very much for joining us. I want to spend a few minutes more talking about your particular study and then move on and talk a little bit about what's going on at Columbia University. I certainly agree with the Lancet statement and what all of us know as scientists that you're right, correlation does not prove causation. But the reality is when you add your study and your analysis of this mortality data to the multitude of other studies that are out there looking at adverse events. We talked last week about the Pfizer data showing that for every one hospitalization that was prevented, there were 4.3 serious adverse events. With serious adverse events, including death, but death or hospitalization,

permanent disability, those sorts of things. And then there are huge numbers of studies really looking at the VAERS data now, the V-safe data, as well as the studies that prove definitively that the vaccines not only don't stop you from getting COVID, they actually have negative efficacy. At five months, you actually have an increased risk of getting COVID. And people who are three shots are at higher risk than people who have two shots. So when you add all the data together, your study, I think, is very, very compelling. And then if you look, you know, what we've done in past years with past vaccines, the swine flu vaccine in 76, they pulled from the market when there were 25 possible associated deaths. Back in 1976, correlation also didn't prove causation, but they took it seriously.

So what the heck has happened over the last 50 years that all of a sudden, when the correlation is potentially with the death, causation is potentially death, that they aren't taking this seriously. Did you look at all at other adverse events or did you look specifically and only at death? In this paper, just only at death. Okay. Have you spent any time looking at it? Did you say, have you spent any time looking at the adverse event data? Other, you know, not death being

the most adverse. Yeah. Yes. I've read, I've spent some time on the myocarditis data. That was a focus of this petition letter for university mandates since that hits the group that's most affected or one of the groups that's most affected by adverse events specifically myocarditis and young men um so yeah i've spent um a little bit of time looking at various reports um and uh yeah that would i would say that's about the extent of my, um, in terms of looking at those events, uh, in depth. Cause I, I thought what, what you were going to say that the Lancet and other journals pushed back on is that you couldn't prove that these weren't COVID related because that's

always their fallback, you know, this was COVID. Yeah. Yeah. So just to clarify, so I submitted it to The Lancet, which has a family of journals. So I wasn't expecting that The Lancet would necessarily want to publish it, but they had like 20 other journals in their family

that they'd normally kick the paper to if they don't want to publish a certain paper. Sorry, what was your original question? Well, I just, I thought that that was going to be their pushback. And we know from other studies that that's not the case. Yeah. So since then now, so I've adjusted the paper now where I specifically referenced the FDAs. You know, before I wasn't saying, okay, look, the FDA has omitted myocarditis as a risk. Subclinical myocarditis could be a cause of a lot of these deaths. I also referenced a previous study in JAMA that used the vaccine safety data link data set, the Vaccine Safety Datalink dataset, which claimed that the vaccines, if you look in one of their supplementary tables, they actually show evidence for a protective effect of the vaccines against

stroke, myocardial infarction. These are events that have been specifically related with adverse events of the vaccination. So now all of a sudden their supplementary table is suggesting that the vaccines are protective against these events. So there's like a P the P values are very low and the relative risk is saying that there's a protective effect effect of the vaccines. And so I wrote a comment. This is when I was able to write comments on pump here here. I said, look, this is weird. And the authors don't

discuss the fact that their supplementary table is suggesting that the vaccines are protective against the very events that were previously associated with the vaccines through dozens and dozens of case reports. So I threw out the notion, was it possible that maybe the labels were switched? Did the group labels get switched and did they somehow, through some human error, potentially switch the labels? And unfortunately, you can't actually look at the same data

that the authors had for their analysis because the vaccine safety data link, they don't provide you, they provide you with, you can't actually get the published data set that they used with the raw data. So that's another sort of reason why I don't trust a lot of these papers that do claim the benefits outweigh the risk and the vaccines are completely safe because the underlying data is not accessible. Absolutely correct. Dr. Paul Offit being sort of disinvited from the FDA advisory panel on these, because the problem when you don't have an advisory panel, when the advisory panel is involved in authorizing or recommending these vaccines, then that becomes data of public record. They release that data to the public and people are able to see it. When they don't employ the advisory committee and

the FDA does it behind closed doors, it's essentially a tacit way of saying, we're not going to be transparent. We're never going to allow you to actually get your hands on the data that we used to make these decisions. With regard to this common argument on their part, on the part of those who are promoting the vaccines, that these are COVID related, there was a huge study looking at 790 people who had COVID prior to the availability of the vaccines. And that showed that that 790,000 people did not have a higher risk of myocarditis than the average population. So these aren't COVID related. These are clearly vaccine related incidents. Move over now, talk a little bit about

your experience at Columbia University, about how it was that you went down the road. I know you were doing this analysis, but then you got very actively involved specifically in arguing against the university's vaccine mandate. So talk a little bit about how that played out. Sure, sure. So after my preprint came out, I had some colleagues at Columbia reach out to me and we sort of formed a group. It started off as a small group. Okay, what are we going to do about these mandates? We're aware that the risks outweigh the benefits, and this mandate doesn't make any sense from a medical standpoint. standpoint and eventually it grew into a petition letter that includes about 140 citations to

supporting data published as well as preprints and other links related to legal FOIA requests to make a lot of this data more transparent and publicly available. So that petition letter was sent to the president's office to help raise their awareness about what the data really was saying. And I implored them to not necessarily trust the public health agencies when they make certain claims, such as the vaccine benefits outweigh the risks for all ages. And I asked them to rely on global data instead. So by providing all those references, I was hoping that they could use that information to inform their policy rather than blindly trusting the public health agencies. I have a question to your point about blindly trusting the public health agencies.

What is so threatening? Really, here I am bamboozled again i'm in disbelief what is so threatening uh about uh addressing mandates for a vaccine that doesn't prevent infection doesn't prevent uh uh transmission and might have a risk reward profile that is in advantageous. Why is that threatening? I don't, I can't understand it. If,

if we were talking about a 75 year old, it's an entirely different risk reward diathesis. Why is it threatening to bring it up for a vaccine? That's not doing much. I mean, it's not, we're not going to prevent the original intent, was prevent the overwhelming of the healthcare system. We're not going to prevent transmission.

We maybe are going to prevent some severe disease, which doesn't occur in this category. In fact, Caleb, I just texted you a brand new article that Monica Gandhi just put up on Twitter showing that Omicron is generally mild like we thought. A ton of data comparing it against Alpha and Delta. I don't know if you can throw that up there, Caleb. I'm working on it right now.

I'm fairly doing that, too. Kelly's weekly reminder, Drew, that there still is not a single research study that shows that the vaccines decrease the severity of the illness. Not a single study. Fair enough. Fair enough. It hasn't been shown by anybody. But those kinds of blank spots in the research are also mystifying for me why they don't just don't do it and see what it shows. But this is so phantasmagoric to me. It's like I'm in the upside down.

And thus the weird bamboozled feeling I have all the time. It would seem perfectly natural to have a conversation about the risk rewards and whether we're really doing anything here. And why does that become not just something that we were going to attack as wrong, because I'd like to hear why it's wrong, but is so threatening to bring up that everyone, the three of us have to be burned to the stake for bringing it up. I'll let Dr. Pentazitos, there's the article I was just referencing. Alpha to Omicron disease severity and clinical outcomes of the major SARS-CoV-2 variants. It's a good study. It's in Journal of Infectious Diseases.

And guess what, everybody? Omicron is a lot less virulent, especially in young people. But go ahead, Dr. Pentazos. Sure. Pentazos? I'm saying it wrong again. Pentazos. I'm saying it wrong again. So just wanted to clarify,

I'm looking at my title on the bottom of the screen. I am currently on leave, but I expect to be back. But I just want it to be accurate in case anybody, in case any of the administrators are watching. So I just wanted to, sorry, what was the question again? Well, the question really was – well, let me ask a question that just occurred to me. What do you teach normally? What classes do you normally teach? So I do research.

I'm primarily research, and I teach informally. I'm mostly brain imaging, so methodologist, analyzing brain scans, fMRI scans, structural scans, and some PET scans. Oh, that's cool. Any of the famous neuroscientists at Columbia? Any of the labs of the famous neuroscientists at Columbia? Oh, yeah. So I'm working in the division of Dr. Mann, John Mann, who mostly focuses on suicide.

So that's my focus mostly is on mood disorder and suicide. And one of my questions I was going to ask you go ahead joe yeah well so the question was why is this bringing these issues up that are the usual discourse of medicine why so why threatening it's one thing to want to call it wrong and to argue about why it's wrong but threatening that that's the thing i can't understand i think i think because um a lot of people in power had to make difficult decisions uh early on in the pandemic and i think they genuinely thought that mandating uh the vaccine was going to be what brought people back to campus it was going to be what helped people get through this pandemic. That's fine. They were wrong.

That's okay. It's okay to be wrong. I was wrong about a lot of stuff. Yeah. I was wrong about a lot of stuff too, but why is it threatening to have somebody engage in the normal discourse of science? Right.

I mean, I think it's the same type of arrogance that sort of makes some people think that they can make personal medical health choices for everybody, especially people that they haven't met, is also the same type of hubris that makes them not admit that they're wrong. That is a fascinating and packed statement. There's a lot packed into that, but I don't disagree with you. But go ahead, Kelly. Is the vaccine mandate currently in place at Columbia University? small rollback. So they actually did mandate the first booster for faculty and staff back in December. But I think enough of the faculty and staff did not take it so that now it's optional for faculty and staff. However, the booster is still, the first booster is still mandatory for students. So the students, they didn't announce the student mandate until April, which is well into almost midpoint of 2022, when there's no excuse in my mind at that

point, there's so much data out already, especially on myocarditis. And so I don't think that there was, so at that point, I would not give them as much credit versus early in the pandemic when there wasn't so much data out. And especially given that if you look at their FAQ, Columbia doesn't even mention myocarditis as a risk. They mentioned the stroke risk with the J&J vaccine, but their FAQ, at least in July, under safety, they don't mention anything about the myocarditis risk with the mRNA vaccine. So there's either some miscommunication going on or something. I don't know what's going on where even if they took away the mandate, they're still encouraging the vaccine in everybody. And they still haven't updated their guidance to actually reflect what we know about the vaccine risks and benefits. At this point, the data is just so overwhelming.

If you're looking for it. If you're not looking for it, then, you know. Right. So we know that the risk from COVID for people under the, healthy people under the age of 30 is so low as to be almost indistinguishable from zero. We know that the risks of the vaccine are significant, not only for myocarditis, but for other things like Bell's palsy and Guillain-Barre and a host of other problems. And then on top of it, we know the data I was reporting, which is that the vaccines have negative efficacy. The boosters actually increase your risk of contracting COVID.

So when you add all those together, what is the justification? What is the university responding to you when you are imploring them to use international data, you are bringing this information to their attention. What is their argument? Right. So they haven't responded with an argument. I've tried to engage with them in terms of printing the data. So actually since the fall of 2021, I tried to make myself available. Look, I'd like to meet with the decision makers. All I'm asking for is a half hour to present some data, vaccine safety research data that I've been looking at, some of my own original research. And so I haven't been able to really receive an argument.

So, yeah, that's the, yeah. But, yeah, go ahead. I was going to say, one of the things I wanted to ask you about, because you're a neurobiologist and specifically a neurobiologist who's been doing brain scanning and has an interest, especially interest in personality changes, depression, suicide, those sorts of things. One of the things that hasn't been reported on much or that many people haven't talked about in terms of adverse events are some of these personality changes and psychological changes that have been reported following vaccines. Dr. Peter Bragan, who is a psychiatrist, has written about it. But have you looked into that at all? Are you aware that there's even a conversation out there about

specifically personality changes, increases in depression and suicidal ideology that may be related to these vaccines? Oh, yeah, definitely. So I'm actually collaborating with React 19, which is a nonprofit. It's an organization providing emotional financial support to people who have suffered vaccine injuries. And based on my discussions with them, I have heard of suicides, so vaccines causing chronic pain and grief, which have resulted in a few suicides. So I know it happens. And I'm actually going to be collaborating with them to do an online brain imaging study. So we will be looking to see if we can see some signals in the brain scans that might help us learn more about what affects the vaccines may be having in people that have persistent neurological symptoms or psychiatric symptoms or following

the vaccinations. Yeah, so you want to learn more about that that would be fascinating if you look at the vers data the reports of new onset seizures just that specific diagnosis new onset seizures following covet vaccines are 32 times higher than any other vaccination that's ever been reported. I have my own theories about what that might be, why, and I suspect it may be related to nanoparticle deposits within the brain causing a seizure focus. But that could also explain subtle personality changes that we see. Sometimes the first symptom, for example, of a brain tumor is not pain,

but it's actually a personality change. And I'm wondering if that might be going on. So I think it would be fascinating if you could do some imaging studies and look to see if there are signal changes in people post-vaccination. You're currently on leave from Columbia. Is that related to your work on these mandates? So I might have, so officially it's related to my being not compliant with their vaccine policy. So the first year, last year, I was 100% remote because I work computationally and I can log into my computers and do my work remotely. Their statement, their actual guidelines published specifically said that the policy applied to people who are going to be present on campus.

And that was in the initial email that they sent. So they didn't publish any word that the policy applied to people who are 100% fully remote, nor did they say that the consequences would be that they would not be able to get their appointment renewed or that they would lose their employment. That was never written anywhere in the policy. The only consequence they mentioned was that you would not be able to gain access to campus because you need a little pass. You need to show that you're compliant. You either get vaccinated or you get an exemption and then you you have a program on your phone that you can then use to access the buildings so there is one frequently asked question where they say the policy applies to remote workers but that

wasn't emailed to everybody and that wasn't until later on in the year where they put that up. It's like getting an affidavit. They didn't reach you. It's like an affidavit. Didn't quite get you. I have a question. Given you've been thinking a lot about this, have you been contemplating the possibility of taking some other booster other than the mRNA vaccines? I know, obviously, Novavax is around. Again, our friend Monica Gandhi,

infectious disease doctor, went to India and took Covaxin as a way of getting a whole viral sort of immune response. What about you? Right. So the problem is those were engineered for variants that are no longer in circulation. So it doesn't make any sense to get a primary series. They're still mandating primary series, and that virus is long gone. And I still don't understand the bivalent. Why would you need to make a vaccine against the previous? I'm not a virologist, so I don't know. Yeah, maybe it's a concern it will come back. There's some resurgence of Delta or something, I guess. I don't know. It sounds, seems paranoid to me.

I agree with you. But I'm asking really sort of a pragmatic question to just meet their need by taking something that you think might have less risk. Is that something you've contemplated?

So I've had COVID before, so there shouldn't be any need. I mean, that's the best form of immunity. So I guess, I don't know if you, yeah, I don't know if you call it too principled or whatever, but I have a, maybe I have a little bit of oppositional defiance. If it's a good cause, if it's a good cause. Because if I capitulate to this, then I might as well lie over my back and whatever else they want to do to employ. So I feel like somebody's got to stand up. I'm going to ask you again.

I'm going to ask you again. You seem to have thought a lot about what you're standing up to and what this is. Can you help me understand what you're standing up against a little bit better? Are there just people that like to exert their will on others? I can't quite get my head around that. Is it fear of being wrong and then accepting liability for that? What's your theory? What do you think has happened to us? I think that's what you just said was good. Maybe there's a hesitancy to admit anything that they may have made a wrong choice. How do you right those wrongs? Who's accountable?

Also, how do you tell all the people that you almost coerced into getting vaccinated so that they could keep their job. Well, we just had this. We just had the sort of astonishing, not even astonishing to me, matter of fact, revelation in the EU parliament that Pfizer had no data on the vaccines affecting transmissibility. And the transmissibility was what was used as the legal rational rationale for passports and that passports caused marginalization job lost discrimination on a mass scale like never before and uh nobody says uh hmm i guess we shouldn't have done that or maybe we thought

we were doing the best we could or anything did nothing which i find I find, and Pfizer's response is they were doing the best they could at the, quote, speed of science, the speed of science. Kelly, can you tell me what the speed of science is? I'm not sure I understand what that is. We're all three of scientific training. What was the speed of science? Where did we learn that? Yeah, as I've said from the very beginning, I really think the issue is they can't. They have dug their heels in so far. The ramifications, Drew, of them acknowledging, coming out and saying, we were wrong, and all of you who lost your livelihoods, lost your military careers, ended up with profound injuries, died, have myocarditis, whatever it is, we were wrong. It would open up a floodgate that the likes of which I don't think you can really get your arms around. They've already undermined the entire confidence, uh, that purity that people have in public health, uh, that they will never regain in my lifetime. It will never regain it.

And God help us when we have the next event, because there will be a next event and no one's going to listen to what we have to say at all. But I think the repercussions are just so overwhelming with regard to what it would mean, not just financially, but in terms of people really potentially being held criminally liable, that I think I don't see them really ever admitting it. What I want to know is your experience, you're on a college campus, a college university campus, and I know you don't teach a class regularly with them, but I assume you interact with young people. What's the, where are the students on this? Have they, did they drink the Kool-Aid?

No, actually, I've done a lot of, I actually, you know, I did circulate the petition amongst undergraduate students. I have a fair amount of signatories who are undergraduate students. In the U.S.? In the U.S., at Columbia. But you know what I mean? They're not foreign students? Because when I traveled to Europe 18 months ago, the French youth were standing up to their government for exactly this issue.

And at home, at the same time, I was reading headlines that the students were demanding more mask wearing, demanding more marginalization of the unvaccinated. That was our student population. Are they coming around? I hope so, Slowly, but surely. I think it's just a matter of time. And I try to leave some wiggle room for the administration to, you know, I have faith. I have faith that they'll adjust course.

And, you know, I understand that from their perspective, I'm sure they have pressures that they have to face. And I'm sure they're trying to. And I do feel like I have to put our disclaimer up. Caleb, put the disclaimer up. Because we are not saying anything different than what the CD says, that they're safe and effective and a certain age group definitely be taking them and get all boosted up. Safe, effective, reduce your risk of severe illness, although Kelly had pointed out that the risk has not been proven yet.

It's been my experience that that is probably true. And again, I dealt with a lot of elderly patients. That's my predominant population right now. And I'm boosting them all up. And they've all done very well. And I've used a lot of Paxlovid. The question we are asking, what we are addressing today, is not that physician. What we are asking is a basic question about vaccine therapy.

Is there a way to risk stratify people for the vaccine so we understand what we're doing? I don't give yellow fever vaccines to everybody at the junior college down here because they aren't going to sub-Saharan Africa. I don't give shingles vaccines to three-year-olds. I don't give pneumovacs to 12-year-olds. There is a age stratification and a risk stratification in all vaccine therapies I've ever seen. Why this one doesn't get to have that, even have the conversation about what the risk stratification might be, or it ought to be. Thank you.

Well, Andrew, importantly, it changes over time. While I agreed with you early on, early on, I mean early on, that you could have made the argument that a 75-year-old in a nursing home would benefit from this experimental vaccine because their risk of a severe outcome was so great. Fast forward October 2022, that calculus has changed. The variants predictably have become more contagious and less virulent as predicted. And we have a huge number of readily available, safe and effective treatments. So for me, I will go on the record saying I wouldn't recommend these for anyone in October 2022. And I think the data are mounting. And I would say, good. And I applaud you for your position. I have a different position.

And this is how doctors normally relate to each other. That's why there's something called second opinions. Doctors differ in their opinions. I still feel, I'm still doing it. I'm still doing it. But I don't think your opinion is insane. I don't think you need to be silenced. I don't blame you for your opinion.

I know why you have that opinion. I just arrived at a slightly different place given my experience. That's all. And in the state of California, I assume you're aware, doctor, that in the state of California, they passed AB 2098, which now criminalizes my position. I can actually lose my medical license and be sanctioned and fined and all sorts of other things,

burned at the stake probably, for daring to have this outrageous medical opinion. Luckily, New York might not be far behind, by the way. Yeah, I know. It's true. But he doesn't have the license problem that we have. Right, right, right. Yeah. It's for medical doctors, although soon, you know, they will. It is. It reminds me a bit of Maoist China, you know, where they they first rounded up all the scientists and people who were opposing the government,

they were the first to go. So I think scientists. Kelly's gone all the way there, ladies and gentlemen. I think my wife has a similar kind of feeling about it. Susan, are you okay? Does that inflame you in some way? I mean, I've been watching this from the beginning, a non-doctor, and I've seen like exactly in 2021, we were listening to other people talk about how they were getting censored and not getting their

information out there and predicting what is here now today. And I'm going to give a shout out to Dr. Zev Zelenko and may he rest in peace. But he's smiling down on us today because he was right and um but it it's just so sad that even in a college setting that they were getting shut down you know it's not it's not right i mean in and i'm glad that you guys are all able to agree somewhat here so that's all we're at least we can have the conversation. That's the important thing. And that's really what it's always been about. Yeah.

You know that, you know, you saw in my little open that I am all about the risk-benefit calculation. I preach it night and day. And so I applaud you taking this on behalf of an age group that is largely young and healthy. And the idea of mandating these things for that particular age group, it fails the risk benefit calculation. So I give you a lot of credit. I'm sure you've taken unmitigated flack for doing this. And I'm suspecting you've had some personal and professional risk in doing so.

But what you're doing is important. And I give you a lot of credit for it. So thank you. And hopefully they come around, like you're saying. Hopefully they do. And thanks for opening up here with us because we're trying to shine a light on it. So it's not easy because you are afraid of losing your job or having pushback. Well, and I get, you know, none of us are trying to take extreme positions, even though Kelly went all the way to the cultural revolution.

Yes, God bless her. That's my jam. I'm just pointing out that I went to a liberal arts education, Drew, just trying to be. I'm aware. I'm aware and yeah and but and then by the way had you said that three years ago i'd go come on now as i'm trying to make sense of all this craziness like man that's just that's an opinion wow yeah how far we have come

yeah doctor i'm just gonna say pentazotose again i can't pentate pentazotose pentazotose pentazotose yes yes thank you uh uh spiro dr spiro is there is there anything else we should be addressing here we left have we gotten through most of the the material here? I think so. Oh, I could discuss a little bit about where those claims, the former president is claiming that the vaccines have saved millions of lives. Go ahead.

I could talk a little bit about how those, so those claims come from modeling studies where they basically try to estimate a generative model where they basically assume a lot of parameters and they fit certain curves to the actual COVID deaths or excess deaths in each country. And then they simulate what would happen if the vaccines were taken away. And then they basically get this computer generated curve that they then subtract from the actual death curves. And then they say, oh, look, all of these deaths would have happened if the vaccines weren't around. The problem is those numbers never get validated. And there's a lot of flawed assumptions that those models use, for example, how long the vaccine immunity lasts and how effective the vaccines are. Those are all parameters that can affect the calculation. So I have some on my research gate, I have some commentaries where I go in depth in one of the more famous

modeling studies that came out in the Lancet infectious diseases where they claimed the vaccine saved 14 to 20 million lives. So that's one of my things that I'll plug. So if people want more information, if they want to learn more about why those modeling studies are dubious, they can visit my research gate and get a breakdown of how those modeling, where those modeling studies misspecify certain parameters and how that specification gives you inflated numbers of vaccines, of lives that were averted by the vaccines. Because it's very difficult to argue, if you say, oh, the vaccines have this much mortality risk,

someone will say, oh, but vaccines have saved this many million lives worldwide. This is published in all the high impact journals. You know, people hear that number and they say, oh, well, everybody should get vaccinated because of that. So it's important, I think, to increase understanding about where those numbers come from so that people can understand. What again were the assumptions that were wrong? So the one with this one study, it assumed, for example, that the vaccine lasted for a full year. That was one of the default parameters that the vaccine-induced immunity lasted for a full year. That's wrong. That's wrong. And then staying, and actually some of the, so there's another, so yeah, that's one example.

The other wrong assumption is that the lethality of the virus, other than adjusting for Delta relative to wild type and alpha, the models don't adjust, don't assume that the virus changes lethality or infectivity, only the transmissibility. So they assume that the transmissibility, the time varying transmissibility is what accounts for the excess deaths. They don't include other contributors of excess deaths, like deaths of despair. So the lockdowns that may have increased drug overdoses or suicides or deaths from the vaccine. So they don't include parameters that account for those excess deaths. They assume all the excess deaths are coming from COVID. And when you assume, make that assumption, you force your model to, in order to fit the excess death curve, you force your model to fit free parameters that you don't validate you fit the excess curves the output you actually get a good fit but um um sorry yeah i don't have

slides for this i should have i should have included some um okay so we can talk again sometime um okay yeah so i didn't mean to distract i put a note up on his screen i didn't mean to distract. I put a note up on his screen. I didn't mean to distract you. Sorry. To let him know I can show his screen. I don't know if I'm trying to verbally explain it, but basically you have so many free parameters. You can make any model fit any kind of data

that you want. The problem is how do you validate those numbers? In this case, you can't because they're predicting a scenario that never happened, which is a case where vaccines weren't mass administered. And they're saying, oh, this computer simulation says this many deaths would have happened if the vaccines weren't around. But it's because of misspecification in the model that's basically leading to those estimates. And then, yeah, so there's another Lancet infectious diseases article that looked at VAERS, and they had a statement, the vaccine benefits outweigh the risks, and they cite three papers,

three modeling studies. So if you'll notice that the risk benefit studies always compare COVID hospitalizations averted versus one specific adverse event from the vaccine. So they say, well, if we give this many vaccine doses, we'll avert this many hospitalizations. If we give this many vaccine doses, we'll have this many events, certain myocardias, for instance, or stroke events. The problem there, there's so many problems, but the problem is you're kind of comparing apples and oranges. Hospitalizations averted versus an adverse event would be more straightforward if you just compared the actual adverse events between natural infection versus the vaccine. That would make for a more straightforward risk-benefit analysis. When you're looking at hospitalizations averted, there's a problem. Those modeling studies make other, if you look in those papers, one of the assumptions that they make is that only

the unvaccinated transmit the virus. So this was early on before they knew that vaccinated could also transmit the virus. So you actually read those studies and you see all these assumptions are like, wait a minute, this doesn't. This should not go into the model. Well, that's a massive, massively wrong assumption right there. That's the whole thing. I can't believe they published that. There are tremendous numbers of confounding variables that they didn't include, including the fact the number of people who had natural, you know, when they're determining how effective the vaccines were preventing death, they didn't take into account natural immunity or the fact that many people were treated with medications, the I word and the H word specifically, when they had COVID and that that's actually what prevented the death, not the subsequent vaccination and on and on. So the, you know, dubious is the kindest word, Dr. Spiro, that you could use about their

data. Dubious at best. Well, just the not understanding the vaccine didn't prevent transmission. Just that one fact should have disqualified the study completely. It's a fundamental assumption of the study is that't prevent transmission. Just that one fact should have disqualified the study completely. It was the fundamental assumption of the study is that vaccines prevent transmission. Yeah. I mean, those studies were rapidly published through the CDC's own MMWR last year. This Lancet study that came out earlier in the summer of this year referenced those studies, which were saying oh the vaccine benefits outweigh the risk well they they referenced these these modeling

studies that were flawed um and and uh they also downplayed sort of the VAERS data in certain ways so that's I put a lot of that into the petition letter as well to try to help people see how, you know, these journals can also be a source of misinformation, if I'm allowed to say that. Yeah. And yet they established a standard of care against which AB 2098 prevents me from speaking. I'm going to speak to the board soon, so I can't wait to bring up stuff like this.

So we better wrap this thing up. Cheers, keeping notes. Yeah. Dr. Pentazatos, Dr. Spiro, thank you so much for sharing your research with us and for risking your hide with us just by discussing things that we would normally, in the normal course of scientific discourse, just have conversations about that we've been forbidden to normal course of scientific discourse just have conversations about that we've been forbidden to have for quite some time now and thank goodness we can start to have them i think and i hope it causes no ill for anybody kelly as always thank you i'll give kelly

last thoughts no just again i would just say i appreciate what you're doing uh we we need people out there doing exactly the sort of thing you're doing, which is having the guts to bring the data, say, here's what I'm seeing. Here's the data as I analyze it. You're a career scientist. You're not somebody who just is pushing back against mandates. You're pushing back based on what the data are showing us. And they are irrefutable.

And for all we had to hear over these last two plus years about follow the science follow the science here you are following the science bringing it to the attention of people who should care uh and i hope that you don't give up and and are successful because uh you will go down i promise you on the right side of history i think she's right i I think you're right. And it's never been fine to stand up to this kind of thing.

But I'm seeing lots of requests for more here on the Restream, and I know several of you have your hand up over on the Twitter spaces. I tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to go over to Locals. Susan, Caleb, is it Locals.com slash Dr. Drew? Yes, that's over to Locals. Susan, Caleb, is it locals.com slash drdrew? Yes, that's correct.

Locals.com slash drdrew, and I will put up a video and chat there. Just go to my page, locals.com slash drdrew, and you can put up an active chat where you can ask me questions, and I'll answer them in real time on video there. In about 10 minutes, I'll head over there. Yeah, we're going to try something new. And then the Locals, if you want to join locals, go on to locals.com slash drdrew and support the show.

And then we'll try to get to your questions. Well, I will get to them today. Today I will. Because we'll try to do more of these special locals little events here. And we'll be taking more questions tomorrow as well. Yes, so I'll be in here taking questions tomorrow. On Twitter spaces. And next week, Dr. Kelly and i bring in vanai prasad who has been uh on fire on twitter

recently and uh i i never i he everything he says and thinks about is spot on as far as i'm concerned but i'm interested to see if kelly agrees with that and he uh he has been, let's see, he's been on fire lately about masking young people and vaccinating, you know, very young people. He's just been, there's just, he's been incensed about the way the FDA is functioning. Well, he has my approval on that. I agree 100%. You know, I've been screaming from the rooftops about the insanity of the masks and social distancing and all of this, the completely unnecessary fact that we never needed to close schools and on and on. So he and I are in lockstep on that. And I think he will bring some additional data to the table.

I'm really looking forward to that conversation. Yeah, that'll be good. Just two quick things. Again, when the school closure thing jumped out at me as such a vividly inappropriate policy was when I was watching the Ukrainian women with their children escaping into Poland, and they'd throw a microphone at everybody's face. And the women would go, yeah, it's terrible. The men are staying behind fighting. What this guy's doing is terrible. The kids have been out of school for two weeks. Two weeks? We've got to get them back in school. It's been two weeks. And it jumped out at me. I'm like, yes, two weeks is a long time when you're in high school or something, for God's sakes. And they put them in Polish-speaking schools. They had to learn a new language and get to school because they needed

to be educated. It's such an important thing. And, of course, developmentally as well. Well, it will be decades before we truly understand the profound impact of that atrocity. Truly, there are kids who will never catch up. There are many kids, interestingly, that I talked to personally who ended up not going back to school. There are kids who are juniors and seniors in high school, in particular. They were out for a long period of time. They just said, after a year and a half, they said, I'm not going back. I've gotten a job now. I've gotten a job. So these are kids who would have graduated from high school who didn't and never will because they just gave up and said, the heck with it. The profound mental health issues, psychosocial issues,

the fact that, I mean, they lost, you know, these kids, there was no such thing as, quote, virtual learning. These kids, you know, missed just fundamentally two full years of their educations, and you don't just catch that up overnight. It's going to take a long, long time. Absolutely terrible. A reminder that Kelly, as it was a psychologist, before she became a physician, and then my number two point was Kelly was the first person I heard declare, as you said, long ago that this social distancing thing was invented out of whole cloth. And now we have actually, you and I have interviewed.

If anyone wants to go back and listen to Paul Alexander, he was in the room when this six-foot thing was invented out of whole cloth. And they were trying to decide between 60 feet and six feet. And they had no reason to choose either. And I've since talked to another person who was in the administration at that time. And it confirms what Dr. Alexander had told us. So anyways, we're going to send everybody over to locals.com slash drdrew. If you have any questions or you want to Have a private one-on-one Private one-on-one

Yeah with Drew You want to join us? I don't know if we do Yeah I would love to But I cannot We'll do it on another day Yeah I would love to Do it another day

But you have to be a supporter in order to get in on the chat. Yeah, it's horses. I knew it. I could see it in your eyes. I know you have to go and get the horses back. But anyways, thanks, Dr. Spiro, too. I don't know if he's still there. We want to thank him again, too.

He was just wonderful. Yes, excellent job. See you next Wednesday and also tomorrow for questions, if you wish, just question show. And then, as I said, in about 10 minutes, I'll be over at locals.com slash drdrew. Kelly, thank you. And thank you all. We'll see you tomorrow. And don't miss next Wednesday with Vinay Prasad.

See you. Thanks, guys. We're back still. Here we are. See you guys. 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 information at www.ncdc.gov.