Ask Dr. Drew - mRNA Is “Natural Born Killer” Says Drug Inventor Dr. Richard Urso w/ Dr Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 175

Episode Date: January 31, 2023

Dr. Richard Urso is an outspoken critic of mRNA treatments for COVID-19 and the dangers of its lipid nanoparticles. He has widely encouraged the use of existing, repurposed drugs to fight the coronavirus. As a drug inventor (and holder of the patent for an FDA-approved medication), Dr. Urso has a deep understanding of the FDA’s normal regulatory process. Dr. Richard Urso is the sole inventor of an FDA approved wound healing drug. He’s been involved in Covid-19 since February 2020. He treated his first patient March 12, 2020 and has successfully treated over 2600 COVID patients since. He’s a Co-Founder of the Global Covid Summit which has 17000 Doctors and Scientists. He’s been in the White House, in Congress and he’s testified in the US Senate. He’s worked with members of the FDA, the CDC and the NIH. He’s served as an expert witness in multiple states including testifying before the Texas and Tennessee Senate. Follow Dr. Urso at https://twitter.com/richardursomd 「 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. 「 WITH DR. KELLY VICTORY 」 Dr. Kelly Victory MD is a board-certified trauma and emergency specialist with over 30 years of clinical experience. She served as CMO for Whole Health Management, delivering on-site healthcare services for Fortune 500 companies. She holds a BS from Duke University and her MD from the University of North Carolina. Follow her at https://earlycovidcare.org and https://twitter.com/DrKellyVictory. 「 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 going to welcome Dr. Richard Orso here in just, oh, he's back. We're back to our original timeline then. Great. So let me tell you about Dr. Orso. I wasn't actually prepared for this. He is an ophthalmologist, but he, and he also has had his own FDA approved medication for wound healing. And as a result of that experience, he has learned how the FDA works and he has some strong ideas about what has gone down during these extraordinary times. He has been the co-founder of the Global COVID Summit, which has over 17,000 physicians and scientists.

He has been to the White House, in Congress, and he's testified in the U.S. Senate. He has worked with members of the FDA, the CDC, and the NIH, and he has served as an expert witness in multiple states, including testifying before the Texas and Tennessee Senate. So he's been around. He's got some strong ideas. I will speak to him for a few minutes first, and then we'll bring Dr. Kelly in here. And, of course, we'll be watching you on the restream

where we see you on Twitch, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, wherever you are, we see your comments. We'll get going 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. Where the hell do you think I learned that? I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people. I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals.

Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat. If you have trouble, you can't stop and you want to help stop it, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. We'll be right back. 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. Hey, everybody. Welcome. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. though it's a rice dish. I apologize for that. Susan liked that. And he is quoted as having said that the mRNA vaccine is a, quote, natural-born killer. And he has been an outspoken credit, and now my dogs are getting in on the action as well. He has widely encouraged the use of existing repurposed medication, and he has a deep understanding of the FDA's regulatory process.

So let's bring Dr. Urso in on this conversation. There you are, sir, and just out of the OR. Thank you for joining us. Yes, sir. It's great to be here. I'm looking forward to the conversation. So we're going to go for a few minutes, just you and I, and I want to read you the New England Journal of the three lead articles that just came out this minute while you were in the operating room. And their quote is, I'm going to give it to you. I've got the wrong quote here. Ah, data indicates that boosting with the new bivalent vaccine resulted in enhanced cross-reactive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 variants, a decreased gap between immune recognition of the variants and the ancestral strain,

and the induction of potentially more universal-like response against CoV-2 variants. So the New England Journal is going hard on the antibody response to CoV-2. They don't seem to be controlling or at least reporting any adverse event. They, of course, are not reporting age-specific response or age-specific risk-benefit analysis. What do you make of all this? Well, I think, you know, this has been going on since the beginning, this emphasis on antibodies. Of course, it's only one part of the immune system, and I usually refer to it as kind of the's only one part of the immune system. And I usually refer to this kind of the left-handed side of the immune system. You know, the natural, we had requisite T cell recognition early in the whole pandemic from prior exposure of the body to

cytomegalovirus and other viruses, actually not even old coronaviruses. So we had some requisite T cell responses early on prior to any antibody induction at all. So our immune systems are quite miraculous. And I think the lack of recognizing what the T cell contribution is, what the cellular immune response is, the natural killer cell response, all these things have kind of led to this idea that antibodies are the only things that

matter. And so when they actually even talk about it, I think this is a response. I think they hold some of these data sets in reserve. And this has come out since, as you know, the IgG4 class switch has just kind of rocked the whole antibody story where we're actually creating in the third shots, we're creating a major class switch in IgG antibodies to IgG4, which actually is a tolerating immunity that actually makes the virus thrive and creates for the most part a virus that is not neutralized. We do know that if you look very carefully at the immunoglobulin responses, the neutralization is not as aggressive

as it was in the early Wuhan and Alpha strains. So the current bivalent vaccine is not neutralizing at the same rate. And in fact, in the triple vaccinated, we're seeing an IgG4 class switch, which actually makes the person more susceptible to disease. And I think the numbers are quite there. When you look at the triple vaccinated in England in the middle of the year in 2022, 94% of the deaths were in the triple vaccinated. You know, this is just more smoke and mirrors in my mind. And before I bring Kelly in here, I just want to know what your thoughts are on what happened at the FDA in terms of what's been mysterious to me is I understand the rush to bring out the vaccines. I understand those were extraordinary emergency situations.

I also understand that people resigned over their concerns about the speed with which these things were being brought out. What's preventing us from going back and filling in the research that we would normally do? Is it because the drug companies won't fund it? Is it because there's too cozy a relationship? Is it they've just decided that they're going to use the massive experiment they have underway on humanity? What's preventing them from doing what they do? You know, at these high levels, it's hard to know. You know, in my experience, I was starting all the way back in the 1980s, you know, so I didn't feel all this, you know, this undercurrent of corruption.

I just did not. I know in general, I had this idea that if a company had more money, they obviously had more influence. It seems natural. But I didn't feel what I'm feeling now. What we're seeing now is almost fraudulent. You know, if you look at the studies, the original Pfizer studies, there's 183, I think, percent more serious adverse events in the vaccinated that could have required hospitalization. There was 22 in the first 90 days, 22 deaths in the vaccinated versus 13 in unvaccinated. So there's a lot of data in the original studies that was concerning. And so just looking at symptoms is which what they looked at

and not looking at the bigger picture you know morbidity mortality you know it's it's it's a shame that we rushed them through and if you if you understand lipid nanoparticles which I do I work with lipid nanoparticles they're very toxic these are not we say lipid you're thinking of fat natural fat think of more margarine think of say lipid, you're thinking of fat, natural fat. Think of more margarine. Think of Crisco. You know, you're thinking about things that the body has a hard time digesting. And what happens when the toxic substances of these get into macrophages and other cells like natural killer cells and cytotoxic T cells are engulfing these monocytes, you're finding a destruction of those cells.

And it's a dose response. So there was lots of reasons to be very cautious because the distribution we know before we ever started COVID, that these would be widely distributed in the body. This is the natural, what happens with the pinnacle particles, they don't stay in a separate place. They don't do that. They've never have. I thought maybe there was some proprietary technology that I didn't know about. It turns out not to be true. But I was going to be really shocked. I'd say that would be Nobel Prize winning work. In my experience, the distribution went to the bone marrow, wiped out the bone marrow. We were trying to carry chemo to the brain. It's hard to direct them. It's hard to control them. They distribute widely. and that would be beautiful

for an inborn error metabolism, like a child with a genetic disorder, you want it widely distributed. But for a pathogen like a virus, which is a respiratory virus, you'd prefer to have IgA in the lungs, and instead we've got IgG created in the brain. And so the wide distribution was a real well-known factor, which gave me a lot of caution right off the bat. And weird that we are just not seeing good research

on exactly these questions. I mean, the questions are being raised all over the place and there just doesn't seem to be any research done on it. So just really quickly. And you hear Paul Offit, I'm sorry, Dr. Drew, to interrupt, but Paul Offit and some of the others, you see I'm kind of backtracking a little bit on the fact that they've approved these. They're sort of, in their own sense, they're saying they're kind of stepping away from the responsibility and saying, hey, these are rushed.

Certainly the risk-reward, it's always a risk-reward. And certainly with the younger population, it didn't ever really make any sense. Right, and yet they're still pushing, which is, again, I just always worry that I'm missing something because it seems so uncanny to just forge on with the mandates and the pushing. I just can't quite get it. But okay.

But really quickly before we forge on, were you using lipid nanoparticles for a stem cell delivery or something? Where do you use that in ophthalmology? We were trying to get distribution in tissues where we were having difficulty, the eye, the brain. You basically have to, it's hard to get stuff to direct there. You have to do intrathecal injections. And so we thought maybe this would be a good, you know, good, you know, you can charge these particles. Some people are really good. Some of the PhDs that have worked with it, really good

at manipulating these particles. And, and, and, you know, these are potentially things that at the time, this would go back almost 20 years. So it was still in its, in its infancy. And it turned out that we thought, wow, this is a lot harder than we thought. You know, let's go on to some other projects. So that's basically what ended up happening. And so when it came back, I thought maybe some of the science had changed. And as I looked at it, I could tell it hadn't changed hardly at all. There were no major breakthroughs. And even to this day, as you see, the Pfizer data is widely distributed.

And then more importantly, you've got the payload, which again, would be wonderful for a genetic protein we're lacking, that it's lasting for making production for two months or more. This would be great news. Like, hey, it's going to widely distribute in your body. It's going to make this protein for two months. You get a shot six times a year, you're good to go. But of course, that's not what the technology is being used for. It's being used to make a foreign protein. It does, and the risk reward ratio is taking healthy people and injuring their their tisa their their their cellular immune responses that's the lipid nanoparticle and then you you know the other side at all which is very and we have a we have a biotech uh expert that follows

us and comments on our Twitter spaces oftentimes. See if she's there. She's not there right now. And she had grave concerns about some of the protein particles that were being made by the mRNA vaccine rather than the full spike protein, as well as the fact that the lipid nanoparticle, as you said, some of the epi structures are running headlong into protein S and protein C and affecting coagulation. And so that's kind of interesting. Again, interesting stuff needs further study.

It does. And, you know, that's a good point. So one of the things when people would say to me, hey, what's happening in these shots? What are the good batches and bad batches? My comments would often be, and I think some of this is bearing true, is that there's a production issue right off the bat. It's not about people intentionally, nefariously making bad and good batches. They're all trying to make good batches. out and you're having people that have never handled the materials at different temperatures mixing it in in vats that are basically retrofitted from monoclonal antibody facilities and things and they basically are you know having a difficult time getting high quality production and I think now as we get further along we're starting to see that and that's why I think the batches are getting more side effects as we get in the third and fourth

boosters or the production quality is up and I think like Ies are getting more side effects as we get in the third and fourth boosters. The production quality is up. And I think, like, I didn't take into account all the little things you said. Like, maybe they're making microRNAs and other things that are actually harmful. Yeah, and I, you know, Covaxin has now been approved, and it looks a lot safer to me. Why aren't they pushing that one? Why not, you know not educate people about options? But we'll get into all that with Kelly.

I'm going to bring her in just after this little break. We're going to take a little break. We're here with Dr. Richard Urso. You can follow him at RichardUrsoMD. That's Richard U-R-S-O-M-D on Twitter. And we'll be back with Kelly and Dr. Urso right after this. GenuSeal has so many products that Susan and I love. Their XV Moisturizer locks in moisture, making dry spots a thing of the past,

which is especially great with the colder weather, of course. And with the immediate effects, too, you can see these results in as little as 12 hours. Guaranteed or your money back. Susan loves GenuCell's Vitamin C Serum, the new deep correcting serum with lactic acid that hydrates your skin and reduces fine lines while preventing future wrinkles from forming. Don't believe me? Listen to Susan.

I am a snob when it comes to using products on my face. The dermatologist makes a ton of money for 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. Take advantage of this New Year's promotion by going to GenuCell.com

and getting 60% off now with a complimentary gift set when you subscribe to my favorite package at GenuCell.com slash Drew. All orders are upgraded to free shipping for the rest of the season. Use code Drew at checkout for an extra 10% off your entire order. That is GenuCell.com slash Drew. G-E-N-U-C-E-L dot com slash D-R-E-W. My guest is Philip Patrick. He is a precious metal specialist, trains at University of Redlands. He has spent years as a wealth manager at Citigroup, and his current position is with

Birch Gold Group. So gold has always been somewhat of a safe haven, particularly in times of great turmoil, much like our present moment, I imagine. Gold has always traditionally been a safe haven asset. Gold specifically has always been about wealth preservation, right? Gold has always held its buying power. You can look at as far back as you like in history and biblical times, one ounce of gold would buy somebody 400 loaves of bread. And today, it does the same thing. So it's a store of value. But I would say in times like this, as you mentioned, it's particularly important when you're dealing with things like 40-year high inflation,

you know, the air that's coming out of a stock market bubble. These times in particular tend to drive gold and silver up quite significantly. If things are different, the solution needs to be different as well. So I encourage everyone to get informed. And we have a lot of good information here to help your listeners. Just a reminder, I am not a financial advisor, and I do not give out financial advice nor investing advice. 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 slash drew and secure your future with gold. Do it now. 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 as always, we welcome Dr. Kelly Victory. Kelly. Hey, Richard. Thanks so much. Hey, how are you? Thank you. You are a rock star. Not only did you just get out of the OR, but I don't think you're more than, what, 24 hours off a plane from Sweden with some of our colleagues. So thank you for being here. You're remarkable.

Before I get into the weeds on a lot of the science regarding the things that we're talking about here, and I do want to do that, I want to wax philosophical for a second. Before you came on, Drew and I were talking about, you know, he was posting, promoing this show right now. And you are no stranger to the amount of vitriol that these discussions have seemed to generate. Just the concept of three physicians. Here I am. I'm a trauma and emergency specialist from Colorado. Drew's an internist from Southern California. And you're an ophthalmologist in Texas. And the idea that the three of us are going to get together and talk about this pandemic and how we responded to it and the treatment is really offensive, apparently, to a lot of the population. So let's talk just for a second about that and how it is that you, as an eye doctor, and some would say, you are, quote quote out of your specialty, even talking about COVID, which I find preposterous. But how it is that you got into this fight,

found yourself where you are, and then also how it is that you subsequently co-founded the Global COVID Summit. So it's kind of interesting, but anybody who knows me for a long time knows they're not surprised that I'm here actually. So I ran an ER for six years.

That's first thing. You know, right during my residency, I started working in ERs. Did every other weekends for 60 hours. So I'm very comfortable in the ER situation. Did ACLS, ATLS. Was on the stroke team at Hermann about 12 years, helping out one of the biggest stroke teams in the country, did some craniofacial teamwork, anterior skull base work at MD Anderson.

We basically, with Stylianus Kentucky and Alberto Mejard, we pioneered a lot of the anterior skull base stuff here in the U.S. for tumors in and around the optic nerve. And that was all in the early 90s. So I feel like for most ophthalmologists, probably didn't have that kind of experience. I was on the facial trauma team, done over 4,000 facial eye orbit fractures along with facial fractures.

So I've got an unusual background and feel very comfortable speaking my mind about research because I spent 11 years in lab, two in a biochem, nine in tissue culture, inventor of... When you talk about novel drugs, only 11% of drugs are novel. The drug I worked on, Nerve Growth Factor, won the Nobel Prize for its discovery, and I basically figured out how to use it for wounds. And so anyway, I feel very comfortable talking about science and critical thinking, I think,

is a key part of what our era grew up with. And I think trained under this critical thinking thing with differential diagnoses, we didn't really have protocols as written in stone. They were starting points. And it just seems very natural to discuss public policy measures that affect the whole country. And certainly, you know, Kelly and Drew, you know, we never called the CDC or the FDA or the NIH for any advice. We called our colleagues, you know, I might call you and say, hey, you know, I've got this patient, you know, what do you think? You know, it's more in your wheelhouse, you know, so we called each other. And at the time, there were small teams that I worked with many years here in Houston, and I got involved with them in February and basically felt like

the mitigation strategies that they were employing made no sense. And so I knew there were drugs that could work to prevent the inflammation, to prevent the potential respiratory demise, to prevent the potential blood clotting. And I couldn't see why in any reason that we wouldn't want to use those prior to hospitalization. So that just seemed a total absurdity. If I had to pick on one thing about Fauci or any of the public policy leaders is to not use mitigation strategies for diseases that are on label for their uses. So it just, that was the crux of getting me involved. I wasn't going to let that happen without being a voice of reason. Well, I think you're exactly right. I think that most people, certainly most Americans, have no understanding

of the long storied history of using repurposed drugs. I think it's somewhere in the range of 30% of all prescriptions written are for drugs that are technically repurposed, meaning they're being written and prescribed for something for which they weren't initially intended. I could give really dozens and dozens of examples. So I look at it this way though, because I look at it, there's an inflammatory process. So to me, the drugs I was using, steroids, my first patient, March 12th of 2020, I used steroids because it was day eight. I knew that the respiratory viruses all died by day five,

six, or seven. And so I said, you're in inflammatory phase. And I remember he's a friend of mine from medical school, so he trusted me. He knows, you know, he's known me forever. I operate on his daughter. I mean, I've operated on his wife. I'm good friends with him. And he called me because we've been longtime, very good friends. I didn't even know he was sick. And I said, you know, we got to throw, his SATs were down in the 70s. He wouldn't go to the hospital. I said, all right, we've got to, I gave him, I looked at DDR rules work. So I was using hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin. I'd done my, azithromycin I had been using for inflammation on an eye disease for the surface of the eye

since like 2000. So I knew it was a very good anti-inflammatory because I had worked at it with tissue culture. And I don't know if you look at the pathways on it, but it's an amazing anti-inflammatory. So I thought that's going to be reasonable. It's got, you know, the chronic bronchitis patients, you know, that's a great drug. You know, when they have bronchiectasis, sometimes, you know, you can give it to patients for one or two months at a time. It kind of clears them up. So these are things that maybe other people don't know, but it seems like, to me, to be normal things to use them.

Because even if they don't kill the virus, they're helping with the inflammatory response. Hydroxychloroquine, I knew, had multiple inflammatory responses. I had used it actually as an oral agent for dry eye and a topical agent for dry eye for almost 30 years. So these drugs are well familiar to me. I'd use them thousands of times. And then I used vitamin D which I've been a huge proponent of since 1995 when I found that it was really important in terms of data analysis for any white blood cell in the body as a receptor for vitamin D. So I've been a big fan of that.

And every patient of mine, I've made products for Major League Baseball, NBA, Olympic teams for going close to not quite 30 years. So I've done a lot of nutritional research, and I've been considered to be a formulator. So to me, I was just doing what I normally do, aspirin. I said there's blood clotting. That was the one perplexing thing to me until we kind of figured out the CD147 and all that. That was the thing that really was, I didn't quite understand all the implications of. The clotting was one thing I kind of racked my head around over and over, what was causing the blood

clotting because that was clearly an issue all the way back in February from reports we were getting our conference calls in Italy so you know I thought there were some really interesting things we could do on label so on label for blood clotting on label for inflammation so that's the way I look at it I didn't i looked on label well it was interesting because you know yeah i i really want to dispel some of this myth that just because you're not an infectious disease person or i'm not or i'm not a virologist or a vaccinologist that we don't have anything to bring to this party you know i knew from the beginning that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are both good antivirals by themselves.

They both have strong anti-inflammatory properties. Hydroxychloroquine is a powerful zinc ionophore. It drives zinc into the cells, which incidentally happens to be where the virus is. The virus isn't extracellular. It's intracellular. So we know that zinc is an antiviral, but you got to get the zinc to where the virus is and on and on. And I can't wait to get this out of my mouth. After day five, six, and seven, the virologist can step aside.

You know, it's time for you to get away. Now it's an inflammatory disease. Sorry. Blood clotting disease. You guys need to step aside. And I'm happy. Exactly. you guys need to step aside and i'm happy exactly well i gotta say that people don't understand that what an epidemiologist is what a virologist is versus somebody who's practicing medicine with a

broad broad experience but but the there's a chapter there's a piece of this dr or so that happened next to stay with kelly's philosophical sort of beginning point here. What happened to our regulatory organizations, our hospitals, our peers, when by having an opinion, you had to be destroyed? I've never seen anything like that in my entire career. As I've said repeatedly on this program, alternative opinions were always just interesting. Now they are grounds for total ruination. What is going on? You know, I felt that process in March and April as it was going down. I had close relationships with some of the people in the ICUs at three of the major

hospital systems, and there's like four, and three of them I had close relationships in the ICUs at three of the major hospital systems, and there's like four, and three of them I had close relationships in the ICUs. We were having great discussions in March and April. They were using a lot of different things, not following protocols. They used hydroxychloroquine even after Trump talked about it a little bit. They used a lot of the steroids after a while. Remdesivir wasn't around. So they were doing things to help patients. And the funny thing was, it was a very still somewhat collaborative process. And that's when it became clear at some point in time that hospitals were not going to make money unless you actually follow the rules. And so they got rid of all the elective surgeries. And so that's potentially a big money

maker there, right? And so the only way you're going to make money is you test and you will get paid for every test. And whatever the protocols are, if you follow the protocols, they were going to get paid for that. There was upgrades for intubation. And so it became very clear in a very short period of time to the hospital administrators that if they were going to stay in business, they were going to make money, they had to play by the rules. And nobody had to write a rule book. These are smart people. Hospital administrator Methodist, my next door neighbor for a long time, they gave him a $3.6 million bonus this year from the fund because, you know, he followed the rules and did what he was told to do. But that meant giving up patient control away from the physician and to basically the hospital system.

And that was a real mistake. That's basically what happened here. These people, it's like almost willful blindness after a while, where as we went along, many of the physicians didn't want to have these conversations. It's too painful. So when I would talk to people about remdesivir, I said, you can't give it in day 14. It's not replicating. It's impossible to have the effect. And they said, how do you know that? I go, I'm not, I go, the data's not here. Finally, a study came out, I think, mid-summer of showing

the replication cycle, but all the respiratory viruses are very short-lived. And so it was easy to have that conversation early in March and April, but they made it clear that if you didn't play by the rules, you were going to get fired. We all saw what happened. For people who haven't seen it or heard it, I'm sure you've talked about it on the show, it became so bad that the major journals, Lancet, L lied. The Harvard CV doc, who's the head of Harvard CV, has never lost a job or been chastised or anything for putting out a completely fake surgesphere study. And for Kelly and I and you, Dr. Drew, it wasn't too hard to figure out. On the very day it came out, I had basically an online argument with Eric Tolpil. I go, Eric, why are you so happy? This means that something that

can save lives is no longer working. This is depressing. This is not happiness. It goes, well, I'm tired of hearing about all this nonsense. And then I started seeing the pattern of Eric was actually a part of the Gilead board at one time. He was working for Gilead. I said, why didn't you talk about that? That's when he kind of blocked me. I wasn't mean about it. I said, Eric, that's kind of like being married to someone and saying you don't know her. I got divorced. So that was my comment. It was a little snarky, but bottom line, it was like... It was right. But I think it became very clear to everyone in the system, which 74% of physicians work for an entity now in the United States. So people like myself, I'm one of the big in the United States.

So, you know, I'm independent, but I bet that, you know, if I talk too much about it, somebody's going to come find me and take me down. But bottom line is like independent practitioners were able to speak up. Older independent practitioners who'd been through the system had been able to very comfortably be able to, that physician patient relation is powerful. And when you look people in the eye and they're dying, you cannot turn away from that. Statisticians can because it's looking at stats. People who work in the hospital administration, they don't see these faces. What really, I don't know how the docs

who were actually in the hospital, people like Paul Merrick, you saw Paul crying over how he felt. Right, right. Situation, Molly James, she had to leave the situation. So many of these doctors in these systems sends chills down my spine to think about how they had to feel to actually be in the situation. So many of these doctors in these systems, since chills down my spine, to think about how they had to feel to actually be in the situation where they know where they weren't, they weren't putting out the full care that they could give. But I think it was not,

it was not, it was not somebody like full directive, but everybody's smart and everybody knows how to keep their job. Willful blindness is what I kind of attributed to. I agree with you. And I think it was, it was terrifying. I think there's a lot of accountability that we need before we can really move on from this. Unfortunately, we've done a lot of damage to our own profession during this debacle. I fear talk a little bit about the global COVID summit and what that is, just so that people understand. It's kind of an interesting story. I'm surprised we didn't try

to rope you in there, Kelly. But it was like, so, you know, the whole thing happened with, basically, Joe Latipo, myself, Simone Gold, we started basically in Taryn Clark, we started America's Frontline Doctors. And that thing went off, as you guys know, early on. But then Simone gold um we started basically in taryn clark we started america's frontline doctors um and and that thing went off as you guys know early on but then simone the things happened and and and as we got into 2021 um i think there were some chinks in the armor there and i felt like we should probably need a more sort of academic um base one it was more simone's very interested in the legal side no no you know, no, nothing wrong with that. That was her, her emphasis. And so Peter McCullough, Harvey, Chris Held,

Pierre, Corey, Robin Armstrong, Lee Valette, we started getting together on chats and, and we decided we want to form an entity. And then we couldn't agree on the vaccine. So some of us really, I said, look, I can't back the vaccine, but I'm not going to go all out crazy or anything, but I just can't recommend the vaccine. It's, I know too much to recommend it. The risk reward is not there. I don't feel like it's good. So we couldn't agree.

And so we kind of fell apart. What ended up happening, how we ended up picking back together was the Delta variant. So months later, the Delta variant came and all of our formulas were kind of falling down. The things that we had really done well and had basically wiped out COVID almost universally, all of a sudden there was breakthroughs that we're getting people with our normal protocols were ending up in the hospital. So we all started communicating again, same group. At the end of August, it was horrible. The Delta variant was horrible. And we were just up to here with patients dying or almost dying. And it was like, we need to have a strong voice. There's stuff we can do,

and the word's not getting out. And what ended up happening is Pierre, myself, Robert Malone, Ryan Cole, Heather Gessling, John Littell, we went to Brian Tyson, we went to Puerto Rico and formed the Global COVID Summit and basically said, hey, let's try to put together good public policy messaging on early treatment. And that's how we ended up forming it and basically started branching out from there to reach other important educational areas that affect public policy. And that was the genesis of it. The reason I'm very interested in, and we can circle back to this, I want to talk a little bit more about vaccines specifically, but the reason i'm very interested in we can circle back to this i want to talk a little bit more about vaccines specifically but the reason i'm interested in the global covet summit is because as drew knows um i have launched kind of on this show if you'll pardon my french

what i call the uh kelly victory's third bucket of things we need to address which is the how do we unfuck it, fuck it, because we have screwed. This is so this thing is this is a mess. We have hundreds of millions of people who've gotten these injections. And I think these same brilliant minds, including yours and all the names you've been rattling off there, many of whom we've had on this show, all of these people who are on the right side of history from the beginning, I think it's a call to arms because I think we're the same people who are going to figure out how to fix this. It's not going to come from Pfizer and Moderna and J&J. The people who are going to figure out how to fix this disaster. And regardless of how you felt about the vaccines

at the beginning, you and I Richard are in the same camp. I could never get my arms around them for a lot of reasons, including for the elderly. Drew and I respectfully disagree on some of those issues, but regardless of where you were at the beginning, I think everybody who has a half a wit now agrees we shouldn't be boosting people and these bivalent boosters are absolutely doing nothing

but harming people. And I think that it's gonna take the people in the global COVID summit to help to come together and say, what are the ways that we can unwind this? And I'd love to hear, you know a lot about mRNA you know, a lot about lipid nanoparticles. Do you have any thoughts about, you know, you can't unvaccinate somebody, but can you turn off the mRNA so it stops making spikes? Can you, can you chelate out, you know, and chelate is the right word. Can you, you know, electrophoresis out lipid nanoparticles? I mean, what are the, what are the options?

So number one, understand that the lipid nanoparticle itself is dose dependent. So, you know, don't get any more shots. So that, that's number one. I think that's a big deal because in animal models, um, that affects on, on the, on the white blood cells is passed down. And you see kind of a neutropenia in subsequent generations after massive doses of lipid nanoparticles. So you've got not only an effect on the host of the person who gets the shot, but you also got an effect on the offspring. So that's a big, important thing. The lipid nanoparticle is not benign. It is a part of the inflammatory process. And it's a well-known thing. It's well-d is not benign. It is a part of the inflammatory process and it's a well-known thing. It's well-documented and I think it's a message that has to get out.

It's one of the reasons why I'm really concerned about them using these in animals. It's going to be in the animal supply. They're going to use it in the plants and they're going to have ways. So this is the ubiquitous platform that they've chosen. I think it's important that that's why I wanted to hover around this idea. There's so much to fix. This fifth generation warfare that we're going through, I think one of their weapons, besides messaging stuff, is to give us a product that they can pretty much write any technology into and potentially influence our immune system.

And I think in general, part of it is the lipid nanoparticle platform. It's important. Second, when you're talking about the messenger RNA, you're talking about foreign proteins accumulating. Many of them have a hard time breaking down. As you know, I know you've talked about this, the monocytes, macrophages, you've got them in the cells 15 months later. So the antigenic fragments of this tissue is laying around a long time. You can, I think, you know, a lot of these things can be improved. We've got, you know, I think even the monoclonal antibodies can bind up some of this excess spike.

Like if you look at what happened with some of the children that had myocarditis, it's free-floating spike protein. Monoclonal antibodies can bind some of that up. Also, you can consider ivermectin. Those things can bind some of that free-floating spike up. Natokinase has some effects on spike, and it's actually an anticoagulant. The interesting thing about it, I tried to do a deep dive on natokinase has some effects on spike and it's actually an anticoagulant. The interesting thing about it, I tried to do a deep dive on natokinase. It's almost impossible. There's no pharmacokinetics on it at all. I'm using it for patients and I'm getting a reasonable response.

I think there's an inflammatory component to this and that's basically probably a cellular inflammatory component. I think there's an autoimmune component, and you're seeing that when people get the vaccines, they're getting one of the studies. I just read yesterday, it was like five different autoantibodies showed up. And you're also having, I'll call it an inflamothrombotic component. And for people who don't know, this is so critical because the lipid nanoparticle allows this product to wiggle through the endothelial cell walls and get to the outside of the cell walls where there are pericytes that are like very important mesenchymal cell lines like fibroblasts. They create a lot of inflammation and they have a

lot of ACE2 receptors. Now, apparently, apparently as you know the ace2 receptor is very stable supposedly but there's other ways for me for the lipid nanoparticle to kind of squeeze into cell walls and start making spike inside of fibroblasts and creating a whole cascade of inflammatory cytokines that occur from the fibroblast cell line which is what a pericyte originates from. So these are the outside of the cell walls. I actually have my feeling on the vascular component.

I believe it's more of an outside in than an inside out. I don't believe it's a truly endothelial cell disease. I think the actual nidus for the inflammation is the actual outside wall, the pericytes. And there's mixed data on that, but I think in general, how do we combat that? You know, vitamin D is super important for immune systems recognition. Every white blood cell has a vitamin D receptor and it needs that vitamin D receptor in order to take the blinders off. It needs that to identify self versus non-self.

So you ask a good question. I think I've adopted, you know, it's kind of kept finding Kelly, because probably if you and I had this conversation a couple of years ago and I said to you, hey, yeah, I'm doing hyperbaric, you know, oxygen and I did for wound healing, but hyperbaric, you know, for these treatments, for some of these patients with long COVID or Vaxxed injury, I would have thought that was a little good. And now, you know, infrared, red therapy. I'm finding that a lot of these alternative practitioners are starting to look at some of these therapies with a more open eye. And I think they're actually helping. And certainly nutritional research,

I've always been deeply into that. And so I'm a big fan of D, the natokinase on these cases, and then a host of drugs. Can I ask about the, really quickly about the natokinase and there's also a lumbrokinase. These are things I don't really understand

the mechanisms of action, except they are direct. They directly dissolve clot now a are are clots forming that need to be dissolved in everybody with with excess spike number one and number two why not why not just use and then why not use you know old-fashioned sort of prophylaxis use aren aren't we using Plex, you know, Plex, I'm blanking the name of the platelet. Plavix, Plavix and aspirin, all the old fashioned stuff. Yeah. I'm using, so I'm finding Eliquis to be very helpful. And I was using aspirin and Plavix. I found Eliquis. I think I've got better. So there's a couple of things that are unusual

about this disease that I'm finding. One is that we are getting some people with high D-dimers. And I was seeing at one time after the third booster is about almost 40% of my patients. I checked the D-dimer were, were, were, were actually, so they were breaking down fibrin. Those are, you know, fibrin byproducts. So they're breaking down fibrin. I found later through talking with other physicians, Jordan Vaughn is a person who I spoke with, and talking about that plasminogen activator inhibitor one was an issue, heterozygous and homozygous of that actually don't actually break down the fibrin. So their D-dimers look normal, they're usually thinner patients who have sort of been gas, they're

getting the gaslighting really badly. And actually they're responding to triple therapy, you know, aspirin, Plavix, and Eloquist. So I've got a small subset like that. And we could talk about that because that might be something Kelly and Drew, if you haven't seen that, that might be an interesting topic to kind of go over. Were those pulmonary embolus patients? They can be. So I've had some thin patients that I thought were fine. And one on her own, I checked the D-dimer, was fine.

And on her own, so I was sending her husband, who did have a pulmonary embolus. She just said, I want the test. And she did. She called me back. She said, no, I got one too, and did have a pulmonary embolus she just said I want the test and she did she call me back she know I got one too and I have a pulmonary embolus so and she turned out to have this plasma activator inhibitor one homozygous and so this is a small group and so you and we on this show right now are talking about what you were saying Kelly which is we have to help each other and we have to collaborate right other and if we do we're gonna we're gonna all a slight pearl, a nugget of information that's going to help the other person. Exactly. Exactly. And so we initially were doing this to treat the disease.

Now we have to do it to treat the fallout from these, largely from not only there is still some long COVID, but largely from the injections. So, you know, there are people out there, you treat them symptomatically. If it's inflammation, you use anti-inflammatories. If there's clotting, you use anticoagulants. But there's also then, in my mind, to be super simple about it, we've got to find ways to bind up or get rid of this free-floating spike protein that's out there. And we know that that's part of the problem. We need to figure out how to eliminate or mitigate the damage that's being done by residual lipid nanoparticles that

are wreaking havoc in every body system. And we sure as heck need to figure out how to turn off or mitigate the continued production of spike proteins by this mRNA. Because let's face it, they have no idea how long the mRNA actually stays active. And the vaccine manufacturers acknowledge that, which I find terrifying. They called it academic. I mean, how scary is that?

We injected you with something that makes you essentially a little spike protein factory with no off switch. This is sci-fi kind of stuff. And far beyond, by the way, I'm not an mRNA expert by any means. And I've learned more about lipid nanoparticles in the past 36 months than I ever thought I'd want to know. But there's got to be smarter minds than I, if we all get together and sort of say, okay, we figured out how to treat COVID pretty darn

effectively, by the way. The early treatment protocols, the cocktail of medicines, which included six or seven medicines were very, very effective in keeping people out of the hospital and keeping people from dying. Certainly, you know, I'd like to think that we can bring the same minds to bear in fixing what's been created with, you know, despite the fact that you and I were screaming from every treetop, Richard, from the beginning, don't do it, don't take these. Talk a little bit about now, you the regulatory piece you have way more experience than i um in working with the fda what when were you aware that we were breaching sort of what you'd call standard operating procedure or routine uh regulatory protocols with regard to these

injections well i i felt like the whole process, it was interesting to watch the process. You know, in April they had some hearings. People talked about antibody dependent enhancement, some of the issues with RNA, single-stranded RNA vaccines. They talked about the dengue virus and how it's very difficult to basically have a vaccine that actually kills the virus and basically prevents infection,

prevents transmission without actually harming the patient. As you know, in previous studies with single-stranded RNA viruses, the vaccinated actually did worse than the unvaccinated. That's the history we're in this with. For people who don't know, that's the history of single-stranded RNA viruses like coronaviruses. So when we went into this, I never thought that we would take this approach of a single-'t use the nucleocapsid, even though the natural infection attacks the nucleocapsid with antibodies, was because there was some issues in the studies with animals when you did the nucleocapsid versus the spike. But one of the things that seemed so absurd to me was all the pathology is primarily in the spike as far as the virus. Like I said, the lipid nanoparticle is important, but in the Salk Institute studies, it was clear that the spike was the pathology. 95% of the pathology was caused by

the spike protein, which for people who don't know, had a new type of ACE2 receptor, had a never-before-seen TMPRSS2 serine protease, never-before before seen on a coronavirus. It had an NRP1 component never before seen on a coronavirus. It had a GP120 fragment never before seen on a coronavirus. The fear and cleavage site was never before seen on a coronavirus. The ability to break into components and get into the nucleus and disturb DNA damage repair mechanisms was never before seen on the coronavirus. The ability to affect toll-like receptors, which are pattern receptors for viruses, was never before seen on a coronavirus. There were so many things that just didn't make sense,

and they're all contained in the spike protein. So why would we want to give the spike protein as the major component of the vaccine? It never made sense. But the regulatory side of it seemed to take, as we know now, it literally had a life of its own and it never was going to be, it seems to be different. You know, it was controlled, it looks like, by the Department of Defense. And it was the BARDA 5, the BARDA agreements were, you know, the two DNA vaccines and the two messenger RNA lipid nanoparticle vaccines, and then the Novavax. So those were all funded pretty well. Everything else was thrown aside. You see the look on Peter Hotez's face because he had already been working on coronavirus for 20 years, and his was tossed to the side. And now it's been developed for usage. I don't know if you know, but he's got a receptor binding domain, more traditional vaccine that has been promoted in other countries, not in the United States.

So there are other challenges that were there besides funding these. The challenge was what direction we were going to take. And they just seem to always take the most absurd direction. We're going to use the spike protein, even though it's all the pathology. I can't explain any of that based on normal science. So to me, there's some corruption within the system. And I never was privy to the highest levels, although, you know, Steve Hahn was at the FDA and he was a big person over, really well thought of person at MD Anderson Hospital. And so everybody liked him. He was seen to be, you know, never seen to be near any sort of corruption at that and anything that ever happened here in Houston, Texas. So he had a great reputation.

I spent time talking to Birx, not so much about that, but about remdesivir and about maybe using repurposed drugs. And she was always pleasant, but never helpful, really. Same thing with Pence. It seemed like every person that I ran to was pleasant, but never helpful for the most part. Nobody seemed angry. I don't know.

I don't have a good explanation. DR. Talking about things that make absolute no sense, how about rolling out a bivalent vaccine that includes mRNA for the spike protein of the original Wuhan strain that had been out of existence for more than a year at the time they rolled it out.

And by the way, just to expose the elephant in the room after you brilliantly rattled off all the technicalities of things that are visible on COVID that have never been found on a coronavirus. Suffice to say, I think that you acknowledge or that you would be a believer that this was not a naturally occurring virus. This was clearly a lab manipulated virus. And that's for those folks, if you didn't pick up on that, the fact that this virus was not naturally occurring, people, as I've been saying from the very, very beginning, to anybody who has any knowledge of native coronaviruses, this was lab manipulated. Again, I cannot say with any certainty how it got out, whether it was malfeasance or just sheer negligence, incompetence.

I don't know. But it clearly wasn't naturally occurring. From your perspective here, as we're winding down the clock, where would you like? You know, obviously, we've got a lot of work before us to unwind. There are hundreds of millions of people. We have mounting evidence of adverse events. I fear truly that we are facing a tsunami of illness, suffering, and premature death if we don't come up with a way to deal with the fallout from the injections. Where would you like to see things go and where are you taking the global COVID summit? Where are we headed? Well, I think, you know, I think that the biggest issue, and this is why this show is

so important, is messaging. We really have a hard time messaging. And I think that's been a major issue. And so I think first and foremost, we need to do our best to get our message out. I just don't see how we can reach numbers of people if we're completely censored all the time. So having a chance to be on here is very powerful. It gives us a chance to message millions of people, and that's fantastic. And so I really look to that as a core thing that we need to keep aware of and keep getting our

voices out, speaking the truth about humanity. I kind of look at it, Kelly, like, you know, we're, we're kind of the, the core of humanity in a sense that this tribe, this team that we've become in a sense of, of, of people that just are looking out for, for medicine in medicine the same way. I'm kind of, I'm losing my thoughts a little bit in terms of like how I want to put this, but basically in a sense, we're sitting in a good position because we're just speaking truth and it's easy to speak truth. We don't have an ulterior motive. We're not trying to make money. We're just trying to help people get a message that's important. On top of that, we realize number two, that the system is broken. And so we have to provide some way for people to

trust the medical system. And we have to, in a sense, create telehealth. We have to create clinics, places where people can go and feel safe. It's not going to be easy to do. It costs money. There's some organizations that are doing it. We're trying to do it with our group. It's through something called DMED. Some of the members of our group were really excited to do that. And they broke off and did, or they're doing something called the wellness clinic. And they've already brought some of this to bear. They're working on telehealth. And so there are people already at, in trying to do this and bring care to patients that they can trust. But I don't know.

I just feel like that's the key fact is we've got to get messaging out. And I'll tell you this, Kelly. I feel so strongly about the fact that they're really going to try to make this messenger RNA, lipid nanoparticle, the ubiquitous platform for everything going forward. And it's very dangerous. And I really want to get that. That message has to be out so people don't take any more of these shots or anything like that.

That was, yeah, I said from the very beginning that I fear that I really believe that making a common mRNA platform, making mRNA a household word, a household term, I think was a big part of this initiative. I think that that was the bigger picture. They used COVID and they used the fear, the abject fear, really unfounded fear of this virus as a way to make mRNA a household word and to make people think it was totally normal

to do this, to create your body, to now make some foreign protein, to change fundamentally your genomics. And I think that that is really, really scary. And we've got to stop that part of it. And I also think that this platform, Richard, as I said, the reason Drew made this available to me largely because I was being egregiously censored, but I think if nothing else, modeling this kind of conversation, modeling the fact that three physicians can get together and talk about, you know, the science, talk about concepts, disagree with each other, you know, argue that you've misunderstood or you've misinterpreted the data, or here's why I think your conclusion is incorrect. We have got to model

that to the world. This is what's normal, people. This is how science is done. Not what you've seen, not by censoring people and coming up with a common narrative that's been accepted by, by everyone. Right. And by the way, if they would come along, go ahead. Go ahead, Drew.

Yeah. I was just going to say, if they would add some, go ahead. You. Going back to the surgeon's lounge, we'd go down there and have these, it seemed like we were having arguments all the time.

They'd be like, all right, I'll see it. I'll see you after dinner. So we constantly are trying to push ourselves and trying to be the best we can be for patients. It just felt so natural to be the best we can for patients and patient care. And it just seems like that has gone into where we're actually in political camps. And I refuse to go there.

So I just refuse to go there. I think, yeah. Thank you., and I refuse to go there. So I just refuse to go there. I think, yeah. Thank you. Sorry. I totally agree with you. And I was saying also that if we could get some transparency from our regulatory organizations and what they're thinking, what they're trying to do, there's so many whys in my mind. Like, why are you doing that? What is your rationale for that?

What are you thinking? Just pull the curtain back a little bit and do again what we have always done. And speaking of what we've always done, I want to do a little more modeling here for about two minutes and push back and you guys respond to it on the idea that the bivalent vaccine is strictly speaking ludicrous because the original virus is represented in one limb of the bivalent process. What would you say to the fact that Dr. Urso mentioned T cell response? We know that that original vaccine had a very good, we think, T cell track record of creating cellular immunity. And why throw the baby out with the bathwater in that we've been shown repeatedly that the

original vaccine did seem to affect hospitalization. What if we were to lose that sort of benefit if we got rid of that particular limb of the bivalent vaccine? Your response. So theoretically, this is always going to... So there's a couple of things. Number one, the actual original Wuhan variant, actually the binding of the neutralization was much more powerful than what we're seeing in the, in this, in the bivalent vaccine. So that was a more powerful neutral neutralization than we're currently seeing because as the vaccine is mutated, I mean, as the virus is mutated, the binding sites are, are, are binding less strongly and you're seeing more what we're now causing,

the class switch antibodies, where basically we're getting the IgG4, and that's a problem that has not ever been seen. And that's a huge thing, and it does not have to do with the bivalent process, it looks like. It's something else, and I don't think anybody knows. But I think, in a sense, we're kind of, I don't want to say we're splitting hairs, but you're right. It does create a T cell response, and that is good, right? That's good. But at the same time, the T cell responses, when you keep loading up on these lipid nanoparticles,

you are starting to affect complement cascade and cytotoxic T cells as you go down the line. The more you get, you're going to diminish the responses there just because of the nature of the lipid nanoparticle platform. So we can't discount that. That is, the mice who had this, many of them died as they get more and more of the lipid nanoparticle. And no one's talked about it. So I think there's more to talk about than just whether or not the Vivalent vaccine was a smart decision or not. I will agree that in essence, you want to attack the thing that's in front of you, right? You don't want to attack it with an old product. But in retrospect, when you look at it, it was the most binding of the

products and it did get what we now know is a really good, relatively good T cell response. So it's not all, I guess there makes some rationale there, but I'm going to say that that's part of the problem with this conversation. We have a small amount of information to base a large decision to vaccinate these people with low risk. I think that's probably the biggest problem. It's the risk reward. And pre-infection. And pre-infection, too. Correct. And I think it's the risk reward.

The gravest error of all the errors, and that's a long list from which to choose, was acting as if everyone was at equivalent risk and therefore vaccinating everybody when the vast majority had a relatively de minimis risk of having a severe outcome. But again, Drew, remember the reason there has never, ever in the history of medicine been an effective vaccine against a coronavirus is because they mutate so quickly. They are more adept than other viruses that their mutation rate is higher. And you're therefore always fighting last year's war. You're creating antibodies to something that really is no longer existent by the time the

vaccine comes to market. And here's the other thing. I don't know if you know this, but cancer cells, viruses, they're not, they're heterogeneous. They're not carbon copies, identical twins. So in a sense, you've got aunts, uncles, and first cousins. And so in a sense, you're never, it's very hard to conquer them because there's always going to be a few of them that are outliers. And this is part of the process of cancer and it's part of the process of viruses. So if anybody who's worked with cancer cells knows what I'm talking about, it's also true of viruses. It. Their social life is not, they're not a bunch of identical twins. So we're thinking and looking at it as we're going to map out and we're going to wipe them all out because we've got one prototype. That's not how they are. They're

aunts, uncles, first cousins. There's slight differences in them, their family in a sense. And they interact with other viruses when people say why did why was there no flu it's because covid out competed the flu you know and and and so there's there are reasons why viruses interact in in our us as hosts and why we can't kill the entire virus and it's a complex system you know garrett vandenbosch does a great job i don't know if you've had him on the show yeah but. But, you know, he must be geared on. Although he's very, kind of, he stays up here most of the time. Exactly. Yeah, he's in rarefied air.

As a global COVID summit, what can we expect from it going forward? Is there a website? And, you know, what kinds are you going to publish things? What's your sort of, what are the goals for the the goals we're transitioning to the global coalition of scientists and we're going to we're uniting with groups and some groups in europe we just got back from the conference in sweden um and so we're trying to expand we were working with the brazilians uh to kind of expand but they are just snowed under everything that happened with the last presidential election there they are they are not we cannot no no good conversations happening down there so

we're trying to expand the brand and try to just basically be a good public policy educational system that basically can people can rely on for good information and that's that's our goal and then on top of that there are people in the group that want to create telehealth clinics. And for me, clinics, I built 25 clinics, three surgery centers, a couple hospitals. It's not that hard. This is business. And in general, a lot of the businessmen that are listening to this right now probably do a better job than I can do.

So, you know, this is not hard stuff. We have motivation. We have, you know, humanities on our side, I feel like, and we have a lot of people that want us to be successful. So I think that's why we're going to be successful. There we are. We appreciate it. We're sort of rolling to a stop here. It's a new stuff comes up. Yeah. I hope you'll join us and you know, as new things come along there,

or if you want to point us in certain directions, people with interesting ideas and interesting uh sort of um sort of takes on what has happened you know kelly has introduced to us a lot of interesting people that she's been working with since the beginning and uh every time we you know do these interviews i walk away with more and more it's it's it's there's so many different um elements in this catastrophe of the last three years in terms of where the virus came from, what we did in response to it, what we did, non-pharmaceutical interventions, various kinds of bureaucratic overreaches,

and now the mental health consequences. It just goes on and on and on. And so each of these areas, light bulbs are going off in my head in each of these regions of the catastrophe that we've been through as we try to get clarity about what the hell happened and thereby hopefully understand what we can do differently next time. Thank you so much. I do recommend Ryan Cole, Jessica Rose, Pierre. You know, you guys. They're all we we've got ryan's ryan is back for uh ryan

cole uh part two uh next wednesday and uh then we have uh that i had nicer shoes than he had you should bring you on together we've got it we've got jessica jessica rose is coming on on the 15th uh and we've got senator ron johnson on the 8th on february 8th so we've got we've got a good line so according to the washington post um they said that um that part of the vaccine hesitancy is due to two particular people senator ron johnson from w and Dr. Richard Urso, an ophthalmologist from Houston. I was like, wow, how did I get into the company? There you go. You know, you're messaging.

You're getting the messaging. Yeah. I guess. So, all right. Thanks so much, guys. Appreciate it. Thank you again. You are a rock star.

Thank you. Thank you guys. You are a rock star. Thank you for doing the work and for, you know, putting yourself out there. And for taking an hour out of your busy schedule. Yeah, just trying to help people. That's all we want to do is really just do good. That's the whole idea. Yeah. All right, Kelly, I'm going to.

Well, maybe we'll come down. We're down in Austin all the time. And if you're ever up there, let me know if you're going to be in Austin because we're down there austin all the time and uh if you're ever up there let me know if you're gonna be in austin because we're down there all the time so all right guys we'll just wrap it up from here uh we are not in tomorrow uh caleb has some baby duties he must take care of can you do something really quick for me we have oh i know he's he's got he's got his hands full um somebody on rumble always asks why you still use Paxlovid for your patients. Me?

Yes. And I want you to clarify like where you stand now, because I know that things have sort of changed. Here's why I use Paxlovid. I have seen it work. It doesn't mean that some of these other things don't work, but when I've used Paxlovid, people are better, almost without exception, the next day. But they're pretty sick or they have comorbidities. Right. They are older. I don't use it under the age of 65. I have no idea about its application under the age of 65.

And as we've been discussing, vaccinated patients over the age of 65 or unvaccinated, the vaccinated are more likely to die these days, it seems, so the data suggests. So I have very grave concerns about my elderly patients with comorbidities when they're really starting to tank. Yeah, explain how sick they have to be. Well, it has to be like it's going bad. It's not just somebody with a cough and the sort of usual Omicron thing.

It's somebody who is hypoxemic, who is developing desaturation, who is constantly coughing and short of breath and maybe a little unsteady or weak or confused. And I don't want to see this get worse. I want to keep them out of the hospital. Number one. Number two, I know well that there is a high probability of rebound. I've seen so much rebound from Paxilvid. You have no idea. And the rebounds have been nasty.

Yeah, it's been nasty. And so I'm really trying to weigh out prolonging this thing at what I perceive to be a more mild level versus stopping the downhill slide to the hospital. Now, I remember Dr. Defunct the Funk guy. He was saying, oh, it's all just the inflammatory phase coming in a week later. It I remember Dr. Defunct, the funk guy, he was saying, Oh, it's all just the inflammatory phase coming in a week later. It's not rebound. I started thinking about it. Absolutely not. There's nothing inflammatory about the rebounds. It is viral. Clearly it's pulmonary it's airway.

It's right where the virus is reproducing. So I know what I'm, but I know what I'm doing with Pax Levit. It's not like i'm absolutely an advocate i i have i understand his weaknesses and i understand its strengths and i do not i try at least not to use it under the age of 65 what does rat studies mean that's what the person's saying was this all just tested on rats i'm sure it was i mean i'm sure yeah nice nice. Well, I hope we cleared that up because the question comes up every time. So, you know, I'm not saying, hey, look at me. Everybody use Paxlovid. I'm not saying that.

Nor am I saying, hey, everybody vaccinate your patients over 65. Kelly feels very differently about that. And I am, you know, one of us is going to have a more more accurate opinion and i don't know which of us it's going to be but at the beginning the vaccine worked for that that variant now we've got you know now it doesn't work for the variant but but if you read the new england journal kelly doesn't stop and if you saw i was reading some right out of the new england journal that just got published an hour ago they're going hard on the bivalent booster. They are really going hard. I know they are. I know they are. And I just, I'm not seeing it clinically. I just think,

frankly, I don't trust what's coming out of some of the journals right now. And I think there are enough large population. Yeah. And I think, I think, you know, a healthy distrust at this point is well justified. So I know what we're seeing clinically, we aren't seeing people do well. We know that people who are highly vaccinated are having more issues and are more likely to get to contract the virus and get hospitalized at this point, you know, and frankly, and we've learned a lot. And so we've learned a lot. We've got a lot of treatments right now. The current variants are relatively mild. They really are. So at this point, I would like to withhold for anybody I know any additional shots until we can sort out a heck of a lot. I think we're going to learn a lot more,

but it's going to take another 24, 36, 24, 36, 48 months before we really kind of start getting an idea about what's really, yeah, it's going to, yeah, there's no, unfortunately, there's no substitute for time. Yeah, right. And just, you know, I'm telling my patients also, enough, we've done enough. Most people have had COVID and had three or so, you know, two or three boosters. That's enough. I don't know what I'm doing beyond that. I'm not recommending beyond. Now I have patients in interesting populations. Some are saying, I want whatever comes out next. And I say, okay, we'll talk about it when that comes. We'll see what the data suggests. I don't recommend it at this point, but we'll see. I have people who got COVID when I was flying around in June and didn't get the

bivalent vaccine because they had COVID. I told them, don't get anything more. You're fine at least for six months having had COVID. And now what I'm telling them, and you're probably good for 12 months, probably. I don't know that the bivalent is going to add much. And if you want it, I mean, I don't know what we're really doing here. And, you know, three vaccines and COVID, I don't know what that really is. But if you want it, okay, there may be some risk and you hear about it. But why not wait to see how this thing is performing in three or four months as your natural immunity is actually waning? So that's sort of where I'm at it's not it's a complicated landscape you know it's not one thing yeah it's medicine we're practicing medicine which means we're making judgments for

the specific patient sitting in front of us based on currently available knowledge right and i have you know i gotta give it to our babies we gotta do it everybody's gotta have a vaccine like no i you know i have a i have family members who have been quite ill with um with covid recently and i said yeah you're gonna feel like crap for the next five days i said cough medicine ibuprofen tylenol chicken soup you know decongestants nyquQuil, good old fashioned, because back truly, and I say to them, and I've asked to a person, I say, prior to 2020, have you ever felt like this in the past? Like, well, yeah, I've had that. Of course.

Right. Right. Yes. Yes. You had to remember that time in college when you had that really bad cold or that really bad bronchitis. Yes. College, yeah. really bad cold or that really bad bronchitis? Yes. So it's as, it's as if, it's as if people

have gone into some sort of a fugue state that they're terrified. What if this is COVID? I'm saying you've, chances are you've felt like this in the past, in years past before you ever heard the word COVID. And we need to kind of get back to a little bit of a, I don't disagree with you at all, but there is that lingering concern that even I have that there's, you know, vascular damage and organ damage. I mean, what is all that? By the way, there's, you know, they're not a year of my clinical career, you know, in the emergency department, practicing hospital-based medicine, not a year, a season went by, a flu season, that I didn't see at least one or two young, previously healthy

people come in in full-blown congestive heart failure from having had a virus. People coming in in fulminant sepsis from having a device. Influenza, there are a myriad of viruses out there that have always had that potential to make people really sick, to do heart damage, to cause kidney failure, to cause these things. This isn't novel in that way. So all I'm suggesting is that we come back to a modicum of common sense, try to ditch the fear. The good news is that the current variants are quite mild. I can't say what's down the pike. God only knows. Let's just kind of try to stay the course and get back to some of the basics right now. Because I think three years of, you know, foot on the pedal, just throttle down, rubbing at eight bazillion

RPMs, people can't do it anymore. We need to get back to some basics like sleep, nutrition, adequate exercise, stress mitigation. Yeah. Relationships. Work. Relationships. Yeah. Going to church. you know, you know, friends, sunshine, you know, going to the beach, you know, travel, those sorts of things. So

anyway, on that note, I will peace out. I will say farewell. Peace out, Kelly. And we'll see you next Wednesday. And you might get five days off from your family, you know, you never know. Oh, my. Exactly. All right. I'll see you next week with Ryan Cole. All right. See you next week. All right.

Yeah, it'll be great. That'll be very exciting. Well, I advise, if you get it, my favorite go-to is Dimetap and AZ-Pak and Flonase. I'm just seeing. That's how I treated everybody in my family. Nicole and Jimmy just sent me an autopsy report from a fully vaccinated patient. I'll have to read all this. Are you allowed to? Does she want you to?

I don't know what she's sending me and why. I'm going to have to see her. Make sure you check with her before you blurt it out. Before I talk about it. I don't want to get her in trouble. And of course, our friend Christy Grace is very active in trying to figure out the mechanisms for some of these clotting issues and inflammatory processes. So we'll have more from her as time goes along.

Ryan Cole coming up next week. Do we have someone on Tuesday as well, Susan? Is that we're out till Tuesday or are you just going to do some, you might just do Q and a, which is fine with me. No, we do. I think we're that's the 31st. It looks like Del Bigtree. Yeah, Bigtree.

Everybody's excited about that. And then on Thursday, Jeff Deist, who is an economist, he's the economist, to talk a little bit about where we are. We're going to get off biological sciences for a second. I want to know if you got the text

after the show. I want to know if you got the text that I, after the show, you got the text about Dell. I did not, but I'm sure I will. Thank you guys over on the restream. Again, we'll have hopefully more time for Q and A as we go here. Stay tuned for news about something I may be involved with on Twitter

spaces for more interaction coming, going forward. And thank you, Caleb, for producing, Susan as well. Yeah, thanks for listening on all the platforms. We appreciate it. That's Twitter, Twitch, Facebook, YouTube, wherever you are. We see you. We're watching you on the restream.

And of course, Twitter Spaces and Twitter as well. We'll see you all next Tuesday. And then it's going to be a big week next week. So we'll join you at 3 o'clock all the way across the board, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, 3 o'clock Pacific next week. So we'll join you at three o'clock all the way across the board, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, three o'clock Pacific next week. See you then. Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky. As a reminder, the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment. This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only. I am a licensed physician, but I am not a

replacement for your personal doctor, and I am not practicing medicine here. Always remember that our understanding of medicine and science is constantly evolving. Though my opinion is based on the information that is available to me today, some of the contents of this show could be outdated in the future. Be sure to check with trusted resources in case any of the information has been updated since this was published. If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, don't call me, call 911. If you're feeling hopeless or suicidal,

call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. You can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at drdrew.com slash help.