Ask Dr. Drew - Multiple Assassination Attempts Against Anti-WHO Politicians As Pandemic Treaty Deadline Approaches, HHS Begins Debarment Of EcoHealth Alliance w/ Dr. Meryl Nass & Dr. Aaron Kheriaty – Ask Dr. Drew – Ep 360

Episode Date: May 20, 2024

Multiple political figures faced assassination attempts that many believe are connected to their opposition to the World Health Organization. Journalists noticed that the WHO altered its Pandemic “Treaty” to be a Pandemic “Agreement” and speculated that the name change is an attempt to circumvent the US Senate. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services commenced formal debarment proceedings against EcoHealth Alliance. Dr. Aaron Kheriaty is a psychiatrist, the director of the program in Bioethics and American Democracy at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., and author of The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State. He formerly taught psychiatry at the UCI School of Medicine, was the director of the Medical Ethics Program at UCI Health, and was the chairman of the ethics committee at the California Department of State Hospitals. Follow Dr. Kheriaty at https://aaronkheriaty.substack.com and https://x.com/AaronKheriatyMD Dr. Meryl Nass is a board-certified physician with over 40 years of experience in all areas of internal medicine. She is a nationally recognized expert on epidemics who has consulted for government agencies around the world, especially focussing on anthrax, Zika, Ebola, and biological warfare investigations. Follow Dr. Nass at https://x.com/NassMeryl and learn more about Door To Freedom at https://doortofreedom.org 「 SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS 」 Find out more about the brands that make this show possible and get special discounts on Dr. Drew's favorite products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors  • COZY EARTH - Susan and Drew love Cozy Earth's sheets & clothing made with super-soft viscose from bamboo! Use code DREW to save up to 30% at https://drdrew.com/cozy • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get 15% off your first order at https://drdrew.com/paleovalley • TRU NIAGEN - For almost a decade, Dr. Drew has been taking a healthy-aging supplement called Tru Niagen, which uses a patented form of Nicotinamide Riboside to boost NAD levels. Use code DREW for 20% off at https://drdrew.com/truniagen • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Get an extra discount with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at https://twc.health/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 Portions of this program may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. Always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health. 「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician with over 35 years of national radio, NYT bestselling books, and countless TV shows bearing his name. He's known for Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Teen Mom OG (MTV), The Masked Singer (FOX), multiple hit podcasts, and the iconic Loveline radio show. Dr. Drew Pinsky received his undergraduate degree from Amherst College and his M.D. from the University of Southern California, School of Medicine. Read more at https://drdrew.com/about Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

and we will be getting an update on the world health organization so-called treaty and where we are with that some of the states have been very courageously standing up against it and dr meryl nass will join us in a few minutes as updates for us she of course is an mit graduate physician 40 years of experience in internal medicine also a nationally recognized expert on epidemics and has consulted on many, including anthrax, Zika, Ebola, biological warfare investigations. Follow her on X at NASS, N-A-S-S, Merrill, M-E-R-Y-L. And we're going to open up with Dr. Aaron Cariotti, one of our favorite guests. He, of course, is one of the principals in Missouri versus Biden, which now went to the Supreme Court.

He's going to give us an update on that. You're going to follow him on Aaron, A-A-R-O-N, K-H-E-R-I-A-T-Y-M-D. And then we'll have an after show at the end of the show, a special after show. We're going to get sort of that whole process going for a few minutes at the end of the show. We're out watching you on Restream

and we also have Twitter spaces open up. We'll see you after this quick break. Our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre. A psychopath started this when he was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction, fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous. I'm a doctor for f**k's sake. Where the hell do you think I learned that? I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people. I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate

adolescents and to prevent and to treat. If you have trouble, you can't stop and you want to help stop it, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. you can spend thousands of dollars and dozens of hours trying to look a few years younger or you can skip all that and the hassle and go with what works genu cell skin care genu cell is the secret to better skin their products are made in the usa using a proprietary technology that combines a naturally effective base with non-GMO ingredients. In fact, you might have witnessed the astonishing effects

of GenuCell during a recent unplanned moment of our show, when just a little GenuCell XV restored my skin within minutes right before your eyes. That is how fast these products work. I know I'm a snob about the products I use on my face. Everybody knows it. Every time I go to the dermatologist's office, they're just rows and rows of different creams. Retinols, vitamin C cream, under eye cream, night creams. And then when I get to the counter, they're overpriced. All kinds of products that you can all find at GenuCell.com. Susan and I love GenuCell so much, we've created our own bundle so you can try our favorite anti-wrinkle creams, correcting serums, under-eye treatments. Say goodbye to those fine lines, forehead wrinkles, skin redness, even those dark under-eye bags. Women and men of all skin types,

Genucel has got you covered. Order right now at Genucel.com slash Drew to save 50%, actually over 50%, and you'll get a free luxury spa box plus free shipping. That is Genucel.com slash Drew, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash D-R-E-W. We're back. As I said, we're going to be joined first here by Dr. Aaron Cariotti. Dr. Cariotti is a psychiatrist who was a decorated teacher at UC Irvine, also the head of their bioethics department and committee, who raised his hand during the darker hours of the pandemic, particularly here in California, and said,

you know, I've been coaching you and the students for years that you must walk the walk when the decision-making becomes difficult. I have to raise my hand and say, I don't think you have a sufficient criteria for a vaccine mandate. He was quickly put on leave and then dismissed. Good times. Dr. Aaron Cariotti, welcome back. Thanks, Drew. on leave and then dismissed. Good times. Dr. Aaron Cariotti, welcome back. Thanks, Drew.

It's good to be back with you. Did I summarize that story about as it happened? Yeah, that's pretty much it. It was a headline grabber. University fires medical ethicists for questioning the ethics of universities' vaccine mandate policies. Basically, the short version of the story.

More than a headline grabber, it was a head scratcher, which is, now let me ask this, do you ever hear from any of the people, your former colleagues, any administrators, anybody apologize for what they did? Well, the university has not and never will apologize. That's just not how these people operate. I certainly have some wonderful colleagues that have reached out, just had didn't anticipate or expect. So you learn a lot about people when you go through hardships like this, or when you, you know, when your persona non grata for voicing an unpopular opinion, you know, who stands up and says, you know, whether or not they agree with your view on that particular issue, stands up and says, well, it's wrong of the university to do this to someone who'd served, you know, for 16 years there. So it's wrong of the university to do this to someone who'd served you know for 16 years there

so it's been it's been an education it's been an interesting experience yeah and uh you know it just in looking back at that period i do want to get an update on the supreme court case but just looking back on that period of history it just seems to me that there was a mass formation we were caught in an hysteria it sort of started with trump derangement and then really flew off the rail with covet and it was extraordinary to see humans behave like this i i thought we were i naively thought humans got over this in 1790 but boy was i wrong yeah we seem we seem to be able to get caught up in these movements of mass hysteria, mass hypnosis, what Matthias Desmet has called mass formation. Given that the wrong

social conditions and circumstances, there's a large proportion of the population that seems vulnerable to this. And we saw it play out certainly during covid the propaganda and the censorship that happened during the pandemic played a i think significant role in facilitating that but this seems to be a vulnerability of human nature that it's just a recurrent problem that you know advanced technological societies are certainly not immune from well Well, and in fact, I might argue that these newer technologies, such as social media, may have really been how this was amplified or how we really got caught in it. And I just, you know, I talked to Matthias Desmond about this,

and he said it's about 20% of the population that is particularly prone to this hypnotic phenomenon, and that 70% just wants to be left alone and trying to hide or just get along. We need to get that 70% to step up. That's right. That's right. The 10%, 15%, whatever that minority is, is alone not going to be sufficient unless you could sway some people in the middle to step back and say, if you have questions, if you're scratching your head, if this stuff doesn't make sense to you, speak out, speak up, stop self-censoring, stop running and hiding because you don't want to

be the next victim of the mob or the cancel culture or the rabid 20%. And how to get folks to do that is the million-dollar question. I don't have a good answer to that question other than, as Matthias says, continue to try to speak the truth wherever and whenever you can. And with time, I think as people wake up from that, hopefully they can look back and recognize, you know, maybe I was part of something inadvertently, willingly or unwillingly that did a lot of harm. And I, you know, you're one of the very few people who has actually publicly been willing to change your mind on certain issues related to COVID. Most people, you know, when they change their mind, they don't acknowledge that they've changed. They just come out six months later and start saying things that are different from what

they said six months ago and hope that no one's noticed the discrepancy. But you know, one of the reasons I love your work and what you're doing now with the show is I could watch you start to ask questions and start to question some of your assumptions and to take your audience along with you as you did that was really extraordinary to watch. I mean, it takes a lot of intellectual humility. It takes a lot of integrity to show people how you go through a process of maybe changing your mind or evolving. It seems the most natural thing in the world to me. Maybe because my education was so critical in getting my mind honed. I had a lazy brain as I entered college. And man, did I get my ass handed to me. And so I had to change lots of things all the time

for four years. And it really helped me a lot uh and i'm still learning and you know the model of this show was hey i wonder if people that have been canceled know something i could learn something from them and every every single guest save maybe one or two i i learned something if not a lot and that of course changes your point of view it refines it i and i hope i change again it changed a lot more and maybe go back a certain direction. I mean, in fact, I recently just, I noticed I was thinking more,

I was getting very angry about the lockdowns and the excesses and the mandates. And in the last like three weeks, I found myself going, well, in those first three months, I mean, we really, okay, I can kind of dismiss it now.

I kind of, I have a deeper empathy for people planning for worst case scenarios. And I can kind of look at how confusing things were then, even though many of us knew better and thought it was a bad idea what they were doing. Okay. That, you know, they had, they were in tough positions, but the fact that it then went off for six, 12, 18 months is inexcusable. And then the behavior of canceling people like you, just disgusting. And so that's where I feel perfectly comfortable with my opinions coming down hard on people who had irrational certitude. And irrational certitude is not a clinical or scientific posture. Well, and we have to be able to make mistakes.

It's okay for us to make mistakes in the social, political, public health realm, so long as there are mechanisms in place that allow for course correction. I think you're absolutely right. The initial maybe weeks of lockdowns were forgivable when hospitals were again that's not an endorsement of that policy but it's it's by way of saying it's understandable why we might have thought we needed to do that but why was it that once it became apparent that the harms were clearly outweighing any benefits that we were getting why were we unable to course correct at that point? And I think censorship played a significant role in that process, just to circle back on the theme that you mentioned with our Supreme Court case,

because one of the things that free speech allows for is it allows for that built-in mechanism for course correction. If you have public debate, if you have annoying voices, which may look fringe in a certain social context, raising their hand and asking inconvenient questions and presenting inconvenient data to challenge a prevailing narrative, it doesn't mean those people are necessarily going to be right, but some of them might be. And if you try to silence those voices, if you try to shut down the possibility of having those debates, if you project what my co-plaintiff Jay Bhattacharya calls the illusion of scientific consensus by simply silencing one side of the debate, then you don't have any mechanism to correct course,

and you end up doubling down on failed policies with no way of sort of getting off that train, even if the train is heading off a cliff. Yeah. We'll just call said gadfly Galileo, for instance, just picking a name out of the air. History is replete. Yeah. I'm forgetting his name, but a 19th century obstetrician who basically discovered that and ran a pretty good experiment on hand washing before delivering babies. And of course, everyone thought he was a quack and a nut. You know, that's the most superstitious, stupid.

This is prior to the germ theory of disease. How does washing your hands, how is that going to improve infection and, you know, outcomes? Well, so the guy who discovered H. pylori as a causative factor in the bacteria that causes gastric ulcers, the idea that gastric ulcers were at least in part and the result of an infectious disease. No, that's crazy. Everyone knows that ulcers are caused by stress. So the history of medicine is replete with people who were characterized as fringe and in some cases drummed out of the profession, right? Not allowed to go to the conferences. They were not part of the club.

And yet their ideas ended up prevailing in the end. And in some cases, they ended up winning the Nobel Prize in medicine for their contributions. So bring us up to date on the case at the Supreme Court. How did it go? How do you feel about it? Where are they now? When are we going to hear something? Give it all to us. Yeah, the case formerly known as Missouri v. Biden,

now it's known as Murthy v. Missouri, is five private plaintiffs, myself included, in two states, Missouri and Louisiana, filing a lawsuit challenging federal censorship on social media. So we're alleging that over a dozen federal agencies were engaged in pressuring social media companies during COVID, during the 2020 election. And we're discovering now on a whole host of other issues as well, domestic and foreign policy

issues that go beyond COVID and elections, that the government was pressuring social media companies to do its bidding and to censor disfavored views or views that challenged the government's preferred narratives. We got what's called a preliminary injunction against the government. It's the court stepping in and saying, you have to stop doing this. Even before the case goes to trial, the court looked at the evidence we presented and said, yeah, we're not going to wait another year or two for a final ruling. We're going to intervene now to stop the government from doing something that's clearly unconstitutional, clearly violates First Amendment

protected free speech rights. That was granted on July 4th of last year and then appealed to the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit upheld at least the key provisions in that injunction. The government didn't like that, so they appealed again to the Supreme Court. And in January of this year, we had oral arguments at the Supreme Court. We anticipate we will get a ruling from the Supreme Court on the injunction next month in June at the end of the term when the Supreme Court usually releases many of their decisions in sort of batch form. It's possible that they could release a ruling on this earlier, but probably it will be late June. And I'm cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court will do the right thing. So far, we're four for four on federal judges on endorsing

this injunction against the government. We have a district court judge. We have a unanimous three judge panel at the Fifth Circuit. My read of the Supreme Court justices is we have three justices that are clearly favorable to our petition for an injunction. That would be Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Thomas. We have three that are, let's call them skeptical of the plaintiff's petition. That would be Kagan Sotomayor and Kentaji Brown-Jackson, the newest member of the court. And then we have the other three that are in the middle and were a little hard to read during oral arguments. That'd be Justice Barrett, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justice Kavanaugh. I think with the three in the middle, the worry is they want the social media companies to have some way to talk. I'm sorry, they want government officials

to have some way to talk with and try to persuade social media companies, because some of them actually worked as White House attorneys, and they were used to calling up the New York Times or the Washington Post to get them to try to quell the story. And they assume what's happening with the social media companies is similar. Now, I wrote a piece in The Federalist actually arguing that this analogy was not apt, because if a government official calls up the New York Times, they're actually talking to the person that they're trying to censor. They're talking to a reporter, the journalist who's writing a story, or an editor who's publishing the story.

And they're saying, you know, hold off on this story because we need to get our spies out of Afghanistan before you run it. It's a national security issue. Or they're saying, we think you got the facts wrong on this. And here you hear the facts as we see them. And the journalist can say, oh, yeah, you're right. I, you know, I missed that. I'll correct that. Or they can say, no, go pound sand. I'm sorry. You know, that's not what was happening

when they were censoring on social media. They never called me or Jay Bhattacharya or Martin Kulldorff, any of my co-plaintiffs, and said, we think you got the science wrong on lockdowns, or we think you got the ethics wrong on vaccine mandates. You know, I never had that conversation with a government official who's trying to suppress my speech. I would have been happy to have that conversation. No, they're going behind my back to a third party and not only persuading that third party to censor me, but also persuading that third party to change their algorithms so that anyone who writes anything favorable to, let's say, the Great Barrington Declaration or anyone who writes anything critical of vaccine mandates is automatically

censored by the algorithm. And this is how we ended up getting hundreds of thousands of Americans censored tens of millions of times, according to the documentation of records that we presented to the court. So the scale of this censorship is massive. This is the first case of the digital age where by exerting control over large social media companies like Twitter, now known as X, or Facebook, or YouTube, the government could affect a censorship on a scale that we basically have no precedent for. In fact, the Fifth Circuit said, we're searching for a Supreme Court free speech censorship case that would be a good precedent for this case. And we actually can't find one. The district court judge, when he issued the original injunction, said, if what plaintiffs allege is true, he issued the original injunction, said if what plaintiffs

allege is true, and by issuing the injunction he indicated, yeah, it looks like it's true, this is arguably the worst violation of free speech in United States history. That was not the plaintiff saying that, that was not me, that was not our lawyers, that was the federal judge looking at the evidence that we had presented the court saying this is the worst violation of free speech in United States history. So it's hard to wrap your head around the scope of what the government has been doing. Actually, when you peel back the carpet and look at what's underneath, it's rather staggering. And I think the Supreme Court and some of the justices are going to have

to struggle to wrap their heads around the nature and the scope of the problem. I hope they're able to do that before they issue a ruling because most censorship cases in the past were censoring one journalist or one story or a few paragraphs in a single publication, a book, perhaps what we're talking about here is really the government exercising a totalizing form of control such that they're curating what we're able to see and what we're prohibited from seeing online. Well, you said totalizing control. i think there is a totalitarian sort of instinct in wanting to control speech like that um but i i want to ask a couple of specific questions this this issue of going to the new york times and asking the the reporter who is being published on the new york times to talk to somebody in the government,

isn't the very basis of some of the exceptions that social media get is section 230, which alleges that they are not publishers. That's right. And so doesn't this go at the very core of that section or exemption? So tell me about that. Yeah, no, this is a really important point.

Thank you for bringing it up. This is another reason why that analogy that Justice Kavanaugh brought up is not really apt when it comes to social media companies, because if a government official is calling the New York Times, and by the way, I'm not endorsing that government officials should be able to berate journalists at the New York Times either. There may be constitutional issues there. But setting that aside, there's very little that the government can do to threaten the New York Times business model, right? Whereas with the threats that have been made directly and publicly in connection with censorship demands, the threats to remove Section 230 liability

protections would basically put the social media companies out of business. The social media companies have a very unique position, which in my view is kind of problematic, but it is what it is, where Section 230 of the Communications Act says, for purposes of liability, Twitter and Facebook are not publishers. They're just platforms. If they were a publisher, you could sue them for libel, right? The New York Times is able to exercise editorial control and needs to exercise editorial control over what they publish, because if they publish something that's knowingly and deliberately false that harms someone, they could be liable for defamation.

As a publisher. As a publisher, exactly. What social media companies have now is they have their cake and eat it too. They're not a publisher, so they're not liable for anything that's published on their platforms. And yet, they're also not treated as common carriers, like a telephone line. They're given editorial control, which allows them to censor. The government knows that, and it uses that as a fulcrum to say, do our censorship bidding or else.

Or else. So when, say, Justice Kavanaugh raised these issues, were these sorts of things brought up in the presentation before the stream court? Or is there, I don't think about how this is done, is there some post hoc documentation that you send upstream later? So there's no post hoc documentation. Perhaps one of the clerks read my Federalist piece and will pass it on up the line. I don't know, but I think our lawyer did a pretty good job. There were a couple of points that I would have added to the points that he made, our lawyer did a pretty good job. There were a couple of

points that I would have added to the points that he made, but he did a pretty good job, I think, trying to distinguish between that analogy that Kavanaugh had brought up. And at one point, it actually elicited a rare laugh from the other justices. Chief Justice John Roberts, who also was a White House attorney, turned to Kagan and Kavanaugh. So there's three former White House attorneys on the Supreme Court that probably, you know, made a few phone calls to journalists in the past. He said, yeah, well, but I never coerced anyone. So I was never engaged in anything that might have been unconstitutional. So I think that the justice system.

Did they laugh about that? They did. They sort of elicited a chuckle. Interesting. There was this sort of weird, well, we have to find a way to allow this kind of communication without crossing the line into overt coercion. So I think recognizing that we're comparing apples and oranges when we're talking about a publisher versus a social media company. Yes. When we're talking about a publisher versus a social media company. And the other factor that unfortunately was not mentioned during oral arguments, but I tried to make this case in my article, was that there's lots of carrots and sticks that the government has with Google, let's say, or Facebook that they don't have with the Washington Post. One of which is those companies have massive government contracts, right? And that can

be used as another carrot and stick to basically play ball with us, meet with us on a regular basis so we can tell you what information to censor and what information to allow. And, you know, because we're basically one of your major clients and these various government agencies using your software are a major source of your revenue and your business income model. So I think there's all kinds of structural factors that the government exploited to its own advantage

to make sure that the social media companies did their bidding. One of the surprising things, as we got more and more documents on discovery that became clear to us, is that actually the degree to which the social media companies tried to push back and tried to get the government off their back, and they were basically beaten down over time. Initially, we worried, well, coercion might be hard to establish because maybe ideologically or in other respects, the companies and the current administration are pretty much aligned on these things. And so it may look very cooperative. We're just your friendly neighborhood government agency having friendly meetings with you, and we're not telling

you what to do. Well, it turns out that the social media companies really didn't want this arrangement, that there was a huge power differential, and that initially they tried to resist and say, no, we're not going to take down this account because we don't think it violates our terms of service. And it was only after people like Rob Flaherty, the White House digital communications director, started dropping F-bombs, started indicating that people very, very high up in our office and when you work in the White House, everyone knows who you mean when you say that, are extremely unhappy with your company for not doing our bidding year. It was only after this kind of constant back and forth browbeating that companies finally caved in. So it's clear

that there was massive coercion going on there. And this was out in the Twitter files, right? This is Michael Schallenberger's reporting and I think Barry Weiss. And that's the only reason we know about this. If Elon Musk had not bought Twitter, we still would not know that this craziness was going on. I have to take a little break.

Susan, anything you want to drop in before I run out to a little break here and bring our friend, Dr. Meryl Nass in? She'll be here in a little bit. Oh, is she not here yet? Yeah, she's coming. 6.49. She'll be here for 6.49. I see that she is at 6.49. All right. So you and I have more time to talk. So what we'll do, Dr. Cariotti, is we'll take a little break, and then you and I will pick up on the Supreme Court case here. And about 10 or 15 minutes later, we'll have Dr. Meryl Nast give us an update on the World Health Organization treaty. Can we also talk about Putin and Xi Jinping today?

With who? I don't know. Any of these guys. I'm scared. During the break, if you have an opinion about that. I'm scared. Susan saw a picture of Putin and Xiigi Ping and she can't stop thinking about it. They've been in each other's arms for quite some time.

Yeah, but I don't know. Yeah. So, all right, we'll be right back. We're going to hear from some of the people that we use on a daily basis and that you should all be. The fact that you're not ready for the next disaster. You've seen what the government can do with the wellness company kits and also using that true nitrogen i'm telling you nad is a key part of the aging story be right back let's talk about aging because everyone wants to know how to slow it down for almost a decade i've been taking a healthy aging

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

the NAD boosting potential of NR, explains. And the center of the metabolism that allows the conversion of food into energy is NAD coenzymes. And NAD gets disturbed in the aging process. And as we're exposed to conditions of metabolic stress, Niagen, which is the form of NR that was developed by Chromadex, is the best and the only fully legal form of NR. And this is really the gold standard for NAD boosting vitamins.

I love this product. I urge you to try it. Go to drdrew.com slash truniagen for 20% off your order. That is drdrew.com slash truniagen, T-R-U-N-I-A-G-E-N and enter drdrew at checkout, D-R-D-R-E-W, enter it at the checkout for 20% off. There are four distinct and outstanding medical kits from The Wellness Company. A first aid kit, a travel emergency kit.

I was very instrumental in developing that one. I love it. A COVID emergency kit. But let's unpack their medical emergency kit. The one that gives you immediate access to treatment for a varieties of medical conditions. Here's the kit. Pneumonia, upper respiratory infections,

skin infections, gastrointestinal infections. You'll have on-hand medication that will even serve as immediate prophylaxis against a sexually transmitted infection, rapid intervention for Lyme and other tick-borne illnesses. Of course, we've added Tamiflu to our kits in case the avian flu should become human-to-human transmissible. Then we know something is up and we want to be ready. And look, we want to be covered for bioterrorism even. And of course, the Nobel Prize winning antiparasitic ivermectin and a how-to guide and a virtual consultant.

Get access to these prescription meds by going to drdrew.com slash TWC to save 15% off. That is $30 off the medical emergency kit. drdrew.com slash TWC for 15% off the kit and any of their kits or their supplements. Do it now. drdrew.com slash GWC.

The smell is sexy. Or sushi. Or Dr. Drupinski. What? That is part of Caleb's surprise for me. I'd heard about that one too. It's the first time I've seen it. But before we get back with Dr. Aaron Cariotti,

I want to remind you about our friends at Paleo Valley. They are synonymous with grass-fed Finnish beef, made in Greenland, and three of my favorite things from this amazing organization. They are, of course, serving the growing parallel economy, and you know all about their bone broth. It is at this point that I'm a full-on addict. And so I think Sue's a little worse than me.

I see her in that stuff more than once a day, especially when it comes to putting chocolate in my coffee. No, just once a day. Okay. It's made from richer sources of vitally important collagen than brands that say make their bone broth from hides. We take a bag with us on the road. I also travel with enough beef sticks to get me through the long flights and the long days and the long stretches without access to food. They're great snacks. They're a great source of protein.

The new venison sticks are wonderful. And then there is the Paleo Valley Beef Tallow. Susan and I use it cooking instead of seed oils, the evil seed oils, everybody. Tallow. In fact, they got rid of tallow. It's a huge mistake. They have a high quality tallow as well. Get yours at drdrew.com slash paleovalley for 15% off the first order and 20% off when you subscribe. That is at drdrew.com slash paleovalley. All right.

Dr. Nash will be here in about 10 minutes. Right now, let's get back with our friend, Dr. Aaron Cariotti, Dr. Cariotti's psychiatrist. He was the chairman of the Bioethics Committee and was- John Lance's father. Oh, yeah. The young psychiatric resident who, I think he might have been a medical student, when he suggested I look into you, just as you were being escorted off the grounds, I think, he was at my son's wedding. He was at my son's wedding a couple of weeks ago, and I thanked him for the grounds. I think he was at my son's wedding. He was at my son's wedding a

couple of weeks ago and I thanked him for the introductions and he still has nothing but glowing things to say about you as a teacher. And I think you figured in him going into psychiatry. So thank you for that. Yeah. Well, that's one thing I do miss is I'm not, I'm not doing as much teaching of residents and medical students as I was when I was at the university. So that's one aspect of my previous work that I miss. But fortunately, I'm still doing work in psychiatry and still able to do my work in medical ethics through some independent think tanks that have supported me. And it's a shame that you're not training residents and students in that, you inspired, there's one young student you inspired to go into psychiatry. We need more psychiatrists, particularly in this state.

And the fact that the UC system is not making that a major priority to produce more is, again, I'm disgusted by so many things. That's one of the many I'm disgusted by in our great state of California. But back to the Supreme Court case, let me ask you on Susan's behalf, or maybe Susan, you can ask first before we go back to Supreme Court's case. Is there something particular

you want Dr. Cariotti to talk about as it pertains to two communist leaders walking around together? Actually, I do want to say something about that. I was thinking during the break, Susan, about a link between our court case and these strongmen, totalitarian communist leaders, particularly Xi Jinping. And censorship is always the first step

toward totalitarianism. There was a 20th century political theorist named Eric Vogelin who studied the totalitarian systems of the 20th century, Italian fascism, Soviet communism, Nazism in Germany. He said the common feature of all totalitarian systems is not concentration camps, barbed wire fences. It's not men in jackboots. It's not secret police. It's not mass surveillance, which we have now, at least digitally. As horrifying as all these things are, and these are the things that people typically think of when you say the word totalitarian, he said the common feature of

all totalitarian systems and the starting point for these systems is the prohibition of questions. The regime monopolizes what counts as knowledge, what counts as rationality. And if you raise your hand and ask any inconvenient questions, they don't sit down and debate with you. They just say, you know, if they're a Nazi, they say you're infected with Jew consciousness, or if they're a Marxist, they say you're infected with bourgeois consciousness. You're not allowed to be in polite society and have a conversation about this because clearly you don't know what you're talking about. And so you're placed outside the realm of rational conversation through censorship or other means.

Today, you might say you're placed in a kind of digital gulag where, you know, you can try to say your piece, but your audience is not going to be able to see anything that you post. And, you know, if you continue to speak out and don't shut up, then they might lock you up. Then they might, you know, steamroll you by putting you in a concentration camp. But in a perfectly realized totalitarian system, Hannah Arendt, another major 20th century philosopher who studied totalitarian systems, in her classic book, The Origin of Totalitarianism. She said, in a perfectly realized totalitarian system, those external punishments

start becoming less and less necessary. You actually need fewer secret police because everyone starts informing on everyone else, right? Everyone in the society who imbibes the ideology and the fear becomes an informant. We saw that during COVID, right? And people start internalizing the prohibition of questions to the point where at the end point of that process, the questions no longer occur to you, right? It no longer occurs to you that my rights are being steamrolled right now, and maybe I should stand up and say, no, this is not okay. And that's when you end up in the worst form of prison. You're in a prison of your own mind because you're not able to question what's happening around you. And I think censorship and the exclusion of certain opinions from the public square, that is the starting point.

And the rest of the totalitarian apparatus will follow inevitably if people accept and embrace censorship and this monopolistic control over what counts as knowledge, what counts as information, rationality. And so it's very important. People may be wondering, well, what can I do if if there are various forces in society nudging us in this particular direction my advice would be well first of all start noticing when you're self-censoring start noticing when you have a question an opinion you know sort of a contrary judgment about something and you bite your tongue out of fear of what other people are going to think, it doesn't mean you, in every social context, you have to say every thought that comes into your head all the time with no filter. That's obviously not wise either. But I think during

COVID, it was very clear that there were lots and lots of people who had very serious reservations about what was being done with public policy, public health policy, employment policy, that simply refused to speak out out of fear. That sets the stage for very bad things to happen politically. You know, I'm actually confused psychologically. It's so foreign to me by people who want to tell other people how to live who have the hubris and the irrational certitude to sit in a position of elite an elite bureaucratic system uh and then know that you know what's best for everyone that you're and by the way undermining the will of the people maybe not following the directives of duly elected officials because you know better. That is this, that is a, and then trying to continue to centralize your power so you can carry out those misguided notions.

That is the oddest, oddest impulse in the world to me. Well, it's certainly a perennial temptation for lots and lots of people. I agree with you. I, it's hard for me to imagine wanting to. It's never occurred to me. I mean, I read things all the time, every day, that I vehemently disagree with, that really get under my skin and bother me. It would never, it has never occurred to me that those things shouldn't be published, that those people shouldn't have a chance to say what they want to say. You know,

let them speak, let people see how insane they are. Let people see how idiotic these ideas are. You know, give me a chance to respond with a counterpoint or an argument. But the idea that I or anyone else should be empowered to decide what can and cannot be said publicly, I find, like you, Drew, I can't wrap my head around that mentality. Yeah, it's odd. A ruling class surely seems to have embraced that as the right way forward. Yeah. Yeah, they seem to be enraptured by it, like sort of intoxicated by it in some way, which is even more bizarre from my standpoint.

Dr. Meryl Nass is with us now. Let's bring her in. Of course, Dr. Nass is an MIT graduate. She's an internist. She's a board-certified physician. She has been instrumental in. Of course, Dr. Nass is an MIT graduate. She's an internist. She's a board-certified physician. She has been instrumental in raising or helping, sort of raising a pushback against the World Health Organization's so-called treaty.

Dr. Nass, you can follow her at Nass, N-A-S-S, Merrill, M-E-R-Y-L, and doortofreedom.org. You can go there as well. And I'm uh dr nass at door to freedom is where some of the pushback uh is available to the treaty so-called yes absolutely can you give us an update on how things stand last time we spoke louisiana had raised its mighty fist to the to the power the international powers that be where are we now uh so um louisiana had the senate had voted 37 to 0 um in favor of a bill that said louisiana would give no jurisdiction to the who yesterday the house voted for that bill as well 69 to 22 and um so basically it's

going back to the senate so that it can go into effect a little bit quicker. And then the governor Landry, who Aaron knows well because he has brought the case that Aaron is a plaintiff in, you know, Missouri v. Biden, he will sign it. And so Louisiana will have that law. Florida and Utah already have laws in place that will deny jurisdiction to the WHO. Oklahoma has voted in the House and is supposed to go to the Senate now. Tennessee and Alabama have passed some similar bills, but not exactly the same, basically directing the government to withdraw support from the WHO. But the more exciting thing that's happened in the last couple of weeks is that the 49 Republican senators, every one of them has written a letter to President Biden saying, look, withdraw your support for these two

WHO documents. And if you don't, we will require them to go through the Senate for its advice and consent, which means if that happens, the treaties will die in the Senate because they need a two-thirds vote. That's rather extraordinary, by the way. It's extraordinary? Yeah, when I spoke to Michelle Bachmann, she said she couldn't get the attention of any senators. Maybe Ron Johnson, and that was it.

Well, Ron has wrangled the rest of them into this. I think they realize that giving up sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable international organization might not be what theyphysician uh show show to their constituents um you know i don't think it's a winning um platform but the other thing that happened which is even more extraordinary in a way is that 22 attorneys general well republican on may 8th sent a letter to joe biden as well um and they said we are not going to basically enforce any we are not denying jurisdiction to the who in our states so they have protected their citizens in 22 states from overreach by the who so that's very interesting and we are working to get to do the same thing. That is a massive and rapid change since we last spoke.

I think you had two states who were on board and some kind of mulling it over. So congratulations. I hope you had a direct role and your hand had a direct role in carrying this out because it's a big deal. Now in Europe, we have, I believe, Holland, the Netherlands standing up and Slovakia and coincidentally or otherwise, the Slovakian leader is attempted at assassination, ends up in the ICU. Do you, do you, I, listen, I, I immediately bristled against things that look conspiratorial. I know Slovakia's got all kinds of problems. Standing up to the World Health Organization, to me, seems like the least likely to trigger the kinds of assassination attempt that we saw here. But maybe you feel differently. I'll give

you both a chance to answer this question. Dr. Nass first. Sure. So Robert Fico, this is his fourth time being the prime minister of Slovakia over about a 20-year period. And he has bristled feathers on a lot of issues. He has withdrawn support for the war for Ukraine against Russia. He is cozying up to Russia. He has done a lot of other things that the West doesn't like. So it may not be his stand against the WHO, but he went publicly five days before he was shot, five or six bullets at close range. he had made a public statement and then tegros the director general of the who had gone to slovakia to try to say look please you know don't break uh consensus

you know keep your mouth shut at the at the who don't don't rile any other countries up and uh you know five days after he made the statement, he was shot. So I think, and what's quite interesting is none of the major newspapers, none of them, I looked at about eight different major papers around the world. None of them mentioned the WHO. They mentioned his stance on other things. And almost all of them, except the Times of India, talked about the assassin being a lone wolf. They actually use the terminology lone wolf in five or six, in the New York Times, the Washington Post, Al Jazeera, you know, et cetera. So, and that should tell you something. Well, and that seems to be, I'm going to have Dr. Cariotti to respond to my last question

as well, but that certainly seems to be a historical trend. It's not always the case, but it certainly seems more common than not, than even if it's Franz Ferdinand, where the assassin was part of the black hand, he actually, they actually screwed up their initial attempt at assassination. It was him as a lone wolf that actually resulted in the death of Franz Ferdinand. So even that, the lone wolf was involved. So it seems like lone wolves tend to be the source of most assassination attempts, I suspect. But Doug, carry on to go and answer. You can address that, and you can address the EU situation. Go ahead. So lone wolf i i would be a little hesitant to generalize i mean ronald reagan was shot by a guy named hinkley who was paranoid schizophrenic and was

mentally ill wolf and so he that he fits into the lone wolf category but the same same with garfield garfield mckinley and and the Theodore Roosevelt, who people forget there was a major assassination attempt, all lone wolves. At least in this country, it seems to be the way we do it. Wow, what about Kennedy? I'm not putting JFK in the, I understand. I carefully, I assiduously avoided that because I know people get weird about it.

But I'm just saying for the most part. Look, I think we can entertain various hypotheses. I think we're at the level of entertaining hypotheses when it comes to that attempted assassination. There was apparently, it didn't go as far. The guy didn't pull the trigger. But there was a member of, someone who's running as a member of the European Parliament from Ireland, I believe it was. And there was an attempt on his life or something that came close to an attempt on his life recently. And he's another figure who

has been vocally opposed to the Europeans' response to the pandemic and the WHO treaty. Was that a coincidence? Was that played up in the context of happening a day or two after the prime minister of Slovakia? I don't know. I would say let's entertain this as a hypothesis. I wouldn't put too much stock in it until we can tease out exactly who the person was

and what their motive was. But it certainly is concerning that um two people were targeted that have this kind of um anti-elitist maybe pro-populist stance uh over in europe and you know i don't see a lot of the globalists pushing for this agenda, having their lives threatened. So maybe it's a coincidence, maybe it's not, but I think we can float various hypotheses at this stage. But it really is interesting, though. the eu lately in that the way the eu responded to similarly um similar voices objecting to the i don't know how to frame this in such a way that it's accurate brexit wasn't was thought to be something that needed to be suppressed by the at least least the EU saw it that way. And they dealt with the folks

who had an opinion about Brexit, a positive opinion about Brexit, much the way our government dealt with people who had a contrary opinion about some of the actions taken during COVID. So it's odd to me, again, this is what Dr. Cariotti and I were talking about earlier, that this trend is not just

on our soil it's all over the world it seems like and you mentioned globalist and i know there's davos and these organizations but that doesn't really explain the the eu congressional behavior it's just this this i i can't understand It's what you and I were struggling with. Dr. Nass, do you understand what I'm talking about? The way there's this tendency towards centralized, bureaucratic, almost like a monarchical administrative state that is thought of as thus sayeth the Lord. Yes. In fact, I'm going to give a talk that will touch on that tonight. What the globalists have attempted is global governance, you know, the new world order with one government for everybody. And documents out of the EU, out of the World Bank, out of different organizations are already talking about that. So it is being sort of normalized for the rest of us. And in order to achieve this, they have to have control of information, which is why they're hanging on so tightly. And it's probably why a lot is at stake with the Supreme Court

decision on Missouri v. Biden and why we might lose because there could be so much pressure put on the members of the Supreme Court to vote for the globalists rather than for the Aaron Cariottes. It's a huge problem and, you know, people don't realize it, but that is real. I mean, that's what they're talking about. The UN is interested in governing emergencies. The UN is interested in governing emergencies. The WHO is interested in governing emergencies. The UN wants a whole new financial system. And once we have an electronic financial system, you know, and there's no more paper money, that will, you know, enable central control of all of us.

So, I mean, this isn't, there's no coincidence why things are happening the way they are. These are chess pieces that need to be put in place. Where is it coming from? Is there some academic consensus somewhere amongst government schools or schools of administration, like the Kennedy School at Harvard and stuff to these places, have they just arrived at a place where globalism is the answer and they're just advocating for it, Aaron? Yeah, I think there's basically a view that says controlled by a technocratic elite,

which is not a new idea. I mean, the early 20th century progressive movement in the United States, going back to Woodrow Wilson, advocated for a stronger administrative state run by experts. When I say technocracy, I mean rule by so-called experts, people who have specialized expertise, that know how to administer society better than ordinary people do, and should make decisions over the lives and welfare of ordinary people that ordinary people themselves are not really competent to make. I think there has been a sort of dialectical tension between that movement and democracy, what is now derided as populism, right? Populism. We need to protect democracy from the people. You know, you started hearing this rhetoric really, really in 20, it was the shockwaves of 2016 that led to the growth of the global

censorship movement beginning in 2017, because two events happened in 2016. Number one was Brexit. Number two is the election of Donald Trump. Two things that were not supposed to happen according to the elites who run things. Right. And so they said, well, yeah, democracy is all fine and well. Right. We like democracy, but democracy has to be protected from the demos, from the people, from the populace who don't know what's good for them and vote for stupid things like Brexit and Donald Trump. And so we basically have to start by controlling the flow of information online.

You saw this at the federal level, there's a little known agency that's kind of the nerve center of government censorship in the United States called CISA, the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency, which was conceived in the waning days of the Obama administration in 2016.

It was finally funded and approved by Congress in 2018. And in 2017, its first director, Jen Easterly, who's one of the defendants on our case, said, you know, we were set up to basically protect our critical infrastructure from things like cyber attacks. She said, well, part of our critical infrastructure is our election infrastructure. Again, this is following the election of 2016. So we got to protect our election infrastructure. And part of protecting our election infrastructure is protecting what she called our cognitive infrastructure.

Now, our listeners might have some sense of what our critical infrastructure is. Maybe they understand what our election infrastructure is. We should protect that stuff from, I don't know, computer viruses, cyber attacks. But what's our cognitive infrastructure? Our cognitive infrastructure, in the queen of all Orwellian euphemisms, cognitive infrastructure is literally the thoughts inside of your head, which need to be protected from bad ideas, like the ones that you talk about on this show. And so SISA very quickly pivoted toward censorship.

They became a central clearinghouse for all government censorship demands to be funneled to the social media companies. And that started around 2017, 2018. And I think we saw it manifest and sort of really be road tested during the pandemic when technocratic rule by unelected quote-unquote experts became embraced on a global scale. And now we're seeing some of that being walked back, but the people who gained additional powers in 2020 are very reluctant to relinquish them. So they'll invent new emergencies. There's a climate emergency. There's an energy crisis. And we need rolling lockdowns to deal with that, or we need something like the WHO to be empowered to declare a public health emergency, even a localized one, so that these international organizations can step in and dictate how things

are going to go. If you look at it in terms of power dynamics, it starts making a lot more sense. If you look at it in terms of public health, you're going to continue scratching your head and saying, well, there's no scientific evidence for doing things this way. But as soon as you see that there's a large cohort of our ruling class that thinks ordinary people are too dumb to know what's good for them. And even their elected officials are too dumb to do the right thing. And therefore- Well, right. And then you have a middle level bureaucracy that is undermining the elected officials.

So the will of the people never gets actually activated. This is something that's come to my attention. But here we are, you're a psychiatrist. Dr. Nass is an internist. I'm an internist and I worked in psychiatry. The three of us are sitting here. We, Dr. Nass and I, are from the same general generation. You, Dr. Carey, are at least a generation behind us.

Did you ever imagine three physicians sitting here in 2024 having this goddamn conversation about these issues. This is not what we train for. People could argue that we shouldn't be having it because it is not what we train for. But here we are. We are charged with doing good on behalf of people. That is our charge. And it becomes obvious that we are sort of compelled to do what we are doing. But my God, what a strange circumstance we find ourselves.

Dr. Nass, you first. Yeah, thanks. What's happened to us? I sort of disagree with Aaron a little bit because I want to point out that the CIA's mighty Wurlitzer, their control of media through paying off editors and writers and all the major media in the U.S. and overseas, you know, started around 1950, you know, right after the CIA was formed. So our, you know, our opinions have been formed to a great extent by the CIA ever since. And CISA was simply taking the new architecture of social media and using that to get hold of our cognitive infrastructure. But remember Total Information Awareness, which are being collected. of countries and the world have always wanted to gain control of everybody. But there's a new technological way to do that that makes it easier than it ever was

before. And so they're taking advantage of it. But it's, you know, human nature is such that there have been loads of people throughout history that we know about who wanted to take over the world. Yes. Yes. That's inescapable. Dr. Cariotti? Yeah. So Dr. Nass is absolutely right. You look at Operation Mockingbird, which is the CIA's attempt to influence journalism and what was mainstream media prior to the digital age. So that was a really important correction. The government attempt to control the

flow of information did not begin in 2017. That was the latest iteration of a game plan that has been deployed since World War II. And if you look at the history of mass communications in the United States, so with the advent of every new technology, the government has tried to step in and exercise regulatory control over that means of communication. So radio comes online, and you get the Federal Radio Commission, which is then responsible for licensing all radio stations. If you want to put stuff out over the airways, then you have to basically be licensed by the federal government. With the advent of television, the Federal Radio Commission

becomes the FCC, Federal Communications Commission, and you get the licensing of the major networks. And when there were only a handful of major networks and only a handful of talking heads that were responsible for telling the American people the news, I think it was much easier for the military intelligence operatives who, since World War II, have been working on information warfare to influence those gatekeepers, basically. The internet is a whole new game. And on the one hand, it offers unlimited reach and control if the government can take hold of it, right? But on the other hand, it's also an enormous threat. Right. If you remember the disasters from the point of view of the elites, the disasters of 2016 of Trump and Brexit were facilitated by the use of new social media. Right. And so there was a recognition of basically every citizen now has has a microphone, right? Every citizen can be a publisher. It doesn't mean they're going to get a hearing,

but they have the potential to get a hearing if what they're saying is compelling and if they grow their audience. And this was a massive threat to the powers that be. And so I think what we're seeing now is an attempted clampdown on the free flow of information online. And it's a war, it's a battle for control over the

internet. I'm of the view now that actually the reason that we have so few major social media companies that have such a massive monopoly is that the government actually not only funded some of these companies in their early stages, like Google, but allowed them to exercise monopolistic control and to crush, using unfair practices, crush other potential competitors like what happened with Parler a few years ago when all the other social media companies basically destroyed Parler as a potential alternative to Twitter. The government has allowed these monopolies because it's much easier to control and influence six social media companies than it is you know if there were many dozens of different ways to

distribute information online so um i think well the next few years are going to be crucial to see if we have a free and open internet free and open social media or well if we're going to end up in a place where it's curated by the government. And you two are major figures in pushing back and hopefully at least mitigating some of this, the direction the government is going. I have to wrap things up here before I do. Dr. Nass, what are you speaking on this evening and can we watch it? Thank you. So there's a Children's Health Defense this evening and can we watch it? Thank you. So there's a Children's Health Defense Roundtable at 8 p.m. Eastern time with Ron Johnson, who wrangled those senators, with David Bell, myself, Mary Holland, and Jan Jekielek. So I hope everybody will tune in to CHD TV.

And what are you speaking on particularly? You mentioned. So I, I'll go over briefly what these two documents that the WHO do. And then I'll go back into the history of how actually this biosecurity agenda has been coming forward for a number of years and then explain how it fits into the goal of global government. I keep reminding everybody

in terms of this biosecurity phenomenology that Robespierre's committee that carried out the terror in France was called the Committee for Public Safety. It was the safety committee that chopped heads. And Dr. Cariotti, where can we find you? I'm on Twitter, Aaron Cariotti, MD. I have a sub stack called Human Flourishing where I publish and republish my articles that are published elsewhere. Folks want to follow the Supreme Court case, that sub stack, aaroncariotti.substack.com is a great way to stay up to date.

Great. And I appreciate you guys coming back on here again and showing your ideas with us. I could talk for hours to both of you. So we appreciate very much you being here. Likewise. Thanks, Drew. Yeah. Thanks an awful lot. You bet. Well, no doubt we'll see you again. Susan, what was that? Did you say something? I heard that. Oh? I heard That was fascinating The three doctors are having this conversation They are brilliant and they care about people and the country

and maybe that's why we're the ones that have to do this and by the way we were the objects of some of the excesses during COVID No kidding and I was thinking about censorship and how it goes back in history and I was talking to my family in Prague and they were there when the nazis came in and they said the tanks came down the street and they were listening to the radio and they um

heard the the nazis go in and kill all the all the radio broadcasters because they had to basically take the word away. They didn't want to have them out saying, okay. Also, I remember you coming home from college going, you know, everything on the media is controlled by the government. Well, you just heard that history. Cariotti laid it all out. So did Dr. Harris.

It's very interesting. Yeah. It's so interesting. It's still like that though. Yeah. Well, now it's worse and it's different. That's all. So let's, we're It's still like that, though. It's still like that. Yeah, well, now it's worse, and it's different. That's all. So we're going to take a break and go over. Censorship is not good.

Well, which is why we want to do this Locals After Show. We feel like we could probably create an environment there for even more open discourse. That is our plan. This is our first show. There will be many others. Everyone is welcome. We'll just sort of be over there. I think we're going to be chatting, Caleb. Is that

correct first or will I actually have people able to come up? They're still actually watching it over there. So they're watching the show over there right now. Oh, yeah. You'll get to talk to them. We're on Locals right now? Yeah. The whole show is going to stream on Locals and then they get an extra

bonus like 15-20 minutes of an after show. Today's kind of a test run. You didn't tell me that. You didn't tell me we were actually live on Locals and then they get an extra bonus like 15-20 minutes of an after show. Today's kind of a test run. You didn't tell me that. You didn't tell me we were actually live on Locals. I would have gone on Locals and watched. Oh no. Can people chat there? Or do they have to go and restream? We only work together. Yeah, the chat's up now.

There's people chatting in there over at drdrew.com slash Locals. Okay, so we're going to head over there. Again, please do support the people that support us. We've been selling MyPillow stuff lately too, which has been great to support. They're the nicest people on Earth. Drdrew.com slash MyPillow.

I don't understand why people don't, why they don't want to support that organization. They're lovely people. And the products have been great. We've been very excited to get their stuff. They also have mystore.coms, but they're trying to be in competition with Amazon

eventually. Really interesting. I think that's cool though. We stand by all the people that support us. We use all their products and we hope you will too. Where are we? Thursday. So we are coming back on Tuesday at 2 o'clock. Let's put the schedule up there. All next week is

2 o'clock. It's John Bowden and Nicky Searcy. Nick Searcy, May 22nd. Hang on here. I'm looking at the schedule. Yes, guests to be determined. And then May 23rd, Tulsi Gabbard. May 30th may need to be changed, Susan. That's when we're in Las Vegas.

Yeah, we can't do it. Mike Benz, Dr. Victory coming in. Yeah, yeah. We're out of town. All right, but next week, just pay attention, 2 o'clock Pacific time all next week. So we will see you at, correct?

Is that my time right? Everybody? Yes, that's correct. Including Thursday? Yes, all the way across. It's all the way across. With Tulsi Gabbard's in, we'll be there also. So we'll see you on Tuesday,

2 o'clock Pacific time. See you then. Or at Locals. 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.