Ask Dr. Drew - New Emails: FDA Chief Warned Fauci mRNA Vaccine Injuries “Will Come Back To Bite You Later” w/ Dr. Robert Redfield – Ask Dr. Drew – Ep 662

Episode Date: September 4, 2026

Former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield joins Dr. Drew to answer the question everyone wants to know: what happens to Dr. Fauci now? Newly released emails show in May 2021, then-acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock wrote to Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins about reports she was getting from healthcare professionals whose patients described adverse reactions after a COVID vaccine, and told them a problem left to fester “will come back to bite you later.” The study she asked for was never done. Redfield, who served on the White House Coronavirus Task Force and the Operation Warp Speed board, also reacts to the FDA’s August 27 approval of Pfizer’s XFG-adapted COVID shot. Then emergency physician Dr. Joseph Fraiman, lead author of a re-analysis of serious harms in the mRNA vaccine trials, walks through the REMAP-CAP randomized trial of oseltamivir, sold as Tamiflu. A damning new report shows that recruitment was stopped after 19.4% of critically ill influenza patients treated with the drug had died by day 90, compared with 13.7% of those given no antiviral. The authors conclude the drug is ineffective – and actually appears likely to increase the 90-day death rate in these patients. Dr. Robert Redfield is a virologist, infectious disease expert, and former CDC Director. He served on the White House Coronavirus Task Force and Operation Warp Speed board, co-founded the University of Maryland’s Institute of Human Virology, and was Chief of Infectious Diseases at UMD School of Medicine. He advised President Bush on HIV/AIDS and Governor Hogan on public health, and now practices at GBMC Health Partners. Learn more at https://gbmc.org Dr. Joseph Fraiman is an emergency physician and clinical researcher focused on harm-benefit analysis. He served as Medical Manager of Louisiana’s Urban Search Rescue Disaster Task Force 1 and is lead author of a widely known re-analysis of mRNA vaccine serious harms. He is a member of Florida’s Public Health Integrity Committee. Follow at https://x.com/josephfraiman 「 SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS 」 • BIOPRO - BioPro+® is a natural formula of growth factors and peptides that support how you look, feel & perform. Learn more at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/biopro⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • FATTY15 – The future of essential fatty acids is here! Strengthen your cells against age-related breakdown with Fatty15. Get 15% off a 90-day Starter Kit Subscription at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/fatty15⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get 15% off your first order at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/paleovalley⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twc.health/drew⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Executive Producers • Kaleb Nation - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://kalebnation.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • Susan Pinsky - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/firstladyoflove⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Content Producer • Emily Barsh - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/emilytvproducer⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Very important guest today. I'm thrilled that they come back to give us updates, both Dr. Robert Redfield and Dr. Joseph Freiman. Dr. Redfield, of course, the director of the CDC. Here to tell us, amongst other things, what kind of reporting during the pandemic and what was Dr. Fauci's... I don't think we've updated with Dr. Redfield

since the Fauci Diaries have come out. What happens, Dr. Fauci now. He pleaded the fifth over a hundred times in the Senate hearings. I think most people are aware. Dr. Redfield spends a great deal of his time now working on vaccine injured. He has been very public about the story of having been sort of brushed aside as the CDC director and his position of authorities somewhat usurp by the NI-Triple-A, NI-A-A-I, whatever Fauci's program was where he was essentially funding research around the world.

Suddenly, he's the leading medical decision-maker in our government. unelected, once again, unappointed bureaucrat. And then Dr. Freiman, ER, Dr. Lead Author, and the reanalysis on the MRNA trials. He's going to discuss those findings. There's a lot to talk about, about the certain state of the FDA presently and how he sees those and whether he ever got any follow-up with some of the issues he was raising with the FDA. Also, there is a new issue around Tamiflu. I will talk to both Dr. Fryman and Dr. Redfield about that.

I think too much is being made of it myself, but it's interesting how these things get into the public discourse where they do not belong. But we will try to make sense of it all for you here today. A lot to be revealed, a lot to be revisited and updated. And I hope you'll join us and stay with us. It should be very interesting. Dr. Redfield just after this. Our laws as it pertain to substances are draconian and bizarre. The psychopaths start this.

He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction. fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous. I'm a doctor for a saying, where the hell 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. 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. All right, Dr. Redfield is a virologist, infectious disease physician, former CDC director, was on the White House Coronavirus Task Force

and Operation Warp Speed Board, co-founder of the University of Maryland's Institute of Human Virology and Chief of Infectious Disease at University of Maryland School of Medicine. He advised President Bush around HIV and AIDS and Governor Hogan on public health practices

at GBMC Health Partners. You can follow that at gbmc.org. And there's, is Dr. Redfield's warning, the book. I do suggest you check it out. And Dr. Redfield is here to update us on that warning. Welcome back, sir. Thanks for having me, Drew. Glad to be here. So is it accurate when I said that you're spending a lot of your time? Well, I'm going to ask you two questions. Is it accurate to say you're an Asian racist, number one? And number two, is it accurate? I'm working with a vote.

It broke up a little. I heard the Asian racist part. Unfortunately, because I somehow gave my scientific opinion, which I think is now pretty much proven that this virus started in the Wuhan lab, a number of people accused me of being a racist. It was ironic because I always thought Tony Fauci, who said it came from the wet market on how the people in China eat their food. I might argue that's probably more racist than me suggesting it came from scientific experiments in their lab. We're having a little computer, little internet glitching here. But I've been saying that from the beginning, which is that, you know, ooh, they eat these dirty animals.

They have dirty, you know, labs that bad viruses get infected. That's not racist. But to say that the viral institute that's up the street is doing research on gain of function or they're known for coronavirus research. perhaps wow, maybe that's where the virus came from. Well, that is racist. I remember when during President Trump's press conference on this issue in the early days, the press was like, how could you say such racist thing? And he just said, because the virus came from China.

He just kept saying it came from China. And that seems to have been true. What happened? What was it like for you? I'm going to do one other thing for it. I've got so many questions. We rolled in with a little interview with Scott Atlas, and he lately, I think kind of unfairly has been taken aim at you a little bit. I don't know if you saw this.

He's saying, well, Dr. Redfield testified in front of Congress about masking being a good idea. No one has given you an opportunity to explain that as far as I've heard, so I'm going to give you that chance. Yeah, originally we didn't have any vaccine at the time. And originally we felt that COVID was a virus that didn't transmit asymptomatically. That's what the Chinese said. So in order to have it, you had to be symptomatic. And so we developed a policy that focused on symptomatic individuals. So if you were infected, we encourage people to wear a mask so you didn't infect other people.

Then the Diamond Princes came in the middle of February. And the Japanese government actually asked us to help them. And so I sent a team from CDC to go on the Diamond Princess to try to figure out what was going on with COVID on the Diamond Princess. And, you know, I didn't know if the Chinese were right about no asymptomatic infection or no human-to-human transmission because they didn't really let us come in and investigate with them. So I told my team, just test everybody on the ship. We don't know. let's test everybody on the ship. And we did. And we found out that over 50% of the people on the ship were infected. And most of them had no symptoms. So we knew the whole premise that this was not transmissible asymptomatically was false. And we also got the premise that's not human to human was false. And so that's when the whole policy on masking began to change that since we didn't know who was infected, the thought was, well, you should assume you're infected and wear a mask. to protect other people.

We never felt the mask protected you, right? But it was to protect other people from being infection. And President Trump, you know, when I said at the congressional hearing that the mask was the best thing we had for protection, we really were looking at the ability of me to protect you. And we didn't have a vaccine at the time. So, but I will say the masking messaging, was confusing at best. And I said in retrospect, as I look back at Scott Atlas,

and Scott and I had our arguments, I think Atlas actually did a great service to the country. He raised a lot of important points. You know, and him and Jay Batacharya, who was now the head of NIH, I think they were right on a number of issues. And I really wanted we had more scientific debate about issues rather than say, hey, we don't agree with you, therefore you're the bad guy.

Or for me, you know, I said the virus came from the lab, in my opinion. Immediately over 20 scientists write an article in Lancet saying, you know, that we're a conspirator because this virus obviously came from the wet market. And so it was really a really sad time for science, Dr. Drew. I think you know that. There was no debate. There should have been debate. There should have been disagreement.

The beautiful thing I've always said about science, and I've been involved in it for over 50 years, is if you prove me wrong in something that I propose, I thank you. Because you taught me something. Yes, of course. If you prove me right, hey, it's no big deal. I already knew that. Science is a self-purifying profession. So the whole idea is not to be afraid about being proven. wrong. That's the whole process. But what Fauci and Collins and the scientific community did in COVID

is that, nope, we're right. No discussion. No debate. This is the way it is. And I think that was really, I said it publicly many times, their whole approach was antithetical to science. Oh, for sure. I mean, it's exactly what happened to Galileo. I mean, do you want to be Galileo or do you want to be the Roman Inquisition? You have a choice here. It's easy. But I think, but I think, think that there was a psychology in public health that has not yet been sort of, we still have it. There's a bias or some sort of authoritarian impulse in public health that is really very dangerous, seems to me. It's really dangerous. It's really dangerous. And it was an attitude that a number of people had. And I go back, I think Fauci was probably one of the cheerleaders,

is Dr. Drew, you don't know what's bad. best for you. I know what's good. So since you don't know what's best for you, I need to go ahead and make the policy so that even though you may not want to do what's best for you, I'm going to force you to be the best for you. I always remember Tony used to get mad at me when we were in these press conferences at the White House, and I'd be asked a question, and it wasn't infrequent that my answer was, I don't know the answer. And he's, you know, the answer. And he's, you He said to be towards. You know, you can't say that.

You're the CDC director. You have to give an answer. And I said, but Tony, I don't know the answer. So there was an attitude that you've hit on that there was a sense that certain authoritative public health figures felt that you didn't know what was right for you, only they knew what was right for you, and they were going to make the decisions. The sad thing is that, you know, that you have to work hard. I want to work hard.

You know, Scott Atlas has to work hard. Jay Batacharya wants the word hard. We have to somehow figure out how to rebuild public trust and public health because the consequences of the COVID pandemic, and particularly the actions of NIH, Fauci and others, vaccine mandates, mask mandates, closing schools, closing businesses, you know, falsely claiming the, you know, the social distancing issues where there was no scientific data.

That has really destroyed public trust in public health. And if, you know, you know me in my Redfield warning, my book, I really believe we're going to have another pandemic. And I really are going to believe it's going to be catastrophic. And that catastrophic pandemic, in order for us to try to respond to it, we've got to have public trust. And right now, when I was CDC director, 85% of people polled in the United States trusted CDC.

The last poll I saw, it was 35%. Yeah, I totally understand why. I mean, I don't trust public health until they cop to their psychology and make an amends or an apology or correct course or, you know, acknowledge where they got things wrong and set a new course. Why should anybody trust public health? They really shouldn't. All you know of public health are they're coming for your civil liberties. That's all you really know about them. that's what was so damaging about the Fauci hearing recently because Tony had an opportunity

to help begin the process of restoring public trust and public health instead but him taking the fifth over a hundred times he just put another nail in the coffin of lack of trust in public health I think you're right I think that's absolutely true well what are you seeing Oh, one last question about the masking. When the masking looked like a reasonable alternative, did you know that the virus was aerosolized at that point? Or were you thinking more droplet? I thought in general that we were looking at droplet.

Although when we saw what happened on the diamond princess, there was one piece of information that was really suggestive of aerosolization. When we looked at the diamond princes, you know, it had multiple decks. and it was very interesting, let's just say room six, deck one, deck two, deck three, deck four, deck five to six. And we looked at all the people in that room on all the decks was, weren't had high risk of infection. And then the next room over, there wasn't any infection.

And the next room over there was any infection. And the next room, deck one, deck two, deck three, deck four, deck five, day six, all affected. Okay. Interesting. So how did that happen? So when we looked at the mechanics of the ship, it turned out that those columns shared the same plumbing. So when they flucked in the toilet, the toilet in all the rooms aerosolized, you know, what was in the toilet. Incredible.

In the toilet. And so that's when I became highly suspicious. that this was not just droplets, it was also aerosolization. And at that point, did we back off the masking or just stay with it at that point? We didn't have any other evidence. Again, I want to get people to realize their purpose of masking was not to protect the uninfected. It was to try to decrease the infectivity of the infected.

Yeah. So that if the individual, I get it. We tried to tell the infected to stay home. that's the number one and if you are at home wear a mask to protect the other people in the house and maybe sleep in a different room etc.

I never felt there was any evidence for masking to protect the uninfected all right well thus we have two year olds wearing masks which was some of the insanity. There's so many insane things that happened after that so it seemed like

things were kind of going go ahead. You can also argue Dr. Drew after we got the masking, you know, come in December when we got the vaccine, the same thing happened. Everyone started to argue that the vaccine prevented infection. The vaccine never prevented infection. There was no data for that. Right. Right.

There was no reason to vaccinate children. You know, when Biden said, and Fauci said, vaccinate your grandchildren, said they don't affect grandma. Why? There's no data that it prevents infection. So the same mistake was carried over into the vaccine policy. Yeah, to me, when things went truly off the rail, it was the mandate era. And now he's standing back, Fauci's standing back saying, I didn't mandate anything. I couldn't move around without a vaccine.

I'd have a vaccine card everywhere I went in a city in New York in Los Angeles. If I wanted to travel, I had to have a card to get on a plane. Trust me, there was mandate. If he didn't mandate it, why didn't stand back and go, hey, everybody, calm down with the vaccines, you know, talk to your doctor. to make your own decisions. Yeah, he definitely pushed the mandate. He definitely committed Biden on the mandate. It's interesting because Biden said originally he wouldn't mandate it.

And then he immediately mandated. They definitely pushed the Defense Department to mandate it. They definitely pushed the schools, the teachers to mandate it. It was a huge error in policy. Right now, you know, my clinic is largely long COVID and vaccine injury from MRANA vaccines. And I won't tell you how many patients I have a significant vaccine injury. that the only reason they got injured from vaccines that they were mandated to get the vaccine

to go to university or go to college or go to work. And if, and and I think you're right. You're right when you said. Go ahead. When I say what? I was just going to say you're right to say

we do a lot of good if people, particularly Fauci, you know, would admit that they were wrong. You know, you read my book, you read my book, and you read that book. I mean, almost every chapter, I'm saying about something that we got wrong.

Fauci needs to come out and explain to people that we were wrong. Of course. Of course, you can't get everything right. But I'm really, I think it's the PEP Act that protects the universities from liability for having forced their young males to get vaccines. Now they have mildocarditis. I mean, that to me, if we were able to do that, if we were able to hold their hand of the fire for the liability for what they've done,

there would be a lot of difference. Things would change. But now... I think we need to do that. I'm a big advocate that we need to do that. Not only hold the vaccine manufacturers liable, but I think we have to fold the companies, the institutions that mandated these vaccines,

including the Department of Defense. I think they're covered by the PEP Act. I think that is that what's called the PEPA. We have to change all that to hold them liable. I mean, we, We don't need this in the future for sure. Okay, this was government overreach, highly misguided. You know, I mean, I remember when Fauci was telling the president

that when we get to 30%, you know, backgrounds, serial positivity to COVID, will have herd immunity and the epidemic will be over. And then later said 50%. And then later, he said 70%. and a very astute reporter. I remember that. They didn't report. When he said 70%,

a reporter said, Dr. Fauci, what's the new data that you went from 50 to 70%? And Tony said there was no new data when I told you 50%, I just didn't think you were ready to hear 70%. No, that's part of this problem

of being honest. Well, not only that, but to me, the most extraordinary piece of this whole story in terms of the judgment of our peers, still behave as though Alpha and Delta were flying around. It is a totally different illness now, and there's like zero, almost no acknowledgement. They immediately will sort of retreat into, oh, I saw a case with serious.

Yeah, I'm sure in a nine-year-old, yes, you can get colds that can be quite serious to that age group that are people that are fragile. But this is a totally different circumstance. But I'm going to take a little break. We're here with Dr. Robert Redfield. Dr. Joseph Freiman joins us. in a few minutes. Find Dr. Redfield at GBMc.org. Redfield's warning is the book, and we'll see you back in just a minute.

So as we age, most men notice that they're not getting the same workout results they used to. But a lot of guys are reaching for synthetic hormones. Yes, some guys do get hormone replacement therapy, but you may not be ready for that or you don't want to have the concerns associated with prescription medication or a needle even. Physicians nationally are recommending products like Biopro Plus, which has a, natural growth factors and peptides that enhances muscle metabolism and hormonal health.

I know tons of guys that are getting excellent results from this product. In fact, my own son noticed tremendous changes in the first week. He loves a product. He's always calling me for more. Go to doctordo.com slash biopro now. It's been a privilege to serve as the chief patient officer at the wellness company. And one of our top priorities has been to help families prepare for emergencies, avoid trips to the ER or urgent care, which is a waste of time and money.

and you're exposing. It's just not the way medicine should be delivered. And I want to remind you about one of the most popular products amongst new and returning customers that, of course, is the medical emergency kit. And even as a physician, I keep one, we do not travel without one ever. The travel kit particularly was exactly what I always gave my patients when they travel. You can go to doctor.com slash TWC to check out all of the kits and as well get a 10% discount. There's six different kits, each for different situations.

And children, four to 17 years of age, could be assisted with first aid, travel, medical and contagion, but it is all guided by telehealth medicine. By medical professionals, having a kit means immediate access at the first sign of difficulty. And every kid is supported and guided by a medical professional via telehealth. This is not self-directed usage. This means you're not guessing what drug you ought to be using or what you're dosing ought to be. There's also a guidebook that helps you educate yourself about what you have in your kits. And you can order refills of all the medications, patient satisfaction.

We have measured it. And it has been extraordinarily positive. For 10% off, your purchase, just head on over to Dr. drew.com slash Gwc. That's brilliant. And thank you, Drew. Who's Dr. Drew? Where is he? Dr. Drew.

Dr. Drew. Dr. Freiman joins us in a few minutes, now former CDC director Robert Redfield. And still one of the most extraordinary chapters on the story, Dr. Redfield, that you lived through was the fact that you were pushed aside as the actual authority. It's hard for me to imagine the hubris it took for him to do that and then keep doing it. And then you see in the diaries how lit up he was by the attention he was getting. He was adulterated by all that.

It seems to me. But what was that experience like? It was painful. If you talk to my wife, she still cringes at it. I remember the first White House press conference that we had on COVID. President Trump spoke. And then Vice President Pence spoke. And Debbie Birx, who I helped work with for many years spoke. And then I spoke. And then after I spoke, Tony Fauci spoke. And when Tony Fauci got to the microphone, he started his speech by saying, I want the American public to know. that I'm the senior public health official for the United States. Wow. And afterwards, I grabbed the city at the end. And as we were walking off the state, they said, Tony, what's that about?

I said, you run a lab at NIH. I'm the CDC director. I said, where's that coming from? But it was a, you know, a foreshadowing of what we were about to see, where he just basically self-appointed himself as the public health spokesman. It was one of the big mistakes. I don't know if I could have fought better. Very disappointed, obviously, in the Secretary of Health, Azar, in allowing that to happen. Hopefully when we have the next pandemic, we will have a much more appropriate, because I'll argue

Tony's instincts in public health policy are actually not right. If you go through a lot of the public health policy recommendations that he made, they're just wrong. And that's the same thing in the AIDS epidemic when he made recommendations during then. His instincts were incorrect. You know, he recommended against diagnosis of HIV infection. How can you do that? All right. I recommended for diagnosis of HIV infection.

So I was very disappointed by it. I don't know if, you know, if I could have done something to be more effective in maintaining our position. It didn't help me after Fauci was making a big move to have that. at the first conference. Azar, who was the Secretary of Health, would assign me back in Atlanta for the follow-up press conferences and put my deputy in there and shook it. So there was clearly a huge effort to facilitate Fauci's ability

to be the spokesman, which I think was unfortunately a big mistake for the nation. I want to bring Dr. Fryman in here just a second. But first, Caleb, you had a question you want to be asked before we bring Dr. Freiman in? No, no. that was a message from Dr. Freiman of something he wants to talk about whenever he comes on. There wasn't the, you said something about an MRNA vaccine and I couldn't quite catch it.

Maybe that's an old message. Okay, okay. All right, let's get Dr. Joseph Reimman here. Dr. Freiman is an ER physician. He's a researcher. He did some of the reconsideration, let's call it, of the original Pfizer research. He's been extremely important in terms of the clarifying of the science and the ascension to some approximation of the truth. Dr. Freyman, you wanted to ask Dr. Redfield something. Thank you. I appreciate the introduction.

Dr. Redfield with great respect to everything you've done for our country. And I sort of had a general question and being in charge of the CDC with, as you acknowledge you or you would say, I admit when I don't know something. And I've noticed that there's a huge distinction between medical ethics and public health ethics in that medical ethics are one of our major pillars is patient autonomy. Give them the information, allow them to make this decision. And I find with public. And do no harm, Joe.

Joseph, and do no harm. They don't have a do no harm mandate. They don't even consider that. And Francis Collins said it out loud into a microphone. Yes. I am concerned, but with public health, I find that their ethics are not, I don't want to say that they're wrong. They're just, they're different than medical ethics. And that patient's autonomy doesn't seem to be a priority and explaining information what we know about medical interventions. If public health wants them, they simply tend to focus on benefits, on even potential benefits, tend to focus towards them being settled science when they're hoped for science, hope. for benefits and de-emphasizing of harm rather than honest communication and an acknowledgement of the uncertainties that exist. As you acknowledge to Anthony Fauci saying, I don't know.

And I feel that I'm confused at where the public health establishment, and you were at the head of the CDC, are the country's public health institution of where is that disconnect, coming from between how physicians feel their commitment is towards autonomy versus public health. At least, I don't want to say they have no, they don't prioritize autonomy in any way, but they seem to have it de-emphasize and compared to physicians. Yeah, I don't think there's any question about that. I think that you, Joseph, I think you've sort of hit the nail on the head. There's a view, I said this earlier, there's a view in the public health community that I know,

better what's best for you and your family than you could comprehend. Therefore, I'm going to make the decision for you and your family. And therefore, as I present evidence and dated to you, I'm going to make sure I present it in a way that moves you to support the decision that I made for you. For example, early on when I was CDC director, I started to notice in March and April, people getting COVID for a second and third time. So I said, as a clinical virologist, you know, I don't think there's durable immunity when you get COVID, right? And therefore, I think this is going to be a problem with vaccines that we're not going

to get durable immunity from them. We may get alterations in pathogen host interactions to modify disease outcome, which is, in fact, what we accomplished for the individuals at high risk for bad. outcome and death, hospitalization death. The vaccines did show some benefit with that, but as you know, they didn't show any benefit in preventing infection. And therefore, a lot of the policy decisions were false. One of the things that angered me after I left, because remember the vaccine finally got approved at December 10th, I was out of office January 20th. I had written what I thought was the appropriate policy for the vaccine, which was to prioritize it for vulnerable individuals over the

to 65, particularly nursing homes and assisted living homes. And that's where I thought we should focus on the vaccine, similar to what we do with RSV for the elderly. But I was out of office as this started to happen. And at the time, Biden had said there would be no vaccine mandates. That didn't last very long. But they started mandating and pushing the vaccine. One of the first things CDC did after I left,

was they stopped recording people that were vaccinated who got COVID. So when you ask CDC was the people who were vaccinated that got COVID, meaning the vaccine didn't work and preventing infection, they said,

we don't have any data, right? And the argument was that we shouldn't do anything that would discourage people from getting vaccinated because we decided not we, but the public health community decided that the answer to the question was get vaccinated. And then they started to mislead the American people more by saying, you know, after you got two shots, they told the American public what did they tell you? They told you you were completely vaccinated.

What does that mean completely vaccinated? All right? Completely vaccinated implies, oh, I'm protected. No, you're not protected. All right. So you're exactly right, Joseph. There needs to be a real aggressive education about the ethics in public health. I think the premise is the public health community believes that you're not sophisticated

enough to understand the public health implications of the interventions that they think you must have and therefore they're going to define them for you. It's the opposite of autonomy. It's the opposite of what we've learned as doctors, you know, about. one of our, you know, one of our, you know, sacrosanct missions is to maintain patient autonomy. And I've always argued, I'm extremely supportive of Secretary Kennedy. I do believe he's going to be the most consequential health secretary our nation ever had. Secretary Kennedy did not take away vaccines from anybody.

What he did was he has 11 vaccines that he believes everybody should get, right? And that's the ones we recommend. And then there's another group of vaccines where he, he's not sure everybody should get. So he thinks you should talk it over with your doctor and your child and the three of you ought to make a decision whether or not you should get that vaccine, say hepatitis A, for example. And what he did in addition to that was no matter what, whether it was one that he thought everyone should get or it's one that he should have where there was co-decision making. He said the federal government will pay for him no matter what. So he didn't take

vaccines away of anybody, but you wouldn't know that when the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics is suing him. The American, you know, Infectious Society of America is suing him. It's really a very distorted view. You know, this is where Cassidy and I disagreed. I didn't think children at the age of, you know, 24 hours should be getting the hepatized B vaccine. I wanted my kids to get the hepatized B vaccine. I had six children. I had 14 grandchildren. I wanted to get a had them the hepatide B vaccine when they were 12 to 16, but they sure didn't need it the first couple days of life. And the fact that someone will have an honest discussion about that is just a furying. But it hits what you said right on the head. There's a lack of, I think, what you and I would

define is ethics that that really support the idea of individual autonomy in these public health decisions. And the fact that we don't have that, you know, and the more than, I was involved with the hepatitis B research. We were researching, we were developing that vaccine for vertical transmission in China, where they had a massive problem back then. That was it. He didn't expect it the first day of life for every baby in this country. That's insane. We have no data for that either. Joseph, there's your next study. I would go on, or the further point of how, you know, Dr. Redfield, and I agree with him that I would love for the public to regain trust in the public health community. However, when the public health community is essentially communicating

to the public in a way that is distorting information that generally leads towards them having a biased view of interventions that make them. you know, overestimate the benefits based on what we know and, and underestimate the harms, or let's say the potential benefits, the potential harms, that it distorts their view towards basically leaning them towards getting these.

And this is essentially they're agreed upon stance of how they're going to communicate with the public. And they're going to, I don't see any, you know, culpamia on this and that they, I believe that it seems like they're going, their plan moving forward is to,

continue going forward with this. They believe they call it social marketing is the term of how you communicate with the public on these ideas. And honest, honest information distribution. I think it's very unfortunate. When I was CDC director, my first year, I had more children that died of flu than have ever died of flu in any other year recorded. And when I looked into those children that had died, I found out they had one thing in common. They weren't immunized against flu. So then when I tried to look into, let's talk about flu vaccine, I found out, you know, over half the American public don't take the flu vaccine. And African Americans are in the 37, 38 percent. And Hispanics, it was under 30 percent.

And so I said, we need to start a program, even though flu vaccine is not a great vaccine. Don't get me wrong. But it does prevent death. It kind of like the COVID vaccine. in the adults in the elderly. I said, we need to change the idea of vaccine hesitancy, and we need to build a culture of vaccination with confidence. How do we build a culture of vaccine with confidence? Well, we've got to talk to the patient. We've got to give them a choice.

You've got to tell them, I understand your reluctance. This is why the risk benefits in your favor. You don't want the vaccine? Okay, that's fine. We'll talk about it in a couple months. Instead, what does the public health community do? They ridicule you or not accepting the vaccine, all right? Or are they mandated and then limit your ability to go to school or they limit your ability to do this or that?

It's the wrong approach. We've got a real rebuild and support personal choice in these decisions and not just be autocratic and say, okay, you don't agree with us. I can't convince you of the benefit over the, you know, the risk benefits in your favor. So therefore, I'm going to tell you you have to do this. All that does is reinforce vaccine hesitancy. It does nothing to building the culture. Well, I'll tell you.

Absolutely. You know where it's going off the rail also is there, because of the COVID experience, people have very, they're very almost paranoid about MRNA technology. And they're going headlong into MRNA and say, you have to take it. And that's, I mean, you can get someone to take an MRNA vaccine if you want, but to start pushing that is further eroding the confidence. You guys, I have to take a little, go ahead, Dr. Redfield, I want you to finish that thought, number one, number two, anything new on the treatment front for vaccine injury,

and then I'll come back with Dr. Fryman and let Dr. Redfield go. So anyhow, for the MRNA vaccines, I don't think they have any role in low, risk population for prevention. I'm very disappointed with the FDA approving the new influenza vaccine as an MRNA vaccine. I do think the downside is too real, and I have a number of patients that are suffering because once you use those vaccines and healthy individuals, you turn that individual into a factory to make whatever protein that is. For COVID, it's a spike protein, which is a very immunotoxic protein. I think the MRNA technology has a real role in therapy, because, you know, if I have a disease that's very serious,

I don't mind having a product made persistently because I need that therapeutically. But preventive vaccines, I don't recommend. I'm a big advocate of protein-based vaccines and that technology. Unfortunately, I don't think we have a lot of meaningful improvements. I wanted to make one comment about long COVID because you mentioned about Omicron being less pathogenic,

which I agree with you. But I have a different concern about it. When we look at hepatitis B, Guy Mamanin did a study in Alaska, published the animals in 86, I think. And they were looking at hepatitis B among SMOs and trying to diagnose it clinically and educated a bunch of the healthcare professionals

that are recognized it to diagnose clinically. And then they had zero, drew blood at the beginning at the end of the study to see people that weren't diagnosed clinically, serial converted to anti-core and had hepatitis B. And what they showed was 3% of the people that were clinically recognized became chronic carriers for hepatitis B. But 14% of the people that were not clinically recognized and only diagnosed by serial conversion became chronic carriers for hepatitis B.

So as a clinical virologist, I'm of the view that when you get a virus that has the potential to cause chronic illness, which I do think COVID does, one of the reasons you have long COVID is you didn't clear the virus is I think that potential is escalated in people that have subclinical disease. So I'm expecting much more long COVID in the patients now that have less symptomatic disease than we saw, for example, with the Wuhan strain, the UK strain and the Delta strain. And I do think this long- I'll tell you what. I want to say that I agree with you. I agree with you. But I'm actually more worried by a cult long COVID doing endothelial injuries.

When I saw a run personally as a clinician of aortic dissections, having not seen one in 15 years, I thought, oh, damn, this could be something left over. You're right. And it's very serious because that H.H2 receptor in the endothelial, you know, binds that spike protein, that spike protein then causes inflammation, weakens the vessels. And I do think it's causing not only something I see a lot of. We'll talk about another time, what I call pelvic van compression syndrome, where people can't return blood to their heart.

You told me about that. That's right. And it's very reason to diagnose one or two, three people a week now with that. But the other side of it is you're right. It also can affect the arterial system and that inflammation can impact the integrity of our major arteries and can have significant consequences. So it's a real big issue. And I do think, and I'm sure Joseph will talk more about it, I don't think we should. be using the MRNA technology in low-risk healthy patients for prevention.

I think we ought to be looking at it for for high-risk disease therapeutics, but not for low-risk disease. I don't use the MRNA vaccines for COVID at all anymore. I only use a protein vaccine. At Redfield, I so appreciate you coming and updating us and always sharing your ideas. It's deeply appreciated. So thank you so much for being here. Thanks.

I appreciate what you do too, Dr. Drew. And Joseph, thanks for what you do too. God bless. Thank you, sir. And Joseph, you and I will talk right after the break. Dr. Drew here. Fatty 15 was discovered working with the Navy's fleet of dolphins. A brilliant veterinary epidemiologist realized that dolphins deficient in this odd chain fatty acid

were helped by replacing that fatty acid. They didn't get the conditions. Turns out humans have similar deficiencies. It supports healthy glucurricular. metabolism, it gets into the cell membrane and decreases the pool of available oxidizable species that can lead to ferroposis. So it is considered the longevity nutrient. If you'd like yours, go to doctor.com slash fatty 15. Hey, Dr. Drew here. When I am traveling, I am always so grateful that we bring along paleo valley products. Both, this is the grass-fed venison, which is delicious,

one of my favorite. Also, they have the grass-fed and finished beef as well, where they check getting that pork. And the superfood bars, which have saved me a million times. It's made from the bone broth, which again is 100% grass-fed, finished beef, bone broth, and it's made from real bone, not hides, and other superfoods within this bar, including blueberries and cashews. Check the label. This is a great supplement and wonderful to have on hand when we're traveling. I don't see the profession doing anything to really build trust beside you. Happy to be on here. Thank you for having me. You and I see the world the same way. it like for you to be the most chiseled and best looking man in media giving us the information

we need. Thank you for the truth. My pleasure. We are going to take your calls at 8333-3-D-R-R-A-W. Dr. Joseph Freiman. Can we followed on X, Joseph Fryman, F-R-A-I-M-A-N. And he was the author, one of the authors of an important reconsideration of the Pfizer data on the vaccine. And Dr. Freeman, I just want to hit you with something that was in our headline leading into this show, which was that some more emails are out. And in the Fauci email, the FDA chief at the time warned that if he didn't look into COVID vaccine injuries, they, quote, will come back to bite you later, unquote. And yet he seems still recalcitrant to acknowledging that the vaccines were not a perfect instrument. Yeah. In fact, actually, we don't know for sure, but it appears the only study that was happening in the NIH on COVID vaccine injuries seems to have been preliminarily shut down. And also they had interventions that they found that the patients I know who were within it and felt still to this day feel that their interventions were did. help alleviate some of their symptoms.

And that that entire trial really was never publicized. And that is a shame because it was never pursued of how we're treating these people with COVID vaccine injuries. It's excellent that Dr. Robert Redfield after leaving CDC is running one of these clinics for people, as he said, with long COVID and COVID vaccine syndrome. And what we are seeing across the country is that is generally how these clinics, are happening is that it's long COVID and COVID vaccine injuries are being combined together. And it's partially because the syndromes that they're producing are very similar,

you know, as per the limited amount of research that does exist on these syndromes. But I think that in the Woodcock email to Anthony Fauci, she was referring to these vague symptoms that she was concerned that our surveillance system would not be able to pick up, because there are a collection of symptoms that there wasn't a diagnosis for. And that is correct because the surveillance system wouldn't pick up this collection of, you know, like brain fog, general fatigue, numbness in the arms and legs and such. But many of the people who were inflicted with this actually has ruined their lives. It's prevented them from working.

while the VERS system or the other different surveillance systems, actually, to be fair, the VSAFE was a surveillance system that did pick this up, that did identify that they, I mean, it's, the numbers are difficult to estimate from it, but it did appear to pick up that exact syndrome, except the CDC still to this day, I don't believe, has identified that. I've only seen it, you know, the VSAF data used in a single article. that to this day is only a preprint has not been able to get itself through the foot of a journal through peer review, which is still to this day a serious problem. For researchers who are studying vaccine, COVID vaccine injuries, is that they're finding that even well-performed studies, they're having a lot of trouble getting them public. They're often being deskted by the editors. and even when they get past the editors, the multiple peer reviewers that are supposed to go over these articles are also rejecting them.

And I, it tends, you know, I can't say this for every single article because some are probably just poor quality. But for high quality articles, I know from my own experience that this, the difficulty of getting these through journals is, is extreme. And then also how these articles are treated after publication is extreme. For example, for our study, the journal vaccine, it changed editors after we published. We were told if anyone responded to our article that we would be given the right to, you know, respond to their critique. And we have always welcomed critiques of our study. In fact, the critiques of our study led to many sensitivity analyses that we did that we did the check if our study was right.

And so far, the analysis has not made us think that our results were incorrect. But the critiques that this journal allowed published, we discovered them. They never contacted us. Then we emailed them to ask for permission to publish a response to these critiques, given this was their journal, our article in their journal, which is the norm across, you know, my co-authors and myself, there's probably several thousands. papers that all of us have published together, no one had ever experienced something like that, yet we were refused that opportunity to respond. They told us to submit it as a normal letter, and then they rejected our response to a critique of our own study, which is essentially unhurted within the scientific field. So the way the COVID vaccine injuries are still being treated

in the scientific literature is not, there's a bias, you can say, but it's pretty extreme. compared to most things that I have, I have any familiarity with in how scientific fields are dealing with. It's not normal. It's not normal. It's not business as usual by any means. It is nice to talk to Redfield, though, isn't it?

He's a breath of fresh air and to, you know, think that we're getting a sort of a, you know, a look under the hood and somebody who's willing to tell us what happened and what went wrong. So he gives us something to sort of hope that people can raise awareness about. I agree. I think that it's great to hear Dr. Redfield after he's at the CDC. It's sad that even at the head of the CDC, his rational approach does not appear to have been able to come forward. And, you know, I have my time where I worked at the NIH under Jay Batacharya. He's a good friend of mine and he brought me along with him to the NIH. And I can, you know, I can, you know, a associate with Dr. Redfield on the difficulty that it comes with working within these agencies and working within the different political pressures that do exist and and you know accomplishing

the things that you think are important versus the the different pressures that exist within those jobs and it is very difficult to to balance these all but I do wish that you know Redfield had taken charge of the COVID pandemic rather than Anthony Fauci. And I believe hope, I believe we may have had a very different, different entire national response. And personally, I just, I mean, for sure. I was, personally, I used to be the medical manager of Louisiana's search and rescue, urban search and rescue team. I remember. we prepared for we prepared for um

various respiratory virus pandemics and then we had all these tabletop exercises we thought we would that the urban search and rescue teams thought they would be put in charge for some reason and what happened that when the pandemic hit it didn't really turn out like that to be fair the urban search and rescue teams i don't think that anyone in them wanted to take charge within infectious disease. These are a group

of physicians who like going into tornadoes and earthquakes and floods and with a team of firefighters and paramedics and they like that sort of a chaos. But for some reason we always, I would say the personalities that got involved in that

never really liked the infectious pandemic response. It was never part of our... You know what? I think they like danger, they don't like hysteria. And when you really think to act to those moments, it was an

absolutely histrionic outburst. And it became threatening. It's either at best a headache, at worst, threatening to your very livelihood and your credentials and everything was threatening. Why do it?

Yeah, I really, you know, looking back at it, I expected to see the different search and rescue team leaders stepping up. I was already out of the team at that point, but I expected it, and then I never saw them. And I believe that that also would have been a superior response because what we do is we show up to these disaster zones, and we never claim, tell the community, this is what you're doing. We know everything that's going on. And listen to us, we say, this is the best we understand today.

This is what we recommend. But this is subject to change. tomorrow. And infectious disease physicians, as Anthony Fauci being the leader of the NIH infectious disease research, did end up taking control of our response to the pandemic. And infectious disease, their responsibility, their specialty is treating individual patients with infectious diseases. It's not actually the public response of how we're supposed to, how the society should be dealing with it. Absolutely. Listen,

I'll also remind you that it was in the public health positions of authority, men of the states, it was pediatricians because they were managing vaccine policy. Pediatricians are not equipped to me. I talked some pediatricians who were freaked out about the adult effects of COVID. I'm like, it's not that big. It's not,

what are you talking about? Oh, they're pediatricians. They have no judgment when it comes to adult health. Zero. And or understanding society responses. And, you know, when you have infectious disease doctors, as you know for almost every specialty within medicine, they are, you know, the famous is the nephrologist, the kidney doctor who, you know, will kill the patient to save the kidney. And this is true, actually, for all the specialties is that they focus on their singular specialty. So to put in such a specialized person and not have, and we're making such grand.

societal decisions to have someone who's only focused on the single virus and not the impact of how this affects society is, I mean, I think we can see the detriment that it probably did cause to our society at whole. Probably you're being more than kind. Hey, let me ask you about this, the recent study on Tamiflu. I had a, I had a certain read on it. I don't want to bias your position. What did you make? It's an entrance of study that showed that Tamiflu didn't work in an ICU setting that may be some increased death and the patients receiving Tamiflu. What did you make of that study? Yeah, I think that it's a first clinical trial ever done on Tamiflu in critically ill patients.

They found that it didn't, not only did it not improve survival, it suggested that it potentially made them die more. And I don't want to say that it proves that. It's a preprint. There needs to be more additional studies to really say that, oh, this is killing people. But I think this goes to just the general problem here is that, you know, Camiflu's been getting recommended for over 20 years. And there's, you know, it's been recommended on a public health level. so saying that it's going to reduce hospitalizations and reduce death from the flu.

Yet we still to this day do not have trials showing Tamiflu is reducing death and hospitalization. I know there's a large meta-analysis that looked at this question for hospitalization, saying no, we don't see. There's not clear evidence that it's reducing hospitalization. A clinical trial is needed. So I think that, you know, when we're saying before, what is public health and their purpose? Because Tamiflu, what we do know it does is it seems to reduce symptomatology for symptoms for, you know, a small difference in symptoms.

It's a trade-off. You know, you get a shortening of your seven-day flu, maybe by 16 hours. That seems pretty real. It does reduce your symptoms. It's a trade-off for a risk of diarrhea and vomiting. So, like, there's two different things when we think about a thing like, Tamiflu. One is like, do you, are you taking this drug to feel less icky? Or are you taking this drug to prevent hospitalization and death? And I don't, I feel like these things can sometimes

be mixed together. And those aren't the same question. And, you know, we, we as physicians. Not only that, but, but not only that, these are, these are to reduce viral replication of viremia, right? Isn't that the Tamiflu's goal? And if you're not taking it in the first three, Yeah, if you're not taking the first three days of illness, why take it? And it's also showed some utility for household contacts with flu. But I mean, we're getting so screwed up about what these drugs are meant to do. By the time the virus has been in your system for a while, that's when you get all the downstream complications. And I don't expect Tamiflu to do anything.

By the time somebody's in the ICU, Tamiflu, why? Yet everyone, but yet every ICU physician around the country would give them Tamiflu. flu in the ICU. So, so I mean, so there's a disconnect there. And we don't have the studies. Maybe, you know, this study came out in the opposite direction and they died less. Then we'd say, oh, look at that. It's great. It's great in these critically ill patients. We just didn't do the study. And we just have us giving our opinions on like, hey, we have this study that shows it like slightly reduces symptoms. And then we have this public health apparatus going on saying, we recommend this for everyone to reduce hospitalization, reduce death.

And we actually don't ever, don't know that. If we're going to have a public health establishment making these claims, I feel that we should, they'd be better off saying we hope it will reduce hospitalizations. And, but, you know, we're at where the CDC, you know, actually we're going to fund the trial to see if it really does reduce hospitalizations. A trial like this should make us worry. Does it increase hospitalizations? I'm not saying it does.

I want to be fairly clear. I'm not saying it increases the likelihood, but we have no idea. We really don't know. We've never done it. We've never tested it. And we're stuck in a situation now where this reduces your icky feeling by less than a day when you have the flu. And that's sometimes I think something some people would want and say, I'll take that. I don't like having the flu.

I hate how I feel. 16 hours less sounds great to me. I'll take that risk of diarrhea and vomiting. As long as it's communicated to them honestly what they're getting. But you're revisiting the public health ethical sort of morass. And we have to do something with how we're training public health officials. Who knows if this is true? Is your mic on?

Go ahead. Who knows if this is true? What's that? The study. Like, I don't trust anything anymore. Well, it was a pretty well done study. And it fits my clinical experience. So therefore, it's right.

No, it's that that it, I wouldn't, I, I'd never see. a single adverse side effect from Tamiflu. So if it causing death, I'm a little concerned about that. But the fact that it didn't help, yeah, I wouldn't expect it to. Well, in that study specifically, I believe there was some concern about aspergilliosis and that maybe there's some biochemistry that is beyond my understanding that would maybe cause that. But aspergilliosis is only a thing that would happen in these incredibly sick people,

not in the typical operations. No way. No way. It's so funny. Things are so far downstream now, Joseph. I was around we first discovered Aspergillus and the COPD and the asthma patients. I know the history of this. I was living it.

And the idea that some medicine you're taking is, no, no, no, no, no. These are people with chronic lung disease or severe persistent pneumonia in the ICU. It's a very different kind of thing. But I got to kind of get, towards the end of the show here a little bit, but I want to go back around really quickly to the V-save and the VERS. You know, after you very first presented to us the data where you were reporting to the FDA about, amongst other things, a child that had just died,

I had a patient develop atrial fib within about two hours of getting the COVID vaccine, and I made the, and she was 100. And it was dicey. She wouldn't go to the hospital, as 100-year-olds won't do. and I'm managing her at home and doing it coagulating her doing all these crazy things and she made it through. But when I made the report to VERS,

nothing, we'll get back to you. I made, you know, we'll follow up, we'll follow up, we'll follow up. I mean, I made two follow-ups. They never followed up. A life-threatening event and a 100-year-old and you had a death

and was it an eight-year-old in the rheumatology clinic? I mean, yeah, I mean, the system. Yeah, no, I know is you're one of your cohorts, but though it was such, there's been absolute, the thinking that they, you know, they were even looking at what was going on in these detection systems is to me anathema. They were not even paying attention.

No, I think that Senator Johnson had a majority report that really puts a little, shines a real light on how they were viewing this in terms of that they had two people, the two people at the FDA who had actually created, created the statistical methodology of how they were evaluating VERS, came forward and were constantly, it seems like they were just being annoying to the FDA officials and saying, our method will not work here because they were comparing, the way they were evaluating VERS is they were comparing the, you know, Pfizer vaccine versus all the other vaccines that happened, the adverse events of all the other vaccines of that year, which included the Moderna and the other COVID vaccines,

the Johnson and Johnson. And so that it basically was not pot. So we're comparing, and those made up 99% of the VERS reports. So we were comparing the Pfizer vaccine versus the Moderna vaccine, essentially, and then saying, hey, it doesn't look like there's any difference

in the adverse event rate. We're all good here. Don't worry, everyone. Everything's fine. They had created a methodology to basically separate these and look at them. And they were saying, okay, we're seeing this increase.

in pulmonary embolism. We're seeing an increase in myocart in heart attacks. We're seeing an increase in these different disorders that were being masked by, by the way, our current methodology that we had not accounted for something, an event like this. Wow. And then, but then the FDA response to this is, whoa, guys, calm down. Like, we don't want to cause vaccine hesitancy. And the FDA's role is not, is not this public health concern.

It's, guys, you need to chase down. If this drug that you approve, this vaccine that you approved is causing harm, you guys need to identify that. The concern for how the public is dealing with this, that's going to be CDC. You can totally be honest saying, hey, we're using a novel method. We're finding some signals that are concerning. We're going to keep chasing them down. But instead, they actually said, we told them to cease and desist.

The people created the statistical methodology that they were used. using and in the emails they're saying, I don't have the expertise in this, you know, but, you know, these guys do. And they're challenging them based on the public health response concerns. It's quite concerning. And it goes, it shines a light just on how they were viewing this, I think overall in that they're not, are not doing that analysis, not looking for the harms. It's almost as if then, then we don't find them. Then we say there's no evidence of them. And, and, and And that's not a public, that's not a community. Like the FDA is designed to keep us safe.

And if they're, that's the approach that they're taking. I don't believe that they can keep us safe with that kind of a level of approach. No, no. Well, I got to wrap this up, but I do feel differently in the sense that when we first spoke with you, I felt like we were having a clandestine conversation. And now I feel like the Overton window has been sufficiently kicked open. We have Jay Bottachari at the NIH. We have things that we can take a deep breath and get some fresh air from Dr. Redfield.

To take this home, are you hopeful about the future of our profession and public health? You know, I feel that the public's eyes have been opened in a way that I never saw possible in terms of the concerns that I've seen ongoing with the way that, you know, drugs are approved, surveillance, just. public health, raising concerns over these things. And, you know, Robert Kennedy being put into his position, I think, is a product of that public, that new public knowledge and that my friends who I went to high school with, who were police officers, who were firefighters, and they're calling me up and were talking and they're saying, like, wait a second, I had no idea. This is how the FDA is approving drugs.

And this is how, like, they were so awoken to this, like, kind of. of these major issues that have happened within the health industry, the health field over probably decades, over decades, even starting probably before both of our times. But the public's aware of it now in a way they never were. So, you know, that's, that is good news. And the bad news is that I am seeing that I, I am concerned that, that I believe that our health industries still, I believe are showing, I see signs. that there's great concern, that they still have great control over a lot of our government

agencies. Even under Kennedy, I'm still concerned that I am seeing what appears to be industry capture, what we're seeing at the FDA since the firing of McCarrie, Veney Prasad, and Tracy Hogue, we see that five of the things that they denied with good reasons. and have been approved in a matter of three months. And so I don't know what led to their firing, they're resigning slash firing and what led to the decision of the people who are there right now. But, no, I think that there is concern of the amount of control

that industry still contains over these agencies. But the positive is still we have a public that's asking the right questions and becoming much more aware of these issues. Well, and we have people like you and Vinay who are, doing the research, asking the questions, doing this, doing the careful, careful work, and also talking publicly about it. So I really appreciate all you have done and continue to do. And I hope you'll come back again soon and give us more updates. It's always enlightening. We appreciate what you're doing as well. It's very important communicating this.

Take care. Thank you. You bet. Joseph Freiman on X, where you can follow him. I have to head out. Do you want to throw up what's coming up here today? Today is not disappoint. We've got Dr. Aman and Bailing on next week. Christina Bob. She remember the attorney from New York. We've got some issues to get into there.

I want to hear from her data Republican. Helmie Wolf. Dr. Victory is coming back around. I can't see. Lindy Lee. That'll be interesting. What's that? Kelly Victory and Nick Holcher and Helmut Scherj.

but we appreciate Dr. Freiman and Dr. Redfield for coming around with us today. I hope people appreciate what you're hearing from them. These two have delivered history the whole way, both when they were in the trenches and they're reporting from the trenches, and now they've been in the government and out, both of them, and they are giving us a perspective that we need to value because the history of this, hopefully will be written properly. And if it is, because of guys like that. So thank you so much for being here. We will see you on Tuesday at 2 o'clock. At top.

Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky. Emily Barsh is our content producer. 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. 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 800-273-8254.000. You can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at Dr.do.com slash help.