Ask Dr. Drew - Pandemic Quarantine Camp Lawsuit: NY’s Proposed “Public Health” Law Would Breach Due Process w/ Sen. George Borrello, Bobbie Anne Cox, Joshua Guetzkow & Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 269

Episode Date: October 1, 2023

New York officials are attempting to pass a law extending government powers to force the quarantine of people exposed to illnesses like COVID-19. Attorneys and state senator George Borrello are fighting back with a lawsuit, saying the change would be a breach of due process by taking rights from targeted individuals and forcing them to appeal to courts after they’ve already been forced into involuntary detention. Dr. Drew is joined by Joshua Guetzkow (sociologist and criminologist), Sen. George Borrello (NY State Senator), Bobbie Anne Cox (NY attorney), and Dr. Kelly Victory. Olean Times Herald reported that “Borrello, the lead plaintiff in the case, had challenged Section 2.3 of the state’s Public health Law, which would have allowed state health officials to order people suspected of having a communicable disease such as COVID-19 could be placed in temporary housing — which saw claims on social media indicating the state had the authority to and may have planned to create “quarantine camps” during the pandemic.” 「 SPONSORED BY 」 Find out more about the companies that make this show possible and get special discounts on amazing products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get an extra discount with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew • PRIMAL LIFE - Dr. Drew recommends Primal Life's 100% natural dental products to improve your mouth. Get a sparkling smile by using natural teeth whitener without harsh chemicals. For a limited time, get 60% off at https://drdrew.com/primal • 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 • BIRCH GOLD - Don’t let your savings lose value. You can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it. Claim your free, no obligation info kit from Birch Gold at https://birchgold.com/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.  「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 WITH DR. KELLY VICTORY 」 Dr. Kelly Victory MD is a board-certified trauma and emergency specialist with over 30 years of clinical experience. She served as CMO for Whole Health Management, delivering on-site healthcare services for Fortune 500 companies. She holds a BS from Duke University and her MD from the University of North Carolina. Follow her at https://earlycovidcare.org and https://twitter.com/DrKellyVictory. 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician with over 35 years of national radio, NYT bestselling books, and countless TV shows bearing his name. He's known for Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Teen Mom OG (MTV), Dr. Drew After Dark (YMH), The Masked Singer (FOX), multiple hit podcasts, and the iconic Loveline radio show. Dr. Drew Pinsky received his undergraduate degree from Amherst College and his M.D. from the University of Southern California, School of Medicine. Read more at https://drdrew.com/about Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Kelly, Victory, and myself will be speaking with Joshua Getzko. He is raising issues about what he's calling the bait and switch around the original studies of the Pfizer vaccine. They were using manufacturing process supporting an increased supply, administering to only 250 participants between 16 and 55 years of age. But again, the safety and imagicity was not, I can't read you the whole thing because I'm running out of time. The point is there's been a bait and switch when it comes to how the Pfizer study was done beyond what Dr. Freeman was telling us. We'll get into that after this.

Our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre. Dr. Freeman was telling us. 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. These products have transformed my life and Susan's and saved their marriage. Discover the key to oral hygiene, regardless of your current daily dental routine,

whether you diligently brush and floss multiple times a day or you struggle. You got bleeding gums, bad breath, plaque buildup. This revelation is for both of you. Surprisingly, over 350,000 Americans experience health issues that may be connected to their toothbrush or even caused by it, ranging from heart or blood sugar problems, forgetfulness, digestive difficulties, immune issues, all related to oral hygiene. Scientific studies have shown that a simple switch of your toothbrush can lead to a healthier teeth and potentially save your marriage. Yes, save your marriage. Our study,

we did a personal study. My wife, Susan, hates the sound of the sonic toothbrushes, but introducing the Real White Sonic Toothbrush, of course, also their Hydroxy Appetite Dirty Mouth Mineral Toothpaste by Primal Life Organics, these products have transformed my life and Susan's and saved our marriage. It's much quieter. It's a very powerful toothbrush, but it is quiet and it saved our marriage. So, the Real White Sonic Toothbrush from Primal Life Organics stands out among all other electric toothbrushes I've tried. It effectively eliminates plaque, harmful bacteria, promotes gum health. Get yours and enjoy 60% off at naturaltoothbrush.com slash D-R-E-W.

That is in fact what happened. That toothbrush, I was thinking about it this morning. Right, Susan? Yeah, we're still together. That's hysterical. So do check out this stuff. I also found the whitening equipment in one of my children's bathrooms, so they're enjoying it as well. So I was looking for that. So today, we're going to get into it first with Joshua, Josh Getzko. He is a senior lecturer at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, PhD from Princeton, and a postdoctoral fellowship at

Harvard with the Robert Wood Johnson Scholars in Health Policy Research Program. He has been talking about this bait and switch in terms of the manufacturing process. I could barely spit that out when I was trying to tell you guys earlier, but the fact is there seem to have been two processes involved in the manufacturing, something, the kind of thing Dr. Victor and I have been discussing for a little while here. So first of all, please welcome Josh Getzko. So thank you for joining us. Thank you.

So let's get into a little bit on these two processes, because we've been hearing evidence all along that there was something going on with the manufacturing. You've zeroed in on a very specific issue as it pertains to the original research. Is that correct? Yeah, that's right. And it's interesting because this has been hiding in plain sight really since October of 2020. Basically what happened is that the Pfizer trial, the 44,000 participant trial, they used one manufacturing process to make the vaccines that were used in that trial. Okay. And that manufacturing process was a relatively clean manufacturing process. You might call it a bespoke manufacturing process, but it's very expensive and small batch. You can sort of only make small batches. So they needed to come up

with another manufacturing process to roll out the vaccines to billions of people around the world. So the first batches for the trial, we call them clinical batches or what Pfizer called them process one okay process two batches use E.coli bacteria essentially as a medium for growing the mRNA okay just to make it very simple okay and that was the product that was sold and injected into billions of arms around the world. Now, Pfizer said at some point they updated their research protocol and they said, well, we're going to test this 250 people per batch of this process too. We're going to test it. We're going to compare the safety. We're going to compare the immunogenicity, like what kind um antibody response it elicits uh so but until recently

we didn't really know how much pfizer actually compared it or tested but before i get to that let me just back up for a second because one of the key issues here maybe the key issues is that when we're talking about biological medical products biologics okay the process is the product you can't change the process definitely not in as a dramatic fashion as they change their production process and then not run a clinical trial on that new product it's a totally different product and you can't just assume that everything's going to be the same especially when you're talking about growing this in um uh you know growing the product in e coli bacteria which now you just had on your show a few weeks ago. Jessica Rose was talking about the DNA

contamination that's been found in the In Pfizer doses and also Moderna doses. It uses a similar type of manufacturing process That's a direct result of this new what they call process to manufacturing method. In addition to that, it also contaminates the vaccines with endotoxins, which are the membranes of the E. coli bacteria, which are highly toxic. We can talk about what that might have brought about or what kinds of problems that might have caused.

The key issue here is that they advertised one product on the basis of this amazing trial that was on 44,000 people. That's the bait. And then they switched it with a totally different product that had a very different safety profile. By the way, regulators were concerned when they studied, when Pfizer was showing them the comparisons, the laboratory comparisons between these two different products, they found that the integrity of the mRNA was much lower in this other newer production method. We went from about 80 percent integrity to down to about 55 percent, 60 percent.

And the regulators were like, well, what is this going to do? How are we what should we do about this? And eventually what they did was they said, okay, we'll accept this. And there was no study. As far as we know, there was no preclinical study done on any animals with this new production process. We've never seen any evidence that they've done even at that level of a study. So tons of questions. Did they do the 250 people per batch? Did they even do those sort of weird little studies?

So 250 per batch, right? the FDA to release all of the Pfizer data, we've been able to sift through that data and show that they never tested the process two doses on more than 252 people. Now about the comparative study that they said they were going to do, we had never seen any evidence that that study had been done. It was supposed to be produced by February 2021 after the emergency youth authorization allowing the vaccines to be rolled out. Just recently an investigative journalist, Nick Hunt, got a Freedom of Information Act request from the British regulatory agency, the MHRA, where they said that two years later in 2022, September 2022, Pfizer changed their protocol to say, no, we're actually not going to do this comparison after all.

Because by then, you know, so many people had gotten the jabs that there was no need to do this comparison. How was the vaccine produced in process one? I thought this was sort of routine to use E. coli recombinant DNA. It is routine and it's problematic. They used a PCR process basically to do process one for the clinical trial batcheses that's the process one as you described it right the bespoke batches yeah yeah that's right and yet one of the interesting things about this is that i'm reflecting on the danish data that showed that the earlier batches were the ones much more associated with adverse events at least in that study that 10 that the earlier batches were the ones much more associated with adverse

events, at least in that study, that 10% of the batches are responsible for 90% of the problems. And I remember Sasha, I think it was Sasha Latapova has been worried about the batches and the batch size and the sort of the usual, the customary manufacturing practices that appears to be obviated in the present moment. Do you think about those two issues as well, or how do you bring those things together? Absolutely. Well, I think that this particular type of manufacturing process may introduce more variability between the toxicity and the effectiveness or immunogenicity of different batches. And we published with a co-author at MIT, Professor Retseth-Levy, we published a rapid response in the British Medical Journal talking about this variability.

One of the things that we pointed out, we mentioned the Dana study. One of the other things that we pointed out was that, you know, after around mid-December 2020, they started giving the placebo subjects real vaccines, and their adverse event rate and serious adverse event rate was much higher than the original vaccinated subjects or the original treatment subjects. This is straight from a Pfizer clinical report to the FDA, and we don't know why that is, and Pfizer didn't explain it other than to say it was as expected. Now, one of the things that a lot of doctors have grappled with, and I'm sure you have as well, is this idea that, well, wait, we're seeing these adverse events, but we didn't see any similar types of adverse reported in the trial. So for example, the vaccine was released in December 8th in the UK and two

nurses that were given the vaccine on that first day suffered severe allergic reactions, probably anaphylaxis. And as a result, the day after they changed the regulations, they said, well, you should sit and wait for 15 to 30 minutes to make sure you're not having an anaphylactic reaction. Now, do you know how many anaphylactic reactions there were in the original trial with, let's say 22,000 people who got the actual vaccine? There were two, there were two anaphylactic reactions and those actually weren't in people who got the vaccine. They were in placebo subjects. One of them actually had it like a day or two after they got the real vaccine after they'd been on blind. But basically there's, there's basically didn't happen in the vaccine trial, and yet the day it's rolled out in real people, in nurses in England, we're seeing anaphylactic reactions.

And one of the things that is known to cause an anaphylactic reaction is endotoxin. So there's a thought that maybe this is related, and this is why we're seeing so many adverse events that we didn't see in the trial. Now, there is another possibility, which is that Pfizer was hiding it. By the way, the same thing can be said for menstruation problems. There was just a study that just was just published the last couple of days in science advances, showing something like 13 to 14% of premenopausal women had experienced some kind of menstrual disruption or bleeding within four weeks of getting vaccinated, that's 13 or 14%. You know what the percentage was in the trials?

It was like 0.07% or something like that. There were like, you know, maybe five reactions among the vaccinated women. Why is there this huge disconnect between what the trial is reporting and what is actually happening in real life well here we have an explanation look either the the either the manufacturers or the you know are lying or hiding or didn't do a very good job of capturing their adverse events or it's a signal it's it's evidence not that we need any more evidence because we know they switch the manufacturing process to one that is much more likely to cause adverse events. So one of the things that has been suggested in some of the literature I'm reading is that

the plasmids may be responsible for that ovarian dysfunction. And there's a lot of buzz about plasmids right now. That's all getting kind of sorted out. But it is often, just to put a proper spin on this, it is often the case that when a drug is rolled out on a large scale, a whole ton of adverse events come to bear that they didn't see or didn't anticipate. That's just very common in medical research. Before I bring Dr. Victory in here, one more thing. How did you get involved with this? Well, I had started becoming involved in this actually prior to COVID when I was alerted by some colleagues to the extent of censorship, in a sense, or the retractions and repression of scientists who were raising concerns, safety concerns, legitimate safety concerns about the safety of vaccines. And then

when the Pfizer, when these new COVID vaccines were rolled out, I started tracking adverse events on VAERS. And, you know, just it sort of snowballed from there. I've given comments. You were just asking questions. Asking questions. All right. We're going to take a little break here and then I'm going to bring Dr. Kelly Victory in and give her a chance to have at you a little bit. And just past the bottom of the hour, we'll bring in Senator George Borrello and New York civil rights attorney, Bobbi Ann Cox and Brownstone Institute. She's a fellow at the Brownstone Institute. So give us a second for a little break here. And we'll be back with Josh Getzko and Dr. Kelly Victory right after this.

Fall is right around the corner, which means dry, flaky red skin from allergy season is coming with it but the best way to take care of your skin is with our skincare secret genucell you don't need to worry about that puffy tired eye look or those annoying dark spots or even dry flaky skin because genucell skincare has you covered susan and i love our genucell products so much, we want you to try our personally curated skincare bundles. It's risk-free at Genucel.com. Genucel works so well, you can see the results in this unplanned live moment on our show, when the Redness Repair Cream repaired my skin in just minutes, right before your eyes. Their concentrated vitamin C serum helps keep your skin plump and hydrated.

Plus, with their immediate effects, you can see astonishing results in under 12 hours quick effective and easy go to genucell.com slash drew right now to try our bundles and save over 60 today and remember to enroll in genucell's world-class concierge program for additional savings and free shipping. Don't wait. It's genucel.com slash drew, G-E-N-U-C-E-L dot com slash D-R-E-W. There are three reasons the central banks are dumping the U.S. dollar, inflation, deficit spending, and our insurmountable national debt. The fact is there is one asset that has withstood famine, wars, political and economic upheaval dating back to biblical times, gold. And you can own it in a tax shelter retirement account with the help of Birchgold. That's right, Birchgold will help you convert an existing IRA

or 401k, maybe from a previous employer, into an IRA in gold. And the best part, you don't pay a penny out of pocket. Just visit birchgold.com slash drew for your free info kit. They'll hold your hand through the entire process. Think about this. When currencies fail, gold is a safe haven. How much more time does the dollar have? Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with Better Business Bureau and thousands of happy customers. I do not give financial advice

and previous performance is no guarantee of future performance. Visit birchgold.com slash drew to get your free info kit on gold. That is B-I-R-C-H-D-O-L-D dot com slash D-R-E-W. I think everyone knows the next medical crisis could be just around the corner. Whether it comes in the form of another pandemic or something much more routine like a tick bite, you and your family need to be prepared.

That's where the wellness company comes in. You know the wellness company. We have their physicians on like Dr. McCullough frequently. The wellness company and their doctors are medical professionals you can trust. And their new medical emergency kits are the gold standard when it comes to keeping you safe and healthy. It's really, it's a safety net. It's an insurance policy that you hope you're not going to need, but if you need it, you sure as heck are going to wish you had it if you need it. Be ready for anything.

This medical emergency kit contains an assortment of life-saving medications, including ivermectin, Z-Pak. The medical emergency kit provides a guidebook to aid in the safe use of all these life-saving medications. From anthrax to tick bites to COVID-19, the Wellness Company's medical emergency kit is exactly what you need to have on hand to be prepared. Rest assured, knowing that you have emergency antibiotics, antivirals, and antiparasitics on hand to be prepared rest assured knowing that you have emergency antibiotics antivirals and antiparasitics on hand to help you and your family stay safe from whatever life throws at you next go to drdrew.com twc that is drdrew.com forward slash twc to get 10 off today just click on that link some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics.

If this episode ends here, the rest of the show is available at drdrew.tv. There's nothing in medicine that doesn't boil down to a risk-benefit calculation. It is the mandate of public health to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population. This is uncharted territory, Drew. And Dr. Kelly Victory, I gave you Dr. Getzko. Terrific. Thanks. Welcome, Josh. Thanks so much for joining us. Really appreciate your input on this. I've got a bunch of stuff I want to ask you about, so I'm going to get right into the weeds. I want to start at the top, though. I've been reporting for the past three and a half years on the disaster of this pandemic response

and certainly the devastating impact, in my mind, of these vaccines, including starting with the paucity of safety testing, the paucity of due diligence that was done on them prior to them being launched in the public. You have referenced now multiple times these 44,000 patients they were tested on. Let's step back. Give us a little, actually, let's put some perspective on this 44,000. Talk a little bit about the actual testing prior to the quote bait and switch. Let's just go back to what was the real testing briefly on 44,000 people of the original BioNTech Pfizer shot. Well, as you say it like that, and I hear my words echoed back to me, I realized that I'm

repeating the same kind of marketing gimmick that they were using at the time, because the vaccine was actually only given to about 22,000 people. The other 22,000 were given the placebo. So it's not 44,000 that it was actually tested on. It was 22,000, so you can get that right. Now, and here we're just talking about the Pfizer trial. We could talk about Moderna later if you want.

You know, one of the things that, in my analysis of the trial data that stood out to me is the short term in which the trial actually was conducted because they started enrolling people in late July 2020. And by mid December, they had already started on blinding people, the placebo group especially and giving them the real vaccines. And by March, something like, you know, 89, 89 90 of all of the placebo group had been given uh the vaccine so that it was an extremely short trial right once they started on blinding people that was basically it that was it it was so that was kind of shocking at the time um i don't know what else exactly to

say about the trial i do know we do know that there are some people who experienced very severe adverse events we know at least two cases where it's clear as day that the at least at the trial level those adverse events were covered up or mislabeled and downplayed they're probably yeah and so i in no way did i mean that as an, I, you know, gotcha at all. I just wanted to put some color on this for our viewers that, you know, I've been reporting that there was no significant safety testing done on these. And I maintain that, you know, the average vaccine takes six to eight years in testing. So, you know, number one, as you said, it's zero testing

because the vaccines that were given to the 22,000 people in the trial are not the same product that was given to the rest of the world. Okay. They only gave it to 152 people and they never tested. By the way, I've looked at, I've, you know, I've, I've made a safety, my own little safety comparison. And my, you know, they, even if you're not concerned about safety, you're concerned about how efficacious is this new product. So they looked at the antibody response of four people, four people, all of them under the age of 23, only three of them had an antibody response. Right. But my point is, however, that even independent, Josh, of the bait and switch, and we're going to get into that, independent of that, giving 22,000 people a vaccine, following them for a period of months, a few months, then eradicating your control group because you then give all the people in the, quote, control group the actual vaccine, independent of the bait and switch.

That is absolutely horrific. There is no safety data that's being generated there. Add on top of that, that that 22,000 people who received the shot for the 15 minutes that they followed them, that did not include pregnant women, lactating women, people over the age of 50, anyone with an autoimmune disease, anyone who had already had and recovered from COVID. They were eliminated. So they tested, quote unquote, the vaccine. And this is before the bombshell that you're dropping about bait and about the fact that then what actually got rolled out to the market was a totally different product. So from the get go, there was a, it was, it was,

there was a huge failure in what would be the standard regulatory process absolutely the one one thing you said which is not accurate is that they only gave it to people under 50 the people that were given they had two age groups 16 to 55 and over 55 so there were a lot of people okay fair enough people if you look at sort of like their health profile of their you know like people, if you look at sort of like their health profile of their, you know, like the, if you just look at the mortality rate of these people in the trial was much lower than you'd expect, meaning that these people were generally healthier than, than most people. Right. Okay. You know, sort of general population. So two other big things I want to get to before we run out of time, number one. So,

so now fast forward, they do the bait and switch. The actual product that's being given to the public now is not the one that was tested on those 22,000 people, albeit for, as I said, about 15 minutes. So the new product is the one that uses this recombinant DNA. Now, August of 2021, the FDA approves, gives its stamp of approval to one of Pfizer's products, Comirnaty, the branded shot. Meanwhile, they still have the emergency use authorization shot that the FDA says they're the same product, but they're distinct. Okay. So there's this branded Comirnaty and they go on to give everybody in the same product, but they're distinct. Okay. So there's this branded Comirnaty and they go on to give everybody in the United States. Comirnaty is not available in the United

States. The only thing that's available in the United States is the stuff that was under the emergency use authorization, which not surprisingly gives blanket liability to Pfizer. Now, was the Comirnaty product that actually is FDA approved, in your understanding, is that a product that used this process to the recombinant DNA? Do you know? Yes, but also the EUA used that same method. That's Pfizer's manufacturing method, and that's the preferred manufacturing method and will be for the mrna vaccines from any company um not just pfizer and so what we you know so we have to you know if we start to step back and think about the larger picture here um even even now pfizer and other other vaccine manufacturers are referring to this big study that was done.

They said, well, we did this big study. We don't need to do it again. We know that it's safe. We know that it's effective, whatever. So there's just no need because, you know, it was done. And this is, so now they've created this, you know, landmark, and they're going to keep referring back to it, even though it's completely irrelevant to the product that

they're actually trying to sell. Okay, so Pfizer does this shell game where they approve Comirnaty. That's an FDA approved product, not available in the United States, but it's approved. And they did it, I believe, clearly to try to motivate people who are concerned about the fact that the shots weren't FDA approved. And they said, well, I'll take one when they finally approve it. So they said, OK, it's approved now. Go ahead.

They had survey data. There was a study done in summer of 2021 showing that people were more likely to get the vaccine if it was approved. And so they rushed it and they rushed it so hard. They also, by the way, were planning to introduce the, you know, the mandates and you couldn't, they couldn't do that with just an EUA vaccine. You had to have an approved vaccine. And so it came from the, you know, top levels of the White House down to put pressure on the FDA, leading to the resignation of two senior FDA officials because their authority was usurped and basically taken away from them in this process and given to Peter Marks, basically just circumventing the chain of command there.

Right. But not only was it rushed, but that, that's not what you get it today. If you walk into Walgreens today in the United States to get a Pfizer vaccine, the shot you will get, if you ask to see the vial does not say Comirnaty, it is not the FDA approved product. It is the BioNTech EUA product. That is what you will get injected into your arm. And because it is only the EUA product, if you drop dead walking out of the Walgreens, there's no one you can sue. If it had been Comirnaty, if it were an FDA approved product, you would have recourse. So yes, they did approve Comirnaty, except that that's not available in the United States. Okay. So, so that was the set. That's the second level in my mind of total bait and switch. Okay. I mean,

of the, of the ongoing shell game, the bigger issue and the thing I go ahead. No, see the thing I, the thing I read, the thing I wanted to ask you about, because this is an area that I need, you know, your expertise on is okay okay, so now we're using, they've slipped in this recombinant DNA product that hasn't been tested. Let's talk about some of the issues. You said that's, quote, very problematic, your words, the recombinant. Let's talk about that. are some of the issues, some of the problems that you've seen, that you're aware of, that involve the DNA component of these mRNA vaccines? Well, I'm actually of the opinion that the endotoxin contamination is actually a much bigger issue than the DNA contamination. At present, the DNA contamination is fairly

theoretical. It is concerning, and I don't mean to dismiss it at all. It's a big problem. The endotoxin, there's a researcher, a chemist in Australia, his name is Jeff Payne, who's dug into research on endotoxin, which turns out there's a ton of research on it because it's it's been linked to many diseases because we can leak endotoxin from our digestive system into our blood anyway uh and he you can he's pinpointed and shown how you can link it to so many of the different adverse events that people are observing. And again, many of the adverse events that they didn't observe in the trial. Now, Dr. Drew said that, well, it's a very common thing that you see things that you didn't see in the trial. Well,

that's true. That's especially true with smaller trials. And most trials are much, much smaller than this trial. So if you have an adverse event that's happening at a rate of 15% and you're testing it a 15% of people and you're testing it on 22,000 people you're gonna see it you're gonna see a lot right so that just doesn't wash so I think that the endotoxin is a bigger issue and it's also there are a couple of other reasons why it's a way I think it's a bigger problem. Because the DNA problem, if it were recognized, which it probably won't be, at least publicly, but it might be recognized kind of behind the scenes and they might clean it up because

it can be cleaned up. Endotoxin, it's much, much harder and maybe impossible to clean up. And, you know, there are other problems. So they say that, well, the level is below a certain threshold or whatever, but they're using a very inaccurate way to measure the level of endotoxin. So we don't actually know how much endotoxin is in this because no one's ever tried to use a very accurate method. And you don't need a lot you just need a little bit of endotoxin and it can start a cytokine storm um that you know leads to all kinds of problems including anaphylaxis right guys we'll have to

kind of leave this we have to kind of leave this here we're running out of time ask that final question kelly if you wish well i i just was going to say that people don't understand sometimes that much of the havoc that is wreaked by different infections isn't from the bacterium itself but actually from uh the the endotoxins that are created by it that happens certainly a toxic shock is not you can you can eradicate the bacterium entirely that causes toxic shock and end up dying as a result of the toxins that are left in that cytokine storm and everything that occurs as a result. I do want to get in at some point. I'd like to have you come back, Josh, because I really want to talk to you about your experience in looking at the VAERS data. That's something that our friend Jessica Rose has certainly been involved in deeply. But I think exposing really the abdication of

responsibility on the part of the people who own the VAERS system, the NIH and the CDC, specifically HHS, who are supposed to be using that data as the proverbial canary in the coal mine. So really interested in that. Give us your final thought, at least on what's your estimation of the VAERS data. And commit that you will come back for that. I'd love to talk about that stuff. I would love to come back to talk about that. I think it's an important story and quite explosive because the CDC did do a safety signal analysis. They found hundreds of safety signals and that has been covered up and nobody has ever talked about it and has never been, you know, broadcast on any mainstream media channel. So it's a huge problem. I think people

just tend to discount VAERS, but you know, the CDC and FDA people publish in the major medical journals using that data. So how bad can it really be? Right. Well, we found out from Dr. Freiman, who talked to the FDA directly, that the way they determine whether or not something is actually a connected reaction to the vaccine being administered, literally, we heard the tape, their reaction was, he asked, how do you determine that something is a vaccine reaction? Their answer, we got a guy. We got a guy that goes out and looks at the data.

Yeah, they got a guy involved. One guy goes out and says, this is or is not a vaccine reaction. Imagine if that had been what they did with the Vioxx data around coronary disease. No, that's not, coronary disease is common. That's not the Vioxx. Our guy said no. And that is something that's indeterminate. And that is at the core of how they're getting around what you're going to tell us about.

Right. And they also say, what is the other thing they say? They say, well, we didn't see this in the trial, so it can't possibly be related to the vaccine. Well, no wonder you didn't see it in the trial, because you gave them a different product. Right. A different vaccine. Right.

All right, Josh, Dr. Getzko, thank you so much for spending a little time with us. We'll get you back in here very soon, all right? Thank you. Thank you. All right, you got it. We were switching gears, and we were talking about something frankly i find even more egregious if that's possible uh our guests are uh bobby ann cox a new york civil rights attorney and a fellow at the brownstone institute

she was involved recently in historic lawsuits against the new york governor which is now being appealed by that and the Attorney General so they can continue their executive overreach. Senator George Borrello is an unwavering advocate for rural New Yorkers, champion of agricultural, small business, middle class, reelected the New York State Senate in November 2022. And he has been one of the leading voices against government overreach, particularly excessive executive overreach. And that is something we have seen front and center throughout much of this extraordinary time we have been through. Let's see now, Senator, should we begin with you? Well, first of all, thank you. It's great to be on with you. You know, I think what we saw in the pandemic is we saw this lust for power and that particularly governors, executives across this nation that saw what a little bit of fear and a lot of propaganda would do. unbelievable powers. It started here in New York State with Andrew Cuomo, our previous governor.

He did some horrific things, including sending COVID-positive patients back into nursing homes, leading to the death of thousands of senior citizens. And it was all done with executive order and with a legislature, a state legislature, that willingly gave him all of that power to become essentially a dictator, a tyrannical dictator. And unfortunately, that has now continued on with Kathy Hochul. And what's worse is that the pandemic is over, yet she wants to hang on to those pandemic powers. But far more reaching than that, the lawsuit, which Bobbi Ann will explain, is really about the fact that she has usurped the legislature at this particular juncture by creating a rule, a Department of Health rule, that is in fact a law, which is

unconstitutional. It is a violation of the separation of powers. And she lost in the Supreme Court in a decision where the judge absolutely, you know, annihilated what they had done in his decision, calling it a violation of due process, calling it a violation of separation of powers, and just a violation of individual liberty and civil liberties. But yet, since the governor has all of oural, excuse me, the Appellate Division in Rochester, New York. So it is unbelievable that people don't know what's going on. They don't understand that the United States has quickly lurched towards a totalitarian socialist state. And New York State is without a doubt at the top of the list when it comes to this lurch towards a dictatorship. Bobby, and let's get into the weeds on the legal issue. And certainly, I hearken friend Kelly spends time in this, the great state of California that I

would say was maybe at least a half a step ahead of New York, this extraordinary delight in telling people how to live their lives and the even more extraordinary acceptance on the part of the public and asking for more, our young people in particular. But we'll talk about that. First, let's talk about the legal issues. Bobbi-Ann. Yeah, absolutely. So, you know, this case is really, it's unbelievable. I mean, I talk about it and people think I'm making it up. But basically, we sued Governor Hochul, her Department of Health, her Commissioner of Health, the Health Planning Council. Senator Borrello is my lead plaintiff. I'm also representing Assemblyman Chris Tague, Congressman Mike Lawler, and a citizens group called Uniting New York State. And, yeah, we sued, as he said, based on separation of powers.

This regulation, which, you know, for any of your viewers that are not familiar with it, I just want to give a brief overview. This regulation was called Isolation and Quarantine Procedures, and it was found at 10 NYC RR 2.13. So people refer to it as Rule 2.13. So people refer to it as Rule 2.13. It gave the Commissioner of Health the absolute unbridled power to pick and choose which New Yorkers the Department of Health could lock up or lock down. They could have locked you in your home and forced you to stay in your home, or they could have removed you from your home with the force of police and put you into a detention center or a facility or whatever you want to call it

of their choosing you had no say where you went and they determined the Commissioner of Health or the Department of Health got to say how long you stayed there so it could have been days it could have been weeks it could have been months no restriction whatsoever. They didn't have to prove you were sick. They didn't have to prove you were exposed to a communicable disease. They could have said, told you what you did and didn't do or could or couldn't do while you were in lockup or lockdown. And there was no age restriction. So they could have done this to you, but they also could have done this to your child or your grandchild or your elderly parent. I mean, there was no right to do notice, which means that

they could have literally just knocked on your, they could have sent the police to just knock on your door and hand you an isolation or a quarantine order. And they could have said, okay, I'm sorry, but you need to come with us. You know, we have a health decree here. We have an order from the health department saying you or your child or whoever in your house has to come with us because you were exposed to whatever. And the other point that's really important here is that there was a laundry list of diseases that this could apply to. This came about during the COVID pandemic. However, it was not just about COVID. A laundry list of diseases that they could use this regulation for, and a lot of them were not even communicable or are not even communicable. Things like Lyme disease, things like botulism,

which is food poisoning, things like toxic shock syndrome. So these diseases, yes, COVID-19 was on that list. Yes, tuberculosis was on that list. You know, communicable diseases were on the list, but there were also not communicable diseases on that list. So we saw this complete breach of separation of powers. We have a law in New York. We've had it since 1953, our quarantine law. Now, it's 70 years old, and I have to say, it is full of due process protections. It weighs that balance between what are the rights of the individual who's sick versus the rights of society to stay free from getting the germs of other people, keeping society safe and healthy. That law has many due process protections.

Number one due process protection is you have to actually have the disease before they can even attempt to try to go to step number two, which would be the process of having a hearing and investigation and all this other stuff. So agencies can't write regulations or rules that conflict with our laws. Nobody challenges that. The Attorney General doesn't even try to argue against that because it's a very common, very longstanding principle of law. But here, that's exactly what they did. The agency wrote a regulation that conflicts with our existing 70-year-old quarantine law, conflicts with our constitution and the due process protections in our constitution. And they're not allowed to do that.

They can't do that. And that's why the judge struck this down. Yeah. I, I have been, I, you know, I,

this is not surprising to me, this, this particular case you guys are bringing, because it became clear to me during COVID that health authorities had a sort of fiat authority, I'm guessing granted by the Constitution to the states, that I had no idea they had. No, Kelly's saying no. But at least they exerted fiat authority. Kelly, you're saying no. Right. No, they do not have that authority. There has been, first of all, Senator Borrello and Bobby, and thank you for joining us for this conversation. I've been talking about this quite a bit, which is the concerning movement towards martial law as public health policy and the idea of declaring something as a public health policy as a way to usurp civil liberties. That is not granted in the Constitution. Furthermore, I would submit to

you that none of this could possibly have happened without the complicity of the medical industry, without physicians. None of this would have happened if physicians on whole and public health expert had stood up and said, there is no such entity as, quote, quarantining healthy people. The concept of quarantine is biblical. It goes back to the leper colonies, where you take people who are actively ill and you keep them away from the rest of society. Quarantining or forcing healthy people to limit their movement is not called quarantine.

That's called tyranny. There's a different word for that. And it's tyrannical. And I think that those are the things, there is nothing in public health that supports the concept of taking healthy people and limiting their ability to move about. So I think, Bobbi-Ann, I think you are spot on. It's not only an overreach of their constitutional authority, but it is a complete breach of public health standards. Yeah, that's a great point. So it is one of the issues that is in this lawsuit. The Department of Health, the Commissioner of Health in New York State, the governor, what they did was they expanded their powers. And this is part of our separation of powers argument and how they breached separation of powers. They expanded their powers beyond what

the legislature gave them. Agencies cannot act, agencies are in the executive branch of government and our constitution, both in New York state, but at the federal level as well, says clearly that the ability to make laws lies with our legislature. So at the federal level, that's Congress. At the state level, that'll be your state legislature. So those are the people that we elect every couple of years. If we don't like the laws that they're making, we vote them out and we vote new people in to make different laws, right? That's the whole concept behind having a legislature and being able to vote. So if you have agencies, which are in the executive branch,

agencies that are run by people appointed by the governor, people that are just regular bureaucrats, regular government employees, you can't give them the power to write rules or regulations that overrule or conflict with the laws that our legislators are making. Otherwise, that is tyranny. So in this case, the Department of Health did that. They expanded their power. They said, we are not just going to follow the quarantine law from 1953, which says that we can quarantine those who are sick, who are a public health threat. They have the disease. We've had a hearing. We've had an investigation.

A judge, according to our law, a judge writes and issues isolation or quarantine order, not the commissioner of health. That, in that case, under the law, you do have to be not only sick, but you also have to prove that you're a public health threat in some way. You're not comporting yourself in a proper manner to protect those around you. That's the way we've always done it. Here in California, we were told it's an emergency, and under an emergency, we have authority, and you must listen to us.

And people's lives were ruined who attempted to stand up with that, including businesses still shuttered, people losing jobs, because it was, quote, an emergency. I'm guessing it must mean that each state has sort of a different issue. My question, maybe I'll prefer this to the senator first, what has happened here? How did 50 states or many of the 50 states all end up in the same place?

I get what the legal issue is in New York, but many states ended up in the same place as New York did. What has gone wrong and what do we need to, obviously you guys have remedies you're trying to apply. Does each state need to investigate and sue and apply their own remedies well i think the one of the dangerous things about this is if this passes in new york state if this uh if the uh the appellate division over rules and overturns this and this regulation comes back it's going to send a message across this country that you have bureaucrats will now have the ability to essentially write laws. And that is not their

purvey. That is not their role. So this will have reverberations across this nation, I believe. So this is a very important fight. But the question is, how do we get here? Well, I would say that we got here under a number of circumstances. First and foremost, apathy. I think most people aren't paying attention to what their government is doing. They're too distracted by other things. while they're driving down the road by themselves, it was a lot of people in their 20s and 30s, the people that were the least susceptible to dying. We have convinced them that it's frightening to see the paranoia. You know, they're afraid the world's coming to an end because of climate change. They're afraid that they're going to, I mean, and that has created an environment where they believe that the government is the solution to everything. And it's frightening.

And I can tell you that being in government, there's not a lot of smart people in government. Let me tell you something. Anybody that's listening, pay attention. Okay. These are not smart people running the government. And it is frightening to think that we have usurped our freedom, our liberties to some people that, quite frankly, shouldn't be running anything. Most people working in government doing so because they know somebody. And don't get me wrong, there are a lot of qualified people, a lot of intelligent people.

When you start talking about the groupthink that is government, it's a dangerous thing. No, I think you're- That's the first time I've heard that i somebody else told me that when i was thinking about getting into politics they he said you need to be and this was a very very famous political leader who said don't do not do this and yes you unless you are really prepared and i mean really prepared to deal with not smart people because and at least in here in this state in this particular state particularly um so but but you you're confirming something at another state level. I'm just stunned. Go ahead, Senator.

Go ahead. I just want to say this. You have folks, my colleagues, elected officials, that went from being public advocates, public activists, which I'm not sure how you make a living doing that, to being staffers for other elected officials, to being members of the New York State Senate and Assembly. They've never had a real job in their life. And that's really frightening that those are the people that are writing these laws.

I'm not big on mandating things, but if there's one thing I could mandate is that all my colleagues take Economics 101 because clearly they don't understand that. That's where you're seeing hyperinflation in New York throughout the nation. You're seeing, because they don't understand basic economics. Those are the people that are making decisions like this about your health,

about your freedom. And that's really frightening. I will add on to that, Senator, that we are seeing egregious breaches of the law as currently written. For an example, one of the key components of an emergency use authorization, the fact that when you have an emergency drug that is not FDA approved, it is experimental as these vaccines as of today remain wholly experimental. There isn't a single FDA approved vaccination for COVID

on the market in the United States as of this date, as we sit here today. They're experimental. By the Nuremberg Code, you cannot be mandated, coerced, or under fear of reprisal, be compelled to take that shot. Have we lost our minds? I'm not an attorney. I'm a doctor and I know this. This is the basics. Every single mandate and coercion for these shots is illegal. It is a violation of the Nuremberg Code. We are doing this over and over again, this stuff Bob Yance talking about, the idea of quarantining, forcing people to stay in their homes. It violates the laws as currently written in the state of New York. They are treading on legislation that's already been

written, and we are letting it happen. And as you said, not only is the American public asleep, but where are all of our elected officials who are supposed to be protecting us from that? Well, sad to say that so many of our people are, there's a lot of self-serving people in elected office. And as long as they're okay, and as long as, you know, things are okay for them. And that's, you know, we just got a record increase in our pay in New York State that was done a few days before Christmas last year, making New York State the highest paid legislature in the nation. So, you know, my colleagues are truly insulated from the bad decisions that they make. And that's really a problem. Bobby, and where does the lawsuit stand right now you know where are you with this case

so we just we filed the case a year and a half ago and the lower court judge the trial court struck the regulation down said it was unconstitutional that was last summer the governor and the attorney general appealed the case. So we've been fighting the appeal now the last several months. And we just had oral arguments two weeks ago at the appellate division. And we are now waiting for the decision, basically, of the appellate division. Are they going to affirm the lower court and say, yes, the lower court was correct? This should this should have been struck down. This is, you know, unconstitutional. Or are they going to basically reverse it, which means that they

would switch or overrule what the lower court said, and then that regulation would come back into play. So we're waiting for that decision. But, you know, I have to say the fact most New Yorkers do not know about this regulation. So the fact that mainstream media won't cover something like this. I mean, in my mind, if you have a group of New York state lawmakers, right, members of the legislature suing the governor in a fight for who's got this power, who's right. You know, what does the Constitution say? I would think that would be making national news, right? for who's got this power, who's right. You know, what does the constitution say? I would think that would be making national news, right? Especially if it's happening in New York, because if it happens in New York,

it can spread to other states. Many times New York and California are the leaders on what's going on and trends in the country and stuff. So, you know, you would think that the mainstream media would be all over this. No, no, it's completely quiet. I mean, alternative media picks it up, but mainstream media doesn't want anything to do with this. It's a shame because most New Yorkers, this crosses party lines, most New Yorkers,

if they knew what was going on, if they knew about this fight, if they knew that the governor was appealing to try and get this horrific power back, I think they would be completely outraged. And they would they would stand up and say, absolutely not, no matter what their political affiliation is. But we're not seeing that because it's being kept so quiet. And it's terrible. We did have a great turnout at the appellate division, I have to say two weeks ago um about 400 people showed up at the courthouse to hear the oral arguments which is unheard of you know i mean only in only on television or in movies do people come to the court to to hear oral arguments um there wasn't

even there are so many things that we have looked at through the history of this country with horror not the least of which is the Japanese internment camps. And yet this actually procedurally is precisely the same. It is exactly the same based on exactly the same notion. It's an emergency. We have to do something, which is insane that we're doing it again. I would point out we put laws in place in the late 50s to protect professors because the McCarthy area excesses lost the jobs of 100 professors in colleges who were accused of things. I would point out to you that in the present moment, professors that are accused of all sorts of indiscretions or transgressions. Now we are at the point where in the present moment, 200 professors have lost their jobs and no one is making an issue of it. It's literally twice the severity of the McCarthy era. I would argue that quarantining sick people would put a lot

more people into camps than Japanese internment put into camps. And yet no one is making the associations between the philosophy that is guiding these very phenomenologies again. Let me ask you, with that as a lead-in, Drew, let me ask both Bobby and Senator, sort of a chilling question. Are you aware of, if they're talking about putting people, you know, locking people up or putting them in facilities, is there a plan afoot? Is there a proposal for where these facilities, are they building internment camps? Is there a plan to, are there funds set aside to build facilities? They don't need to. Quite chillingly the regulation says that the government can commandeer any facility and use it as a detention center for for this purpose um so they don't even need to find a dollar anywhere they they could use uh an empty prison uh because you know new york state was emptying

out prisons during covid because that spreads COVID. And our new bail reform law, which I'm sure Senator Brelo could give you details on, says that you can't even hold a criminal on bail because bail is racist. So our prisons, they could use an empty prison for a quarantine facility. They could use a multifamily house. They could use an old abandoned school. I mean, the reg said they could use any property that they wanted. They could use a hospital. They could use anything. So they didn't even need to build anything anywhere. Wow. Beautiful. Yeah. I would add to that that, you know, during the pandemic and the early days especially, you know, they were looking at closed hospitals in my district and other facilities, closed schools to use if they needed to, you know know to quarantine sick people together you know but you

know at that point we didn't know what was going to happen right we didn't know how deadly and dangerous it was going to be early on uh and uh so there's no doubt that they had plans they had engineers come do site visits at facilities so they were ready to pull that trigger absolutely uh so this would not take long and i will also add one other thing. We've seen the shameless mainstream media that has been essentially covering for our governor. Recently, the Associated Press did a fact check, as they called it, on is the governor going to build quarantine camps? And it was absolutely horrific that a reporter with an agenda came in and did this fake fact check, essentially, and said, oh, no, no, this isn't true. This isn't going to happen.

And so you're seeing that a lot. You're seeing our mainstream media, social media companies that are absolutely covering up the tyranny that's occurring in our government. Boy, there's so many different things concerning right now that are seemingly out of the view of the general public. Kelly, yesterday, Ed Dowd came back in and was talking about the excess mortality issues and how there's silence on that front. It's just an uncanny time when things that have always mattered greatly suddenly

are not of interest to people that are supposed to be reporting the news. And also, the whole notion of questioning authority has been put on its ear. And it's hard to reconcile all these things. Maybe I should ask Bobbi Ann, and do you, do you, do you, are you optimistic about these things? Are you, do you have multiple fights you're contemplating taking to the government or do you feel overwhelmed by what you're facing? You know, I have to say, this is something that's happening in New York, obviously. Um, but it's also happening in other States. Um, I, I now have a network of attorneys who are, you know, I call them constitutionalists because we are fighting for the Constitution in other states. And I've had attorneys from other states, also from around the world, reach out to me to try and help them with their fights in their countries or in their states. But we're seeing this at the federal level too. And I can give, you know, just off the top of my head, I can give a couple of examples of where a lawsuit had to be brought in order to push the executive branch back into their lane because they had

crossed over impermissibly in violation of the constitution into the lane of the legislature. You know, when we saw the CDC eviction moratorium, right? So all of a sudden the CDC, which is an agency, which is under the president, you know, that's the executive branch, issued a nationwide eviction moratorium saying you cannot evict your tenants, landlords across the country, you cannot evict your tenants because that would spread COVID if you did that. So all of a sudden, not all, but many tenants stopped paying their rent because they knew that they couldn't be evicted for non-payment because the federal government had stepped in and said that they couldn't be evicted. So then you saw the absolute downfall of those small mom and pop landlords across the country. And most landlords

in our nation are mom and pop shops. So a lot of people save up money, they buy a multifamily house, they'll live in one portion of the house, and then they'll rent out the other portions for income and to pay their bills. You saw people like that getting absolutely crushed, because they were sued. And it did go all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. And ultimately, the United States Supreme Court did strike down that regulation and did say, sorry, wrong branch of government. The CDC cannot make law. And this and this was a law. And so but in that time that it took a year, a year and a half for it to get up to the Supreme Court for them to strike it down, look at all of the people, the everyday people like you and me who were crushed in the interim because the federal government stepped out of their lane and agencies stepped out of their lane and crossed over into lawmaking, right? We saw it also when Biden told OSHA, which Biden's the president, executive branch told OSHA, an agency under the president in the

executive branch, to make a rule that said that all employers in the United States that had 100 or more employees had to force their employees to either get the COVID shot or they had to test weekly and wear a mask to work and all this other stuff. So that was also challenged in the courts. That also went all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. And that also was struck down by the United States Supreme Court on the basis of separation of powers. SCOTUS said, no, OSHA, you cannot make a regulation like this. This is a law. This is not a regulation. And the lawmaking power lies with Congress, the legislative branch of government. So, you know, those are just

two examples. There are many others. But those are just two examples of this idea of the executive branch doing what they want to do. And a lot of times they know they don't have that power, but they do it anyway. And I call it catch me if you can. And a lot of times they know they don't have that power, but they do it anyway. And I call it catch me if you can. And the attitude is, okay, we're going to do this. We know we can, or we probably are sure we can, but we're going to do it anyway. And come catch me if you can. Bring a lawsuit, see if you can stop me, see what the judge says. If the judge rules against me, okay, maybe I'll stop. But if the judge doesn't rule against me, then I'm just going to keep this new power that I gave myself and I'm going to run with it, right?

So it's really dangerous because when you have a branch of government that reaches over into another branch and takes that power from the other branch, that is the very definition of tyranny. And who suffers when that happens? It's the people who suffer. Absolutely 100%. So this is why it's so important to have the right people in the leadership positions. I'm just hoping more people will wake up and start supporting the politicians or the candidates that are running for office who honor the constitution, who understand the constitution, because if we had more people, you know, if we had more Senator

Borrellos, more Assemblyman Taggs, more Congressman Lawlers who stood up for our constitution and put their names on this lawsuit and are fighting the governor on this, you know, more people like that running the government, we wouldn't be in this position of having to fight in court and spend all this time and energy and resources to fight and push them back into their lane. It's- Your constitutionalist colleagues are giving me some faith. It's actually kind of thrilling to hear what you guys are doing.

But as it pertains to constitutionalism, I declare here today, we should form a new party. It's time for a new party, the constitutional party. How about that, Senator? We should all rally around the constitution as a political movement. And because God knows there are those out there that want to erode it. That is for sure. so i bobby and thank you for doing that work and of course as soon as the government is smacked down they issue immense apologies and compensations for the excess oh no wait a minute they do nothing nothing like that uh kelly and i dr victor and i have had to walk through walk across many uh uh many hot coals in the last couple of years uh in terms of defending our license and our professional

standing and a million of other things that have been put upon us. And so far, Kelly, how many apologies have you received? Yeah, exactly. I'm waiting by the mailbox for all those hours back that I spent defending my medical licenses. Meanwhile, while they slowly and surreptitiously retract things, like all of a sudden the FDA says, oh, it turns out physicians can prescribe ivermectin. And now the Mayo Clinic says, oh, it turns out hydroxychloroquine would work for COVID. He is a treatment. And on and on. He is a treatment.

He is a treatment for it. But the bottom line is you never get an apology. They just sort of move on. But as the Senator said in your opening remarks, fear, you mentioned the word fear, and I talk about fear a lot. Without fear, none of this could ever have happened. So it's been somewhat of the perfect storm. You have a population that does not understand the Constitution or how our government is supposed to work. You have an entire population that is wedded to social media and very, very easily manipulated by social media. And you have a population that is wedded and completely reliant on its government. That makes a population that

is really susceptible to fear. Fear is always a powerful intoxicant. It's the easiest way to manipulate people. But you add those other things in, which is, you know, ignorance of their actual rights, ignorance of how it's supposed to work, and reliance on that government, plus fear of social reprisal. And it is a toxic soup that really is, it puts people at huge risk. And I appreciate what you are doing. You need more of you in the same way that I feel like I need more of me, more of us. We cannot do this alone, particularly the uphill battle that you fight with the constant cancel culture. So blessings to both of you for putting yourselves out there. God knows, I know you're suffering the slings and arrows, I'm sure,

but it's worth the fight. Thank you. Keep the faith, that's for sure. Yeah, thank you. Senator, I'm wondering if you have a word. Go ahead, Bobbion. I was just going to say, you know, when you're talking about fear as the underlying issue here,

you know, a lot of people about fear as the underlying issue here, you know, a lot of people in the past three and a half years have kind of relied upon or always pointed to, you know, Jacobson versus Massachusetts, which is a 1905 Supreme Court case. And, you know, they say, oh, the government, but the government can do this to us. You know, they do have this power. And look at Jacobson and, you know, Jacobson has been twisted and turned and, you know, thoroughly rewritten by, I think, the public or perhaps certain people in the public, because Jacobson does not say the government can do whatever they want in the time of emergency. OK, I just want to throw that out there because that is not what Jacobson says. Supreme Court and Jacobson basically said that the challenge was to a Massachusetts state law, right? So Massachusetts law that required that the

citizens get either vaccinated against smallpox or they had to pay a fine, which was $5 at the time, which is about $150 today, I believe. Or they had to have some sort of an excuse, an exemption that was granted. So the law didn't say, do this one thing, or, you know, you're going to jail, or do this one thing, or you're going to lose your job, or, you know, do this one thing or we're going to slander you all over the place without recourse. You know, that is not what Jacobson said. So, you know, people, I think, again, it's an education thing. People need to understand, yes, the Constitution and their rights, but they also need to understand, you know, no, emergency doesn't, does the government's power expand in time of emergency? Yes. But does it mean that they become dictators and totalitarianism can now be justified? No, that's not what happens

as per the Constitution. In fact, it's the exact opposite. The United States Supreme Court has held many times over and over again that in times of emergency, the Constitution does not get put away in a drawer and left there until the emergency is over. They've said just the opposite. They've said many times that the Constitution, that emergency does not create power. The Constitution is the Constitution, and you don't get new powers just because there's an emergency. So I think people just need, it's just education. It's really, and I don't blame the people. I blame mainstream media. What should people do if they want to support you or the other constitutionalist attorneys? If people want to support me, I do have a donate button on my website.

I've been handling this case against the governor pro bono for a year and a half. So I do have a donate button on my site, which is www.coxlawyers.com. It's spelled C-O-X lawyers.com. There's a lot of information there about this lawsuit as well. I have a media tab on that page and a lot of interviews, a lot of articles that have been written about it and such. So if people want more information, I would say go to CoxLawyers.com. And I'm also on Twitter if people want to follow me. It's attorney underscore Cox, cox um but yeah i think getting involved if people

can get involved you know whether it's supporting a politician who's constitutionally inclined or whether it's uh you know writing a letter to your representatives in whether it's congress or your state legislature uh or if you don't have time to volunteer, then make a donation to a lawsuit like mine or make a donation to a politician's campaign. You know, everybody has to do something because, you know, we can't just sit back and watch the show and unfold before us. I mean, that time has passed. We have to all roll up our sleeves and do something to get involved. And thank you, Bobbi. And Senator, any closing thoughts as we roll towards the end here? Well, I would say that I'm hoping that there

has been an awakening across this nation, people understanding that their rights are being taken away. I think, you know, quite frankly, those in charge, you know, and it's the Democrats that are in charge, particularly here in New York State, they're seeing this and they are concerned and they are willing to throw out a lot the middle class and bringing in a class of dependent people that are completely dependent on the Democrats for survival. You know, whether it's giving them the right to work, whether it's making sure that their kids are in school, whether it's having whatever to make ends meet, you know, this is the problem. They're willing to throw out our quality of life. They're willing to throw out our sovereignty in order to maintain their stranglehold on power.

And people have to recognize that that's what's going on. Thank you, Senator. Kelly, any last thoughts? No, I just really appreciate, as you said, if we allow this to happen in New York, don't breathe a sigh of relief because you live in Iowa or Florida or California or Ohio, wherever, because if this happens in New York, it is coming to a state near you. These things tend to spread. And so if this is allowed to pass in New York, God help us. Everyone needs to wake up and start paying

attention to what's happening here because we are on the slippery slope. So thank you again for what you're doing. Bobbi Ann Cox, Senator George Burrell, thank you for joining us. And finish your thoughts there. Thank you so much. I really appreciate you having us on.

We'll hopefully check in with you again to see how this thing goes. Hopefully the appellate will uphold the case. Thank you to both of you. Kelly, I'm going to have you stay for a second, which is just to kind of reflect on between Getzco and this story and again, Ed Dowd reporting very concerning data about excess mortality. So much of, you know, I try to understand sort of globally what's going on and you said fear i agree with you 100 i don't understand people's willingness to tell other people how to live their

life or desire or enjoyment in that and why others would want that it's confusing to me and it's confusing to me the silence around the excess mortality issues and it's you know we you could come up with glib answers obviously you know you just follow the money on any of this stuff but i i can't i can't put it all together can you well i i think what we i think we are seeing just an unprecedented amount of fraud drew uh that's going on uh and it's everything with it with silence silence from the media and and silence from the media and silence from the media right we've had periods of history a lot of fraud the media is usually at the gates

the one holding you know telling us about it now now they're saying nothing don't don't no no because the media is in on it media is part of it i mean and and you can't yeah and i don't care which media you follow i don't care if you're watching Fox News or MSNBC. Each segment is brought to you by Pfizer or brought to you by Moderna. We are one of two countries on the planet, the United States and New Zealand, that allows pharmaceutical advertising on television. Those advertising dollars make it run. Okay? make it run. The reality is Fox News, which is one of the more conservative stations, 70% of their advertising dollars comes from the pharmaceutical industry. There is nothing that's independent anymore, Drew. Their news is not the news. Their opinion pieces,

all it is is their opinion, and their opinions are completely molded and controlled by who pays their advertising dollars. Unfortunately, the independent news is gone. As you and I grew up with, the 11 o'clock news that actually reported the news, not somebody's opinion about the news, that's gone. Those days are behind us. We have got to either demand the disarticulation of our media from these other sources or, you know, it's not that it's perestroika. We are just reading propaganda. That's all it is. And it's a very, very dangerous time to be living because you have to really seek it out as a thinking, critical thinking, analytical individual. You've got to seek out the truth,

and you are not getting that from the mainstream media. It's actually hard to determine the truth because I always try to, you know, I try not to assume that everything I'm hearing, everything I'm thinking is correct. I'm always trying to think, well, there's got to be other points of view on this and I want to hear those too. But it's hard to get all the different points of view. You have to seek it voraciously.

Caleb, throw up the upcoming guest, if you would. Emily was already hard at work on getting Getsky back to see us. He might come back next week to talk about it, see if she puts it up there. No. Jeb Adasharia, October 5th. Rob Schneider, October 10th.

October 3rd, I think that's you, Kelly. We'll be out of town with Reggie Littlejohn. Want to tell us about that? Yeah, Reggie Littlejohn. Well, she's well known for her stance on abortion and things related to women's rights. But she's gotten involved in the COVID debacle as well and exposing much of the what I call fraud of our different agencies, not only the vaccine disaster, but really the rampant fraud that's run in our agencies, everyone from the NIH to the CDC. And most recently, I don't know, I'm hoping I'll get into it a little bit, this recent

bombshell with Anthony Fauci's undocumented visit to the CIA and his involvement in really manipulating what the CIA concluded with regard to the origins of COVID. So we'll probably get into that a little bit as well. Sounds like fun. Appreciate you being here with us today as always. Thank you, Caleb, Susan, for producing this, Emily, for booking it. And we'll see you all tomorrow at our usual time.

Lionel, by himself, is going to make a return visit. And I'll cut him loose a little bit. Let's see what he comes up with. So we'll see you tomorrow at three o'clock. 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 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.