Ask Dr. Drew - "Pyramid" Nanoparticles: mRNA & Fetal Health w/ Dr. James Thorp & Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 132

Episode Date: October 8, 2022

Researchers using a scanning electron microscope claim to have spotted unusual "rectangles and inverted pyramids" in degraded Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines – adding more questions regarding lipid nanoparticles and possible autoimmune response triggers. 「 LINKS FROM THIS SHOW: https://drdrew.com/1042022 」 A new study claims that COVID-19 vaccines can pass mRNA through breastmilk. Though the CDC and vaccine manufacturers state that mRNA does not affect reproduction or fetal health, many OBGYNs are sounding the alarm about a patterns of miscarriages and stillbirths that they believe are signs of adverse events. Dr. James Thorp, a board certified OBGYN and Maternal Fetal Medicine Physician with over 43 years of obstetrical experience, joins Dr. Kelly Victory LIVE to discuss recent mRNA studies and especially their possible effects on pregnant women.  “I do find it very peculiar that... none of the contents appear to be of biological origin." Dr. Thorp recently said to The Epoch Times. "There were no elements of nitrogen or phosphorus... a sine qua non (an essential condition) for a biological origin." Follow Dr. Jim Thorp at https://gettr.com/user/JamesAThorpMD  「 SPONSORED BY 」 • BIRCH GOLD - Don’t let your savings lose value. You can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it. Claim your free, no obligation info kit from Birch Gold at https://birchgold.com/drew • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get 10% off with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew 「 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 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. Hundreds of millions of people have received a COVID-19 vaccine, and serious adverse reactions are uncommon. Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician and Dr. Kelly Victory is a board-certified emergency specialist. Portions of this program will examine countervailing views on important medical issues. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.  「 ABOUT the SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 GEAR PROVIDED BY 」 • BLUE MICS - Find your best sound at https://drdrew.com/blue • ELGATO - See how Elgato's lights transformed Dr. Drew's set: https://drdrew.com/sponsors/elgato/ 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 For over 30 years, Dr. Drew has answered questions and offered guidance to millions through popular shows like Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Dr. Drew On Call (HLN), Teen Mom OG (MTV), and the iconic radio show Loveline. Now, Dr. Drew is opening his phone lines to the world by streaming LIVE from his home studio. Watch all of Dr. Drew's latest shows at https://drdrew.tv Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We are, of course, streaming out on the Twitter spaces. We enjoy your calls there. I'm not sure if we're going to have time for calls today, but I'm going to try because I see there's a lot of energy already on today's topic and today's guest. And we are going to be wandering into some very challenging and controversial territory. Dr. Victory and I decided that after sort of thinking through

some of the stuff that Naomi Wolf threw down, we thought we should get someone with some expertise in reproductive health to sort of parse through some of the stuff that Naomi Wolf threw down. We thought we should get someone with some expertise in reproductive health to sort of parse through some of this stuff. Now, again, highly controversial. As you see in the bottom of the page here, by the screen, CDC states COVID vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. This program features medical professionals discussing difficult, controversial topics. We want to give that environment where we

can bring all kinds of ideas, but please always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health. So starting from safe and effective, and then trying to look at the data and seeing what we can figure out and, you know, are there ways to parse it out in safer ways and more effective ways, these sorts of things that we always do in medicine. So we're just really doing what we've always done. So Dr. Thorupal introduced in just a couple of minutes will be with us. And of course, Dr. Victory joins after a few minutes.

So stay with us. Our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre. A psychopath started this. He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction, fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous.

I'm a doctor for f***'s sake. Where the hell do you think I learned that? I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people. I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat.

If you have trouble, you can't stop and you want help stopping, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot 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. BetMGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long. From tip-off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with the sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with BetMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM.

Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM. A sportsbook worth a slam dunk. An authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only.

Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Whether you own a bustling hair salon

or a hot new bakery, you need business insurance that can keep up with your evolving needs. With flexible coverage options from TD Insurance, you only pay for what you need. TD, ready for you. So here we are, everybody. Again, we have moved our Wednesday show to Tuesday this week because I'm going to be out of town on

Thursday and Dr. Thorpe couldn't make it in here on Wednesday. So we decided to bring Dr. Victory in here on Tuesday. So we appreciate you guys kind of rolling with us. Susan, is there any other scheduling issues I should alert people to? Because we are traveling a bit coming up. Not till the end of October. What's that? When you go to Cleveland. So we're going to try to do Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday next week also. It'll probably be, no, it's the end of October. Okay, good. So we'll be on a normal schedule. We'll be around the rest of the month on time. Dr. Thorpe made a comment about him stopping speaking when his wife talks, and I'm trying to practice that very injunction.

So we have Ryan Holiday coming in. He has a new book, Discipline is the... I'll have to get you that. Discipline is the Outcome kind of thing. We have another interesting doctor coming in with Dr. Victory next week, Dr. Spiro Pantazitos. We'll talk

about that when we get Dr. Victory in here. That is next week. And then we have Vinay Prasad coming in two weeks from Wednesday, who is really one of my favorite people and guests and sort of trying to pull everything together. So we will do that. Let me first get right to Dr. Thorpe, though, and tell you a little bit about him. Dr. Jim Thorpe is a board-certified obstetrician gynecologist, maternal fetal medicine physician, 43 years of OB experience. He currently sees about 8,000 high-risk pregnancies per year. Most recently, Dr. Thorpe was focusing some of his research on COVID, the pandemic, and has published some peer-reviewed scientific publications. I would call them polemics, sort of throwing down some interesting

ideas, some I want to hear more about. So also you can follow Dr. Thorpe at getter.com, James A. Thorpe, T-H-O-R-P-E-M-D, James A. Thorpe, M.D. on Getter. Dr. Thorpe, welcome to the program. Dr. Drew, thank you very much.. Dr. Drew, thank you very much. And Dr. Victory, thank you very much for having me on your illustrious platform. I appreciate it. Of course. So this will be interesting. So Dr. Kelly and I have differing ideas, and we're going to have differing sort of questions for you.

I read a lot of your stuff. It was very interesting. It was very polemical. I'm not quite sure what to do with some of it, but the stuff I want to get into with you here. The one thing that I thought you and I would get into a little bit is your economic theory on the pandemic. I thought that was rather fascinating. Can you sort of give us a thumbnail of that? Well, you know, I think that I'd rather stick more to my wheelhouse, which is what I know to be true and certain with regard to my area of expertise, which is OBGYN and maternal medicine. Okay. And by the same token, that was going to be my next sort of move, which is, so I'm an internist and I practice general internal medicine.

I did addiction medicine, worked in a psychiatric college for many years, but general medicine has always been my through line practice. And so right now I'm primarily seeing people well over the age of 65. And in that population, I've had, well, to be fair, I've seen COVID across the lifespan. I've seen COVID everywhere. But COVID in the elderly population was killing my patients, and now I can treat them with Paxlovid. Things get better. No one's going to the hospital. No one's dying.

The vaccines seem to be effective. I'm not really worried about side effects in a 75-year-old the way I'm worried about side effects in a 22-year-old. So it's a very different population. And so my view of the vaccines are, hmm, they've been very effective. They kept my patient out of the hospital. They're helping not let people die, as is some of the therapeutics. But I sure am glad I'm not trying to decide whether or not a 27-year-old should take this vaccine.

That's where I get very confused on what the right decision is. So let's talk about maternal fetal health. What are your concerns as an obstetrician? Well, I think that, Dr. Drew, my first concerns are the multiple reports from multiple independent databases suggesting some very grave concerns about rolling this out. I'll stick with pregnancy, but in women of reproductive age and also in children. So for what I do, it's high risk obstetrics. And, you know, I'm very busy. I focused on a lot of clinical research as you have introduced me. My main concern with what I've observed in pregnancy, and I have an extensive experience, and there aren't many OBs or maternal fetal medicines around that are seeing the volume

and have seen the volume that I've seen throughout this pandemic. I think I'm on track for eight or 9,000 patients, high-risk patients this year. So I have my fingertips and have had my fingertips on the pulse of obstetrical outcomes over the last two years and over the last 43 years. That's what I do. That's all I do. I live, breathe, and eat it. So I'm also focused on clinical data and clinical research and what everybody else is publishing around the world. So I would focus my main concern on why are we using an experimental vaccine that's never been tested ever with any long-term outcome? Why are we pushing this in pregnancy? There's been a long, long, long standing history of horrible tragedies that we

have produced as a community, a global community, mostly United States community, disaster capitalistic community of obstetrical disasters. We don't even have to go back to the mid 1800s, but I will mention that is Ignaz Philip Semmelweis in Vienna lying in hospital. Fuerpil mortality rate, healthy, beautiful young women pregnant going in to have a baby, almost 50% of them dead out of the morgue. So Ignaz Semmelweis, of course, figured that out, but was one of the

only ones that figured it out, and he was chastised and persecuted. That was a horrible disaster. We go up to the more current times. We see the thalidomide disaster. Hopefully, I think, Dr. Drew, you probably know the thalidomide disaster, and you probably know, Dr. Drew, the diethylbestrol disaster as well. Yeah, yeah, the DES and the thalidomide disaster. But, you know, it's interesting. Your disasters are these GYN obstetrical disasters.

When I arrived at the psychiatric hospital in 1985 as the new young internist, I acquired all the medical patients there. And it was like a museum of the disasters of the standard of care of psychiatry. Lots of people who somebody saw fit to put a spike up in here and sweep back and forth, not only the lobotomies, but the singulotomies and all sorts of terrible psychosurgeries that just destroyed people. And then I had to struggle through the opioid crisis the whole while screaming about what people were, they were killing my patients with overprescribing of opiates. And I was told I was opiophobic. I was old fashioned. I didn't understand the standard of care, there was something wrong with me, I was interested in

the suffering of patients. This is what we do. So whenever people come up against the standard of care and sort of glorify it, I want patients to get the standard of care, but I want us as clinicians to always assail the standard of care to make sure it truly is the standard, because we have made some grotesque errors, to your point. So thus we have these conversations. That's why you're here. So help us understand what we should be concerned about. Well, this is the greatest disaster in the history of medicine. It's the greatest disaster in the history of obstetrics. You don't have to be somebody as erudite and as brilliant as you or any physician. You can have no education at all. We were all endowed with a cardinal rule, the golden rule,

that you don't ever, ever, ever use anything in pregnancy that is new or potentially toxic, not even potentially toxic, not even cigarettes or alcohol or wine. We don't recommend that, let alone a substance which is completely unknown that's never been tested. So this is a gross, derelict violation of the cardinal rule of obstetrics. That's horrible. So the other problem that I have, a major problem, and I will fight it till my last breath, and I will fight it, is it's completely against science. You know, this is what the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology and every other specialty boards, including your board, Dr. Drew, American Board of Internal Medicine, all your societies, they have gagged you and I and every physician, every nurse in the

United States of America. That occurred a year ago. And that is illegal. It's unethical. It's immoral. And as Sir Karl Popper pointed out, the famous Brit knighted researcher and philosopher of the last century, science progresses by refutation and falsification. I have falsified, I have totally torn down, eliminated any politically correct narrative that has been put on my specialty of obstetrics and maternal field medicine. Nobody in that world will debate me or challenge me. And there's a good reason why they can't do that, Dr. Drew, because I have the data and they don't have any safety data. They can't argue with me. What they are focused

on in my specialty is the terminology that they use for pregnant women. You know, we're getting our hands slapped now for using pregnant women. And when you see an article in the obstetrics and it comes up a pregnant person or a chest feeding person, you know there's some problems of the scientific method there. And that's what the mainstream media and the mainstream medical journals that by and large are corrupted. That's what they're doing.

So, I've shown 32 completely independent sources of data showing that there's a very, very strong danger signal. And if you don't believe those, Dr. Drew, then will you believe Pfizer themselves? Will you believe Pfizer themselves in the Pfizer 5.3.6 document, post-marketing document, I've had in my possession for almost 18 months. Now, it was given to me by a whistleblower from Pfizer. I couldn't vouch for the, it's a 30-page, clearly written, it looked official, but I didn't have any way to prove that. But when we obtained FOIA requests to them, and it was denied, and they said, well, we're not going to give you that for 75 years. And then a federal judge orders them to give it under order of law, federal law. And the tranche finally comes out that Pfizer April Fool's joke that I call it, came out April 1st this year, a few months ago. Exact same document that I've

had in my possession for 18 months. Okay, so this is Pfizer, Dr. Drew, telling you and the rest of us physicians that we're supposed to have done our due diligence. Not supposed to. We don't follow orders. We do our own due diligence and we give our own patients our own informed consent. Bureaucrats don't do that. Lesson learned, you do not tell physicians what to do as bureaucrats, as politicians, as agencies at the board level. You don't do that. You don't eliminate opposition. Let the doctor be the doctor. So on page seven of that document, Dr. Drew, 1,223 dead people after taking the vaccine in probably 70 days of rollout.

70 days. Probably, you know, it's 90 days, but it started December 1st, 2020 to February 28th, 2021. Yes, that's 90 days, but they were sent out on December 1st. They didn't start really vaccinating people till many days later, probably a week or two later. So you're looking at 1,223 deaths in 70 days. Listen, you and I are seasoned. We know our stuff. We've been around the block. In 1976, my brother, Kenny Ed, and I were in medical school at Wayne State University School of Medicine. The swine flu rolled out, and they rolled out the swine flu vaccination. In three months, there were 26 deaths. There was absolute global panic.

Everybody demanded it was immediately removed from the market, and so be it, and so it was, never to be seen in the light of day again. We fast forward another 24, 25 years to the turn of the century, and we have the rotavirus vaccine. Dr. Drew, that didn't even kill anybody. We had a few cases of intussusception in toddlers. It was immediately ripped off the market. Fast forward another 20 years. The most grotesque thing you've ever seen in your life. There's people dropping dead like flies.

In the first 70 days of rollout, we document themselves, telling you there's 1,226 dead people after they received the vaccine. It should have immediately been ripped off the market in December of 2020. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. So I'm going to stop you right there because I want to bring in Dr. Victory. I'll take a little break before we bring her in. But at the beginning, you asked the question, and now you've framed it with data.

Why did we do this? And that's what Dr. Victory and i have been dr victor and i've been trying to piece together and the best and you're i we could not uh agree with you more about bureaucrats and centralized medicine making decisions and how that's harmful for patients you also must not be living and practicing in california where we have a new law where it's ill you will lose your license if you don't if you don't spout the standard of care. Are you aware of this? AB 2098. So that's now a law here in California. So it's getting only worse.

It's not getting better. But back to the why would they accept such high levels of morbidity and mortality associated with this intervention. And what we've sort of put together is that it's a function of the hysteria, the panic, the, uh, the over the top, um, philosophy of the centralized public health authority that all else should be

ignored except this one pathogen and this one syndrome and all else should be completely and categorically ignored. And that led to untold harm, untold harm. And we're just starting to deal with that. And one of these may be exactly what you were talking about. So I want to get deeper into it with Dr. Victory. You can certainly comment on whatever I just said when we get back. We'll take a little break and we'll be back with Dr. Kelly Victory. Consumer price index yet again going up. Stock market in turmoil.

What's our government doing to quell the surge of inflation that is gutting American families? Oh yeah, they're spending more money and adding to the burden. Don't bury your head in the sand while your savings get decimated. It's time to do something about this. Visit birchgold.com slash druid. Now I don't give investment advice, about this. Visit birchgold.com slash Drew. Now,

I don't give investment advice, but you can visit birchgold, B-I-R-C-H, gold.com slash Drew. Birchgold will send you a free info kit on protecting your savings with gold in a tax sheltered account. Great people with almost 20 years of experience converting IRAs and 401ks into precious metals IRAs. Don't let your savings lose value. Visit birchgold.com and claim your free, no-obligation info kit from Birch Gold. You can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it. Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau,

countless five-star reviews, and thousands of satisfied customers. Check them out now. Visit birchgold.com slash drew and secure your future with gold. Do it now. For a long time, I've been talking about the holy grail of skincare, GenuCell, and the amazing results that both Susan and I have seen.

I'm a big fan of GenuCell's Silky Smooth XV. It's a moisturizer soaked right into my skin instantly, and with its immediate effects, I saw fine lines and wrinkles visibly disappear within 12 hours Susan loves GenuCell's vitamin C serum infused with the purest vitamin C Absorbs to the deepest layer of the skin thanks to GenuCell's proprietary skincare technology I am a snob when it comes to using products on my face The dermatologist makes a ton of money for me. But when I was introduced to

Genucel, I was so happy because it's so affordable and it works great. I was introduced to the Ultra Retinol Cream, which I love at night. All the eye creams are amazing. People notice my skin all the time and I'm so excited because it's actually working. And right now, Genucel has bundled my favorite products and Susan's for you to try today for up to 60% off retail pricing. That's right. Save up to 60% on my favorite GenuCell products today. Just go to GenuCell.com slash Drew to see what's in our bundles and receive an extra 10% off at checkout when you enroll in their personal concierge at checkout. That again is GenuCell.com slash Drew. G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash D-R-E-W.

Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. This episode ends here. The rest of the show is available at drdrew.tv. There's nothing in medicine that doesn't boil down to a risk-benefit calculation. It is the mandate of public health to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population. This is uncharted territory, Drew. And of course, we welcome Dr. Kelly Victory, ER, board-certified trauma ER specialist, 30 years of experience, also a psychologist

before she was an ER doc and with some public health training as well. So Dr. Victory, I'll let you loose on Dr. Thorpe. He may want to comment on what I said before you do so. So let's give him a chance and then it's on you. Terrific. It's all yours, Dr. Kelly. Thank you very much. Okay.

Well, thanks so much for joining us. There's just a zillion things I want to talk with you about. You started with something that I have said over and over again from this at the beginning of this pandemic, which is the truth that we never before in the history of medicine have used a therapeutic, an intervention on groups of people on whom it had never been tested. This is something that is a fundamental tenant of healthcare. And these vaccines, I said from well before they were ever launched on the public, I said they were never tested on pregnant or lactating women or on children or on people who'd already had and recovered from COVID,

people with underlying autoimmune diseases, polyethylene glycol allergies, and on and on. And without doubt, there's something sacrosanct about pregnancy and children. And so those two groups, it is just unconscionable that these vaccines, quote unquote, were given to those individuals. Furthermore, and I want you to correct me if I'm wrong, because as I said, my little intro there says I am a firm believer in the risk benefit calculation for all things medical. And let's talk about the risk of COVID to people in the particular age group that you are treating, pregnant women. I have said from the beginning, and again, correct me if I am misstating it, that there's nothing inherent about pregnancy that puts somebody at a higher risk from COVID. The risk

factors for bad out from COVID are well known. It's largely obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Is there anything in your mind and in your extensive experience that puts pregnancy in and of itself, it makes somebody in a higher risk category that would perhaps change the calculus when it comes to that risk-benefit calculation for the vaccines? Excellent question, and I want to address that. I want to go back to one of the things you said, was that Pfizer didn't test it on pregnant women. They weren't supposed to, but they did.

And all you have to do is look at that document that I was talking with Dr. Drew about and go to page 12, Pfizer 5.3.6 post-marketing analytics. On page 12, there were 270 pregnant women, and there was a 46% complication rate from the vaccine in their own data, 46%, Dr. Kelly. And if that weren't bad enough, of the 270, 238 weren't even followed up. So they do have the data, and it was damning, and they hid it. And they also used reproductive toxicology studies in animals, and they faked the data. They had a severe incidence of bone dysplasia, skeletal dysplasias, in the rat dams, the rat fetuses, and they completely deleted it. And we have a whistleblower, Sasha Latikova, and she's come out. She's been a long time in the pharmaceutical industry. She has those documents,

and I've spoke with her about this. Now, to your point is extremely important. You know, Dr. yourself, Dr. Kelly, and Dr. Drew, and I from different specialties, you know, we've all been told this line of reasoning, which is largely just anecdotal and empirical. Well, pregnant women have abnormal immune, or I won't say abnormal, compromised or diminished immune function, because they have to accommodate the most successful transplant in the history of humankind, and that's a pregnancy, where the fetus is completely antigenically and genetically different from the mother and the father that that fetus has, mother or father, so male or female, two sexes. So we know that for sure. And so that it is successful. Is the immune system compromised, thus giving a greater death rates to infections or greater incidence of cancer? The answer is we've always gone under that assumption. But I think that's a false assumption. And that's a very important point that you made, Dr. Kelly. Pennells and colleagues, actually from my fellowship alma mater, University of Texas Houston, just published last year in 2021,

a massive study showing the exact opposite. Interestingly, the mortality rate from infection was half that, half of that in the non-pregnant state. So it would appear that that is not, that was a house of cards. It has been probably refuted by more current and better focus studies. So I think that's very, very important. The other reason why it should have never been rolled out is because we knew back in the turn of the century that how effective hydroxychloroquine was. And, um, and those of us that were using it, including myself, um, by the way, hydroxychloroquine I've used for almost half a century. I've been practicing medicine for almost half a century, not quite, 43 years. But for 43 years, internists, rheumatologists, obstetricians, maternal fetal medicine docs have been prescribing 200 milligrams of hydroxychloroquine, aka Plaquenil, twice a day, even in the first

trimester for patients of rheumatologic disease. So it's a very safe drug, but it was harshly, fraudulently demonized by fake doctors, by stakeholders, by people with massive conflicts of interest. Dr. Mandeep Mehra, lead author of the 2020 May article on hydroxychloroquine from five continents, thousands, I think, massive number of patients. We all knew that that was fake. They were queried on it, and they couldn't come up with the data. It wasn't fraudulently manipulated. It was all fake, and it was ghost written. I'm going to interrupt. That's the famous Lancet article, am i is that correct that was a or is it british medical lancet and um and i do want you to know yeah yeah and let me let me uh also tell you i was doing my you mentioned how medicine internal medicine we use the with the uh the uh black one all the time which was what i was scratching my head about when all the outrage started with i prescribed

it a million times but i was just doing my, you know, I do these every three years, these medical board prep things. You can do these tests. They take three years to do, literally, and I do them every three years. And I did my rheumatology test called the MKSAP. And I did the rheumatology MKSAP. And in there, one of the questions was about plaquenil in pregnancy and it was it was making the point very strongly that it's so safe you could just don't even worry

about it leave it leave it going in pregnancy when i was like wow i don't know any other medication and medicine where i have seen that that tylenol doesn't get that kind of a wave through and and that was not politically motivated. That was just what the reality of this medicine has always been. But anyway, we have to kind of leave that topic a little bit in the dust because that's the one thing that can get us deplatformed. But so let's, Kelly, I'll let you shape the argument going forward. Yeah.

So, but suffice to say that all of these things that you're rattling off, Dr. Thorpe, everything from the rib anomalies, the rib deformities that happened in the in the rats that were tested with this vaccine to the fact that Pfizer deep six, that information that they had on the impacts on pregnancy, all of these things. I am hoping from your lips to God's ears that this proves a case of fraud against these people because it will be the one thing that allows us to have liability or for them to not be under this blanket liability protection that they currently enjoy because of the emergency use authorization. Right now, people who are harmed by these vaccines have essentially no recourse against them because of the liability protection. And that falls apart if and when we are able to prove fraud. So we'll table that for a second. I want to get in specifically, we don't have a largely medical audience, but I do think I want to get into a little bit of the details. One of the things that I had raised the alarm bell about with regard to these

vaccines in pregnancy, and I have nowhere near the experience you do, but I was aware that the spike protein on COVID shares a protein that is very similar, if not identical, to a protein that's critical for the formation and implantation of a placenta. It's called Synctin-1. My concern was if you are given this vaccine and you start cranking out these spike proteins, as your DNA has now told you to do, you will then develop antibodies to that spike protein. And in so doing, you will develop antibodies to the spike protein, but could also therefore be developing antibodies to this very critical protein found in a placenta. And that's critical for placental development.

And that it could very easily result in either failure to implant the pregnancy or abruption or termination or some other placental issues. So I know you have more than anyone I know gotten into really the science of the placental issues that we're seeing as a result of these vaccines. Spend a little time talking about that component of it, because I think that will hit home with a lot of the folks listening to us. I will. Thank you, Dr. Kelly, for that. And so this is round two. For your listeners and your audience, I urge you to go watch a documentary written and funded by Robert Kennedy, Jr.,

a counselor, Robert Kennedy Jr., and by Dr. Andy Wakefield. And it was a documentary. It is, go to their Children's Health Defense Fund and watch that. I will vote. This is a documentary on how the pharmaceutical companies went into Africa

and they basically used vaccines that were purposefully laced to make them infertile. What they did was they covalently bonded to the vaccine antigen, the molecule HCG. Undeniable, irrefutable, not just a passive bond, but covalent bond, so that when that vaccine went into millions of young girls, I'm talking about 12-year-olds, 15-year-olds, young women, it permanently sterilized them or caused obstetrical complications. Why? Because it caused the body's immune system to make an antibody directed towards the hormone of pregnancy, HCG, that must be rendered intact for the pregnancy to survive. Now, they were challenged and they were mocked and they were derided. And by the way, I was one of the physicians that didn't believe them.

And it might have ridiculed them. Maybe. I don't remember. But I was dead wrong and they were right. I've reviewed all that data. You know, I became very suspicious around 2010. This is round two. This is proven. This is undeniable. This was not an accident. The pharmaceutical companies tried to hide it. They got caught

with their pants down. It's the same thing with this syncytin, except it's more sophisticated. Yes, syncytin is crucial for implantation, and it belongs to a domain of biomolecules in the fibronectin domain, you know, which cause attachments. There's another protein, not in the same family, but related, called fetal fibronectin, that is responsible for pushing the amnion next to the chorion and maintaining it sealed. Okay. And we use that test. We've used it for 20 years to determine preterm labor. So what they've done is they put this molecule in the man-made RNA, pseudourn RNA, and then will translate into this protein. And yes, if this causes an antibody against Simpson 1, yes, it has a potential of causing a pregnancy problem or making everybody sterile. I'm not saying that's what is happening, but it potentially could contribute. The bottom line, Dr. Kelly, is we don't know. I'm giving a talk in two weeks for FLCCC,

and they said, you know, charge me with the responsibility. Dr. Thorpe, tell all these women out here what's causing the menstrual problems and how we treat them and the pregnancy problems. That's a really easy talk for me to give. Nobody knows. What we do know is in our studies that I provided you guys a copy with Tiffany Parato and several renowned investigators around the country from Children's Health Defense Fund and others from both coasts and the central part of the country. We wrote this article on mycyclestory.com, which was Tiffany Paratos. She was a lead author and the president and CEO. She got

deplatformed by Facebook when there were 100,000 patients that she was following. It was an inconvenient fact, so the media deleted her. So what we found was a massive number of menstrual abnormalities and shedding of decidual cast. We don't know how to treat it because we don't know what's causing it. And I'm afraid that the obstetricians that don't know what's going on, including myself, because nobody's looking at it. Do you treat this with a DNC? Do you get a vaginal ultrasound? Do you treat it with a heparin or a lovinox, since it could be a microclotting disease? Is it a hormonal interruption block at that level?

We do know that the spike protein, the lipid nanoparticles, concentrates 118-fold in the ovaries. They affect testes too, but I'm more concerned about ovaries because a woman by 10 weeks before she's born only has a million gametes her whole life. And by the way, they start dying off as soon as the baby's born. So, you know, this is in stark contrast to the man that makes about a million sperm damage per hour, per hour, 150 million per ejaculate, whatever. So I'm a lot more concerned about women than I am men in terms of this potential catastrophic multi-generational effect. So how does it work? I don't know how it works. But what I can tell you is that it's fact that it is a huge problem in women of reproductive age, and it's contraindicated in pregnancy. It's banned in pregnancy. I agree

with the UK government. The UK government for over two years has buried in their official UK.gov effect. It's contraindicated. COVID-19 vaccines are not to be used in pregnant women or breastfeeding women. this was very calculated because they knew they put that at the end of 200 pages and it was buried. I didn't find this out until six weeks ago, but it's still there and it's there today. So it's very wise of them because they have plausible deniability. There are major problems. I have a lot of emotional trauma. I have a lot of moral and ethical trauma from having to see what I've seen in the devastation and destruction of my pregnant women, my pre-born children, and my newborn children, and women of reproductive age. I am very, very angry at this administration and the whole political situation where we as physicians have a formal gag order put on us. It all occurred, all 100 boards,

exact same wording. You're not allowed to talk about COVID-19 or we'll label you as a disinformer, misinformer. Well, guess what? They're misinforming and they're killing hundreds of millions around the world by their misinformation. The way that they slandered the two drugs that were highly effective, they had a lot of blood on their hands, including those journals, because they eliminated drugs that were 99% effective. The science is in, the jury is out. Early treatment of COVID-19 is highly effective, 99.99%. And the vaccine was never necessary.

In fact, that's the reason why it was villainized, because it would have been illegal to roll out an emergency use authorization. They also, yes, they also, speaking of things that were buried, you know, behind the scenes, clearly that the document, that Pfizer document that was leaked from the Japanese study, before these vaccines were rolled out, they knew darn well that the vaccine did not stay in the deltoid where it was injected, which people still to this day believe. We knew from that Pfizer data that within hours, the mRNA made it to every major organ system, the heart, the lungs, the spleen, the kidneys, the colon, and alarmingly, 11% of it ended up in the reproductive organs, specifically the ovaries. And that's something that was well

known. So it was very predictable in my mind that this would have profound impacts or could have profound impacts on reproductive health. Drew and I did an entire show some weeks ago on nanoparticles. And if people don't recall, the mRNA in these vaccines is transported via these, quote unquote, inert lipid nanoparticles. are very toxic and have some significant reproductive health issues independent of mRNA, independent of spike protein production, independent of all of this, lipid nanoparticles themselves. Is there anything you want to talk about? Is that potentially in your mind a significant contributor to the sorts of things we're seeing from... Yes. Kelly and Dr. Thorpe, I'd want to just interrupt for a quick second. I just went on to the sorts of things we are seeing from, yes. Kelly and Dr. Thorpe, I'd want to just interrupt for a quick second. I just went onto the UK's website and the, Caleb, if you can put this up, this is the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists and the Royal College

of Midwives who are strongly recommending women who are pregnant or breastfeeding to take the mRNA vaccine and booster. So that's the UK. That was a different... The Royal College is very different than that document I was talking about. The Royal College has nothing to do with the UK. You're talking about the NHS. I just want to get clarity on all this. You were talking about the NHS? If you go to my paper that's published, the link's in there. The quote is in there.

It's absolutely 100% undeniable. It's there. It's there right in the NHS. I send it to you as well, Drew. Remember, I sent you the thing and it said. No, I do. And then they had a second page that contradicted that. Remember, we were going back and forth on all that.

So it's very hard to know what they're doing over there. It sounded to me very clear. They said that a vaccine should be recommended to a woman of childbearing age only if it could be documented that she is not pregnant or intending to get pregnant is the thing that I sent to you. And that came from the UK. Dr. Drew, what you have there has nothing to do with UK government. Nothing. That's the Royal College.

That's the same as the American College of OPG. Yeah. The government does say... Caleb, want to read what you highlighted there real quickly? Yes, what it said on the screen uh it said that uh covet 19 vaccines are strongly recommended in pregnancy vaccinations are the best way to protect against the known risk of covet 19 in pregnancy for both

that was what what's page was that what was that this was on the royal college uh from that uh oh that's royal college thing yeah yeah yeah so we're trying to get past that and get to the, Oh yeah. Okay. So everyone do your, do your own research. It's weird over there. Like it is here. Right.

I mean, it's weird in both countries. Um, but, uh, keep going. I'm sorry, Kelly finished that thought about nanoparticles and I'll,

I'll say that. I think it's really crucial here. We're talking about every time I come out and speak anywhere, write a paper, I have to give a conflict of interest and I do, and I don't have any. But the problem is, is there's major conflicts of interest with all the journals. There's a major conflict of interest with the CDC and the FDA. Listen, the CDC and FDA are proven fraudulence. They've sat on that Pfizer data since February 28th, 2021. The FDA and the CDC have sat on that data.

They've killed hundreds of millions all across the world and in this country. And they have done so purposefully. And by the way, what about their conflicts of interest? Okay, the CDC and the FDA are funded to the tune of their annual budget of both of these 46% by vaccine profits directly from the pharmaceutical company or directly from patents of vaccines that they own,

they own royalties. That is totally inappropriate. Okay. No, I agree with you. And I think that there's fraud all around. And I think the conflicts run very, very deep. With regard to go back for a second to this nanoparticle issue, because I just want to close the loop on that. As I said, we did an entire show on nanoparticles and the studies really raising the alarm flags potentially about nanoparticles date back decades, way prior to the COVID-19 vaccines. So the idea that we were going to roll out a mass vaccine program that was predicated on these lipid nanoparticles, I think already had some concern.

Do you believe that the lipid nanoparticles may be contributing in whole or in part to the reproductive issues that you're seeing? I think it's possible, but the fact of the matter is nobody really knows. I think it's very plausible. You're absolutely right, Dr. Kelly. Schlappach and colleagues in 2012 published the concentration in the rat, Wistar rat and mice model very elegantly. That's a decade ago. They knew. But there are a lot of potential toxins in there that you are very familiar with, maybe more so than I am. The cationic lipid protein is extraordinarily dangerous. The polyethylene glycol, goodness sake,

that's antifreeze. Okay. We know that's toxic. And only God knows what else is in there. And by the way, you know, it's illegal. Nobody in the world knows what's in the vaccine. And under legal prosecution, you're not allowed to look at it under a microscope or you go to jail. What's that about? Why don't they release the contents? And why have Rochelle Walensky and Babcock at the CDC and FDA admitted that they're withholding that Pfizer 5.3.6? That's tantamount to third degree murder. That should never happen in the United States of America. Well, I think it really, really begs the question or opens the door for us to talk about this issue of informed consent. And Drew mentioned this horrific, truly in my mind,

the worst piece of legislation perhaps to have been passed in my lifetime, California AB 2098, which fundamentally criminalizes a physician saying anything against the prescribed narrative of the government, which makes informed consent essentially impossible. It puts the patients at far more risk than the doctors, frankly. A physician can be completely and totally safe if he or she just repeats the party line. But the patients, God help them, then have to wonder, is Dr. Kelly suggesting this or recommending this or telling me that this is the course of action I should take because she actually believes that, because she believes that that's what the science shows, that that's what's in my best interest, or because she simply doesn't want to lose her license or face repercussions from the medical board. That puts patients in a horrible position. It completely undermines the patient-physician relationship and has no place in medicine. You cannot get informed consent if you can't tell the person

what the heck is in it. And if you're not allowed to share with the patient what's in it. I personally have a profound polyethylene glycol allergy. It's been one of two allergies emblazoned on my chart for the past decade. And when I was in the hospital myself with an orthopedic injury, they asked me over and over again, tried to get me to get vaccinated. And I said, have you read the front of my chart where it says polyethylene glycol allergy in big red letters? And they said, don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. You want to inject me with the thing that I'm telling you I have anaphylaxis to. It's unbelievable. I've never seen this happen in our lifetime.

So the idea of informed consent. Kelly, I'm going to ask something. Yeah. I want to have you guys drill into this a little bit because you and I try to piece together what we've all been through. What happened in this whole mess that we're talking about, you know, is it something about, and this is just as kind of a psychological question, I guess, is it something about risk tolerance? In other words, when this thing got, when the pandemic got going, I didn't feel the risk that was clearly going, you know, the fact of what was going to happen, that there were going to be a lot of people dying, a lot of old people really hurt by

this, that there were people that couldn't tolerate that risk at all. And remember the one death is too many and all that kind of nonsense that people were spouting, where if that's true, you'd be willing to handle a lot of risk on the side of interrupting that thing that you thought was such an overwhelming, shattering. I've had people say things like species ending and crazy stuff. It was not even close to anything like that. And yet people perceive that. Do you think that has some of the reason why we got into this mess? I see Dr. Thorpe is nodding his head. And if that's true, is that why they're maintaining the emergency, not just use authorization, but the state of emergency, so they can continue to justify taking these extraordinary risks,

distorting medicine in ways we've never distorted before because the species would have ended in their mind. There was nothing like that happening, but they got into some sort of hysteria where their judgment was literally compromised. And our risk tolerance is just different given what we think this thing was we just went to dr thorpe i'll let you kind of address that and then kelly i'm sorry i'll get back to you i you know i i don't want to speculate on on um on that sort of stuff that i don't know absolutely for certain about everything that i've talked about. I will, I will put my life, but some of the other stuff,

I can't get into people's motives. I would just urge your listeners and both of you, if you haven't read Peter Bragan's book and McCulloch's book, and also RFK's book, read the book. All the answers are in there. Everything you need to know is in there. While everything online is being erased, I would get those three birds and keep them. I could tell you this is something, Drew,

you know that I've talked about a lot through this pandemic. That yes, of all of the egregious errors made during this response, and that's a long list from which to choose, the greatest was them acting as if we were all at equivalent risk and therefore driving the kind of behavior exactly as you describe it. If you misunderstand your risk of something or are led to believe that you have this horrific risk of something, then yes, you are likely to take more

chances with regard to therapeutics or other things. The reality is they knew from the beginning that this was something that posed a very little risk to the vast majority of the population. I would say to you, my risk of having an opiate overdose is zero because I don't use opiates. So I don't need to worry about that. I don't have the same risk as others. Likewise, we don't all have the equivalent risk of monkeypox. The issue is they tried to inject and have for the past several decades equity in public health. We all have to be equal on this risk issue. Equal in outcome. Equal in outcome. A 27-year-old male and 85-year-old female have to end up in the

same place. That's just not possible. that we had to act as if we were all at equivalent risk. And I think that that is a big part of the problem. And that's a big part of the problem in public health. It gets back to that risk benefit calculation. And you can't make that. Not equity of distribution of resources, not, not resource distribution, equity of outcome, which is an insane idea in a pandemic. It's just a truly an insane concept, but go ahead. Correct. So, you know, I guess

one of the questions I would ask you, Dr. Thor, back to your area of specialty, have you looked at birth rates across the world, across the globe? Have you looked at, because I've read reports that are quite stunning, frankly, about decreases in birth rates, not only in the U.S., but in many, many European countries, places like Taiwan, I think down 26% or something just remarkable. Normally, when people are locked indoors and can't go to work and can't travel, you expect birth rates perhaps to go up, have a little uptick when people don't have a lot of other things to do. We've seen the opposite. So what are you seeing with regard to trends in reproductive rates? Yeah, all over the world, birth rates are down all over the world by at least 10%. Every single institution that keeps verifiable birth records are down.

And I just wanna put this in perspective. This is a three sigma event when birth rates are down 10%. Let me say that again, let that sink in. Three sigma event, three standard deviations. Okay, this is catastrophic event. It's like all cause. And so, yes. And also newborn deaths. If you look at the, just this week, it was announced, I've been following the Scotland data for a year now. And the death rate, the neonatal death and the infant mortality rate, and the death in the first year of life is off the charts.

They can't even keep up with the morticians and the baby casket makers. They can't even keep up with the number. They've unprecedented. Same thing we've seen with the embalmers, unprecedented. Only after the vaccine is rolled out do we see these massive clots that you and Dr. Drew know that are not the same as pre-pandemic clots that were primarily fibrin and that were easily susceptible to the heparins and the anti-TNAs and the antithrombin meds? These are not. These are the result of protein misfolding and they're proteinaceous. And I work with one of the embalmers, you know, who's close with me. And it's just unbelievable stuff. Yeah, to put it in layman's terms, just for the folks listening, these are the ones I've described that are sort of these white fibrous clots.

They are clots, but they aren't really made of blood components. In fact, when you look at the chemical analysis, they're lacking the key components of blood, like iron and hemoglobin and potassium and zinc. They are made clearly of, they are proteinaceous, as you said. They are not made of blood products. They don't dissolve between your fingers when you roll them between your fingers. They're very, very different from the clots that we normally treat with anticoagulants.

Clearly, you are a maternal and fetal specialist. You said you see in the range of 8,000 high-risk pregnancies a year. Go to your colleagues who are on the fertility side, one step before you. Presumably, by the time patients get to you, they are pregnant rather than trying to get pregnant if I understand your practice. Are you hearing much from the folks on the fertility side

with regard to what's going on? I'll tell you, Dr. Kelly, that 99.99999% of all my specialty will not address this issue. Okay. And back to what, you know, what we talked about earlier, listen, the California bill, okay, this is where the rubber meets the road. Okay. This is where physicians need to say no. And I will remind you physicians, okay, in the Nuremberg trial, there were seven physicians that were in the Nuremberg trial, and they tried to use this sloppy, you know, illegitimate defense. Oh, you know, they would have killed. I'm just following orders. They would have killed my family. You know what?

All seven of those physicians hung they were sentenced to death and they hung the um the ab 2098 in this state was written by a physician unfortunately who is self-righteous and uh always right always correct and The physicians have a responsibility in California to say, no. OK, we do not. And this is where Austria got it right. You know, the Australian government now, Austria is Austria, not Australia. They know that this is killing people. And they're saying, you know, physicians, it's your responsibility.

And they're right. It's a physician's responsibility. It's a physician's responsibility to do their due diligence like I did. It's their responsibility not to follow orders, but to do their own due diligence. And they're killing patients if they're being told what to do. And I personally will act as an expert witness against them if they continue to do this. There's a time when you cannot be weak. There's a time when, yes, take my life, throw me in the lion's den. OK, throw me in the furnace, rev it up seven, five. But I'm not going against what I guarantee, what is sacrosanct in my life, which is my physician-patient relationship. I will never, ever let it down. I agree with you. And I've quoted John Milton many times during these shows,

Dr. Thorpe, virtue untested is no virtue at all. And that is the truth. And these are times that try the virtue of physicians for certain. Go back for a second to the fertility. Go ahead. Yeah. The one thing I would say, we though, by the same token, and I don't disagree with anything that you're saying about doing your own due diligence and standing up for for your our profession and for the patients most importantly but um we have a also an obligation not to be hubristic and to check ourselves and watch ourselves and and constantly reevaluate and so again that that's that's my job here today is pushing back a little bit and uh i i think hubris is how we got in this mess it's the people who are hubristic that that did this that overreached and and created these crazy

lockdowns and all these things that hurt people we we don't want to we want to caution ourselves not to be overly not to be overly reactive in kind i just say that's just my just my public service announcement for us physicians that are trying to find our way through this in a different way. Yeah. No, but I agree. And I think Dr. Thorpe's point, though, is very well taken. This is not the first time in history when physicians have been co-opted to do the dirty work of the government, thinking that they would be safe under the blanket of, I was simply following orders. And that isn't the case. We went down that road before, and I don't think we should go down it again. Go back for a minute to the fertility issue,

because one of the questions I had was, if we look at areas of the world, and I have not looked at this data, so I'm wondering if you have areas of the world that are not highly vaccinated, say sub-Saharan Africa or India. What are the areas of the world that haven't been vaccinated? Or don't have mRNA vaccines. Are they seeing down ticks in their fertility rates or birth rates or these sorts of problems? Is there any way to compare those areas that don't have the same vaccination rates as we do here or Canada or Western Europe? A brilliant question, Dr. Kelly. And the answer is we don't have that data. And it's unfortunately,

the poorest of the poor country can't provide us with the data. Of course, the richest of the rich countries can provide us with data, but we're not for sure we can buy all of it. So I think that I have a general feeling from all the reports that I have seen, you know, up in Canada, in China, in Japan, in Europe. Yes, the birth rates are definitely down in Scotland, in UK, in the United States of America, Australia. I can't speak for China. I can't speak for Africa. I can't speak for India. I cannot speak for them. Now, as you know, I believe that India did not use the mRNA vaccine. And the vaccine that they used, I believe, was an allergenic vaccine, a true vaccine, so to speak. Covaxin. They had Covaxin.

They'd use Covaxin, correct. Which is not an, you're correct, it's not an mRNA vaccine. And so I think that that really would be- It's a whole virus. It's a whole virus. Yeah. That would be really telling data to get a hold of and compare and look and see if there's a way to start figuring out what's the component of these vaccines that we're using that's contributing to all of these problems related to reproductive health. So I guess the last thing I would ask you with regard to your specific specialty is, are there buckets of complications? Are there certain classifications of complications that you're seeing in your pregnant patients

that you've seen increases in? What are the problems that are happening? We know there are problems. What are they? Miscarriage. Fetal malformation. Miscarriage is increased by a massive number. Fetal malformation, a specific fetal malformation, cystic hygroma, fetal cardiac abnormalities,

fetal cardiac arrhythmias, fetal cardiac malformations, fetal cardiac arrest, severe placental problems causing intrauterine growth restriction, severely unable to grow fetuses, a significant increase. And this is all compared with appropriate controls, influenza vaccine. Okay. It's off the record. If you look at the forest plots in my data, it's off the record. It's way off the charts. And so we, the CDC and FDA say that if you have a relative risk or with a two or greater, that's a severe danger signal that should be looked at. Ours are way, way beyond that with p-values, some of the p-values into a million. For those of you, your audience, a p-value is the chance of something statistically occurring without just naturally. So it's very unlikely.

Also, we saw fetal death. We saw abnormal fetal organ perfusion abnormalities and many others. I'm convinced that the reason many of the children offspring were seeing VAIDS, V-A-I-D-S, Vaccine Induced Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. I purport, I suspect the cause of that is because of the thymus gland. The thymus gland is under the sternum and it's massive in the fetus. It's very tiny in us, but it's the organ that is responsible for seeding all the T cell clones. All the T cell clones. And I suspect that like, if you look at that Japanese biodistribution data, it also concentrates in the thymus. But I think there was a fourfold increase in the thymus,

but that's an adult thymus. If you look at a newborn thymus, it's probably more like 120 fold because it's so vascular and lipophilic. So, so you have, that's a seed of your right hand of your immune system. That's the, that's it's humoral immunity is really pretty much meaningless. Really. I can talk to you guys at length about that. The antibodies are just a surrogate for the pharmaceutical industry to make lots of money. The meat is in the right hand of the immune system, cellular immunity. And these children may have lifelong AIDS because of that insult to the thymus and utero. I have two questions, if I could. One is people are asking

for you to repeat the books that you wanted people to read. There's a sort of a callback for that. Or, Kayla, maybe you can just put it up on the website. No, no, we can get it up later. He was talking about Dr. Bregan's book, Dr. McCullough's book. If you want to understand the ontogenesis of this pandemic, read this book. This is the best book on it, and it's 600 pages, and there's 1,100 references. Everything in here is referenced. I don't go there about trying to figure out whether people are evil or this was plotted. Let this book speak for itself. It speaks for itself. You can't argue with it. And then this book is McCulloch's book,

incredible book, co-authored. And then of course, there's this book of the real Anthony Fauci and RFK documents very, very carefully. I would buy these books and I would keep them. So the other question is, I put a lot of faith in my clinical impressions, my clinical experience. And I think I heard you quoting data. Is it recapitulated in your day-in, day-out practice? In other words, you listed a whole bunch of different fetal issues and is that reflective like i i i'm always

uh very skeptical of medical literature until i until my clinical experience confirms it because often as you know clinical the literature is often either behind or wrong and so if you're seeing something clinically that doesn't exactly fit with that i i put a lot of faith in that i've been through many experiences like that in medicine. We opened our conversation talking about that. Does it fit what you're saying in your day-to-day practice? Absolutely. Absolutely, it does, Dr. Drew. And I can tell you that I didn't go on a fishing expedition with this publication that was just published.

You know, I think there's probably 2,000 abnormal outcomes that are listed in VAERS database. I didn't go on a fishing expedition. I had very clear in my mind inflammation, inflammation. Dr. Kelly, you asked what causes the problem? What is it in the vaccine that kills the pregnancy cause problem? It could be the lipid nanoparticle. It could be the pseudo-uridinated mRNA, which by the way, Dr. Drew and Dr. Kelly, just last week was confirmed, Gemma Pede, it is secreted intact in breast milk in 5 of 11 infants. Let that sink in. Now, pseudo-urinated mRNA is abnormal. It was pseudo-urinated to prolong the lifestyle, the lifetime, because in my business, DNA is very stable in the peripheral blood. That's how we do our fetal testing. We don't do amniocentesis hardly anymore. We go to mom's blood and we can harvest cellular-free DNA.

We've been doing that for 20 years almost. But we can't do that with RNA. And we have many tests which we would like to use in my specialty based on fetal RNA or maternal RNA. But guess what? You can't do it because it's too unstable, 20 minutes. But now we have this man manmade pseudo-uridinated mRNA that now is lasting weeks and it gets transported to the cell. Okay, we were told that it wouldn't stay, as you said, stay in the arm. It doesn't stay in the arm.

I was called a tinfoil conspiracist. By the way, every time I've been called that, asked my wife, they've been wrong and I've been right. But I called out, could this be placed into the human genome by reverse transcriptase, which is an enzyme we know that works? I got laughed at. Two years later, there's two studies. There's two studies that document that it is reverse transcribed into human genome. With that thinking. Within six

hours. In vitro though, guys, right? In vitro studies? In vitro on liver cells, correct? They were. They were in vitro, but it happened very, very quickly, Drew. It was within a matter of hours. I still want to know what that mechanism is. That's so weird.

Reverse transcribed into hepatic cells. Well, here's, Dr. Drew, the way it worked in this study, and these are people that are terming their studies, you know, pregnant people and stuff. They're all woke and all this stuff. But they found that the mRNA was intact in the human cell, say in the liver or in the mononuclear lymphocyte, wherever it was, and then it was transported out in a vesicle, a lipid covered vesicle, human made, that then goes back into the blood, goes into the mammary gland in the breast, and is excreted intact in the breast milk.

Guys, I think we have to begin to wrap up. It's been very interesting. I will give Kelly last questions and maybe we'll give our guests last thoughts. Yeah. And I won't even go down the road of another question because it's late, but I will say thank you so much for your time. It's been unbelievably insightful. I think we won't know, and I've said this many times, for decades, frankly, the exact toll this has taken, the depth and the breadth of the injuries that have been caused. Certainly, when you start talking about impacting the future, the immune system of a developing fetus and what that child will have for perhaps lifelong immune suppression, development of cancers that it wouldn't have had and on and on. We won't know that, let alone the emotional, psychological, spiritual toll that was taken on us during this two and a half years.

But you certainly sit in a very interesting seat where you are, Dr. Thorpe, with these women who are either pregnant or trying to get pregnant and trying to bring pregnancies to fruition. So you have a particularly interesting viewpoint on that. And as I said, something I think that most people feel if nothing else, that that's the one group who we should have left alone and not really gone down the path of interrupting that potentially sacred thing of childbearing. So thank you for your insights. Thank you very much for having me. And I don't make any apologies for my passion and my sticking up for my patients, my pre-born children, and my newborns. I always will, and it's been very difficult for me to watch this vaccine

causing such great harm to my patients. Thank you for having me. Appreciate you being here. We may bring you back yet again again if you don't mind as the uh as the information begins to refine itself and define itself and this the story is not complete we have a lot of missing you know gaps you have a lot of studying that should be getting done it isn't for some reason one of the it's easy to get conspiratorial when you think of all the things they should have been or would ordinarily

we would do that suddenly didn't get done in in the setting of all this uh which just again i just i spent the whole pandemic just going shaking my head um the other than your getter uh your getter handle james a thorpe md thorp anywhere else you'd like people to find you do you have a sub stack or anything i've been being-platformed off every other platform, which should be no surprise to you, right? Me too. Wear it like a corsage.

You're here today. I wear it like a corsage. This is Kelly's Me Too movement. It's a little different than the previous one. Susan, do you have any questions or anything? I know this is a topic for you. Oh, I'm in tears. I'm in tears over here. You're very interested in this. No, you will be out there on all the platforms that did de-platform you and that you will be heard. So we pray that people will listen and understand.

I have one last question. Again, this is just sort of a wrap-up question. I'm always, again, trying to understand what we've been doing and how we got here. It seems to me, I remember early in the pandemic, there was a lot of, eh, pregnant women are fine. Then all of a sudden, oh my God, pregnant women are at higher risk. Oh my God, pregnant women do terribly. Okay, so this was the arc in the first nine months of the pandemic. Did we overreact to that? Was it realistic that COVID had a significant deleterious effect on pregnancy, A, and B, did not? Okay.

That's really my question. The overreach we've been talking about for an hour and a half, but the question is, is there anything rational in the fear that they suddenly developed about pregnant women and the illness? Because let me go a little further. One of your articles, you have a very interesting biological theory about infection or inflammation in endothelial cells. And I really think something in that system of the relationship with the endothelium, the macrocytes, the clotting system, is something there is going on for sure. And you're not, though, saying that the illness

so much did that. You feel that the vaccine did more of it than the illness. Is that accurate? Or at least to the consequence of the vaccine worse than the illness? Absolutely. The vaccine is worse than the illness. Absolutely. The vaccine is worse than the illness. And again, remember, Dr. Drew,

99.99% effective without the vaccine. Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right. Well, thank you so much, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, those of you watching the restream carefully today, and also those of you on the Rumble Rants. And I hope those of you uh watching the restream carefully today uh and also those of you on the rumble rants and i hope you those of you on twitter spaces were able to hear us and we're partaking of this interesting conversation uh i will be back uh susan am i back tomorrow

yes sir okay so tomorrow i will be just taking your calls so please come back to twitter spaces and i will take your calls and we can talk about these issues. And again, all the stuff that Kelly and I are accumulating here. I urge you to go back and look at these interviews. They're very interesting. There's a lot of information in them. Some of it's going to turn out to be right and was condemned. Some of it's going to turn out to be not so right. We need to just get this. That's how medicine works, how it works, everybody. It is. I have one thing to say before we go. We did use the H word quite a bit today, so if we do get censored on YouTube, you will be able to share our other platforms, Rumble, Twitter, and Facebook with your friends if you want to share.

But I'm hoping, by the grace grace of God that they overlook the conversation. Well, I tried to make that conversation palatable in the way that they have instructed us. We're trying to be good citizens here on your YouTube, everybody. We're taking our direction from you. Caleb, do you have any concerns? No, I popped up the disclaimer that they've, look, this is YouTube's house. If YouTube wants to set rules, I get it. This is their house. That's the way it works. So I just pop a disclaimer up so that people understand they need to look into it and see the info. This is your medical doctor is discussing medical topics. And you should talk to your doctor. We say it over and over and over and over again.

So we're just trying to get better understanding of what's happened and what's happening. So find all the links to the other platform at drdrew.tv. The other platform being? If you don't see us on YouTube. And then, Caleb, I'm sure you'll put the books up too if people want to read those. Yes, they're already up on the website. So to see you, thank you to Dr. Kelly Victory. Thank you to Dr. James Thorpe and Susan.

Caleb, thank you for producing this. And we'll see you all tomorrow for calls only, 3 o'clock Pacific time. We'll see you there.. Kelly Victory. Thank you to Dr. James Thorpe and Susan. Caleb, thank you for producing this. And we'll see you all tomorrow for calls only, three o'clock Pacific time. We'll see you there. Ta-ta. Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky. As a reminder, the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment.

This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only. I am a licensed physician, but I am not a replacement for your personal doctor, and I am not practicing medicine here. Always remember that our understanding of medicine and science is constantly evolving. Though my opinion is based on the information that is available to me today, some of the contents of this show could be outdated in the future. Be sure to check with trusted resources in case any of the information has been updated

since this was published. If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, don't call me. Call 911. If you're feeling hopeless or suicidal, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. You can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at drdrew.com slash help.