Ask Dr. Drew - Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Alleges Dr. Fauci, CDC and Big Pharma Collusion – with Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 137

Starting point is 00:00:00 And in keeping with our policy to entertain and query interesting guests, people with lots of differing opinions, sometimes people who have been canceled. We have a very fascinating guest today. Quick disclaimer before we get into it. I feel like Dr. John Campbell here, if you've seen his recent videos. CDC states that vaccines do not cause autism. Billions of childhood vaccines have been administered and reported side effects are uncommon. CDC also states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness.

Starting point is 00:00:29 Of course, I'm a board-certified physician internist. Dr. Kelly is a board-certified ER doctor. And parts of the show may be examining differing points of view and important issues. And today will be no different. We are specifically talking to Robert Kennedy. He has a new documentary out called The Real Anthony Fauci, which I have watched. Very interesting. Robert Kennedy is a founder and chairman and chief litigation counsel for the Children's Health Defense Organization. There is one of his books. He's a founder of the Waterkeeper Alliance. He has

Starting point is 00:01:00 obviously a whole list of accomplishments behind him. We'll get right to it after this. 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. 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.

Starting point is 00:01:31 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. Bet MGM, 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 a sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with Bet MGM.

Starting point is 00:02:07 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.

Starting point is 00:02:29 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. I am a lifelong Democrat whose family has had 80 years of deep engagement with America's public health bureaucracy and long friendships with key federal regulators,

Starting point is 00:03:01 including Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins, and Robert Gallo. Members of my family wrote many of the statutes under which these men govern. You're really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you're attacking science. Big tech Robert Barron's, the military and intelligence communities and their deep historical alliance with Big Pharma and the public health agencies. The disturbing story that unfolds here has never been told, and many in power have worked hard to prevent the public from learning it. The principal character is Anthony Fauci. And Robert F. Kennedy, welcome to the program.

Starting point is 00:03:51 Thank you for being here. Thanks for having me, Dr. Drew. I want to give a little more of your particulars. And again, I want to also thank Dr. Kelly Victory for coming in today on a special Tuesday because we had the great pleasure of interviewing Mr. Kennedy. Robert is a graduate of Harvard University, studied at the London School of Economics, got a law degree from University of Virginia. And he has, again, as I said, multiple accolades behind him. So let's just give you a chance first. The book, several things just struck me hard about the book some enlightening and some

Starting point is 00:04:28 made me bristle so what what was the purpose right of the book how did you get to this point with someone who as you said your family was connected to wrote the book, Dr. Drew, because I had a unique perspective on what happened to our public health regulatory agencies over the past, really since 1980. And the regulatory features of those agencies in many ways have been systematically subsumed by the mercantile ambitions of the pharmaceutical industry. influencing these agencies, and it has used them skillfully and invested in lobbying and many, many other ways to make sure to capture those agencies. And the paradigm or the kind of embodiment of agency capture is Anthony Fauci. And he has really altered during his 50 years at the agency, he has altered the architecture of the agency so that it no longer serves primarily a public health purpose, but instead he has transformed it into an incubator for pharmaceutical products. And in many cases, the pharmaceutical products that are developed at NIH and then farmed out to the university by investigators and for development by the pharmaceutical companies, NIH retains the patents on them. And the individuals who work, who are supposed to be

Starting point is 00:06:27 regulators, who work on those products at the agency receive royalties on those patents. They've received over $300 million. Individuals within NIH, people who work for Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins, and the agency itself can receive hundreds of millions. It will receive billions of dollars from the Moderna vaccine. And those kind of incentives disincentivize the regulatory purpose. And that's kind of, you know, I think for many Americans, they had an uneasy feeling about the countermeasures that were proposed and that enforced over the first two years of the pandemic that it really wasn't giving us a good public health outcome.

Starting point is 00:07:14 But they didn't really have a narrative to kind of hang their disease on. And we use these, we employed all of these protocols that were recommended by Dr. Fauci. And where did it get us? It got us to a point where we had the highest body count from COVID of any nation in the world. We have 4.2% of the global population. We had 16% of COVID deaths. We had the countries that did not adopt Dr. Fauci's protocols that adopted instead early treatment protocols with IBM, with HCQ, and lower vaccine coverage, and lower emphasis on lockdowns and social distancing had much, much better outcomes. I can give you an example of Nigeria, which had a 1.3% vaccination rate, where the entire country is on prophylactics of IVM and HCQ because of river blindness and malaria, burdens in those nations. And they had a death rate of 15 people per million population. We in this country had a death rate of 3,000 people per million population,

Starting point is 00:08:34 which is one of the highest rates in the world. So it's hard to understand. And I think it was hard for many people to understand why we did so poorly in the fight against COVID and why people continued to regale Dr. Fauci as kind of a savior or a medical seer. Well, I was one of those people that was suggesting that we do use him as a guiding light. And by the way, let me just say, in Nigeria, of course, there's lots of confounding features, young population, thin population, vastly younger than us.

Starting point is 00:09:11 Okay, let's stop there for a second. Because that's true. You're making a good point. There are many confoundings. But if you look around the world, not just in Nigeria, all of Africa, which we were told at the beginning, Africa is going to get slaughtered by this disease. Yep, we were.

Starting point is 00:09:31 And in Africa, it had a death rate of around, an average death rate of around 300 per million, and we had 3,000 per million. If you look at two nations. Oh, no, I get it. I get it. It's worth, It's worth it. It's worth it. around the world, according to the Johns Hopkins data, the countries that had the most success at mass vaccination had the worst COVID outcomes. So something's wrong. And as you point out, there are many co-variables.

Starting point is 00:10:16 Those are things we should have been told about and should have been studied. And we should have been given answers to that. And that is the problem. Those things never happen who is instead yes attitude that that you gotta hide yes the the should have been studied is the headline in every interview we have done everybody who has an alternative opinion at the end of the conversation that we all always agree, we need the studies to know what we're doing here. I have so many questions now.

Starting point is 00:10:50 One is, I'm going to ask two at a time because I have so many. One was, you're not implying that the FDA and the CDC are involved in illegal activity. It's the structure such as it is that the pharma took full advantage of. It's not illegal. It's just really seriously problematic. And my brain is not working that well today. The other question I had was, why?

Starting point is 00:11:17 Why aren't we doing these studies? What is going on? Why can't we get an RCT on boosters in five-year-olds? Is this the same thing? Just because the pharma doesn't have to, they don't want to spend the money on it? Well, I'm not going to exonerate FDA or CDC about not doing illegal things. I do believe that they've been involved in criminal activity and a lot of also just civil illegal activity like violations of the Data Quality Act,

Starting point is 00:11:47 which was just consistent throughout. It's hard to enforce that, but it's still illegal. If you want to look at the mechanisms of agency capture, there are many, many, and as you know, you know, there's now from the opioid crisis, you watch the movie about the Sacklers, and you can see how they do it. But here's one of the problems is that our regulatory agencies are funded by the pharmaceutical industry. So FDA gets almost 50% of its total budget from pharmaceutical companies, gets 75% of its drug regulatory, drug approval budget from pharmaceutical companies. So they're not working for you and me. They're working for those companies. CDC has a budget of about $12 billion a year, about $5 billion of that go to purchasing vaccines

Starting point is 00:12:48 and then distributing them. With CDC, you don't get promoted, you don't get recognized, you don't get applauded for finding problems with vaccines. You get your promotion from doing things that will encourage vaccine uptake and approval of new vaccines. And those are perverse incentives. have a regulatory agency the the commercial um features of that relationship are now wagging the tail that wags the regulatory dog let me um before we bring got to kelly in here i have a couple two last things which is um let's go back to the movie uh since i i have you to myself for the moment, one of the things that absolutely jumped out at me as true were some of the, I don't want to even say policies, but sort of procedural biases that Dr. Fauci instituted during AIDS. Biases is not the quite right word. Things like silencing dissenters, things like using fear and overstating risk to try to get behavioral compliance. I did not know that at the time.

Starting point is 00:14:15 I was in the AIDS epidemic. I was there fighting it. And I've got something to say about that also after I asked this question. So he was somebody I admired greatly during that pandemic. He was somebody for us young physicians, you know, really we admired, and he held a great status in our minds and led us well, we thought, at the time. Was not aware that he was doing silencing dissenters. During COVID, that was glowingly obvious, disgustingly obvious that that's what he was doing. But it's interesting to me that behavior got set up during HIV and AIDS. And by the same

Starting point is 00:14:52 token, the fear. He used to always tell us 2 million dead, 2 million dead if you don't get out there and educate. He is why I went on the radio. We ended up with 175,000 dead in the same time interval that he was insisting we would have 2 million dead. Boy, those kinds of fear, excesses, certainly very familiar given what he did during COVID. So let me just, it's not really a question so much as a question about my perception am i getting that right from the documentary that those were two areas of excess that were set up during the hiv epidemic yeah and also i know i you know i have drew i have not seen the movie yet of course i wrote the book which is taken and i do a very very deep dive into the history of HIV. And I'd say,

Starting point is 00:15:47 you put your finger on one of the problems. The other problem was the approval of AZT, which was based on absolutely crooked studies. AZT was a deadly chemotherapy drug that, in fact, it was put on the dump pile and not even patented because it was deemed from the outset to be too dangerous for chemotherapy. And as you know, chemotherapy is usually a two-week or three-week course. And now you're proposing to give this drug that is too dangerous, that kills people faster than cancer, you're going to give it to people for the rest of their lives. Well, of course, everybody who takes that drug is going to end up dead and um so that's what this is this is this is a trial and they hid it that was the problem this is where you and i

Starting point is 00:16:38 are going to disagree this is where you and i disagree because because i i you this is exactly this is the only this is a place where you and I are going to disagree, which is I was there. I was involved in the research. I was there when we opened the boxes of AZT. And you cannot imagine how thrilling it was when we were telling people every day they had six months to live and we were never wrong. And now we had at least something. We could do something. Yes, we had to watch their CBC. Yes, there was bone marrow suppression, but we could do something. And alongside of that, we developed treatments for cryptosporidium

Starting point is 00:17:13 and isospora and pneumocystis and the Burkitt's lymphoma that were tearing them in half. We developed all these things as we pushed it back over a couple of years, and other antivirals came in. The AZT was never a chemotherapeutic agent. There was a theory back then that reversed, that RNA viruses caused cancer. And so the idea was that this agent would help attack these RNA viruses as part of the causational process or the progression of cancer.

Starting point is 00:17:42 It was, of course, wrong. That's why they abandoned it. Yes, it was not something I would recommend people take if they have a life expectancy of six months. We were never wrong. They never lasted longer than that. It was the most darkest, awful, horrible period you could possibly imagine. And to open these boxes and tell patients, well, we have something. It's not great, but we have something. We're going to try it. We're going to do the best we can.

Starting point is 00:18:08 That was, you know, that's the way kind of medical research goes when you're in desperate circumstances. So for me, it's a very personal story because I was there fighting HIV and AIDS. And, you know, that's my thing. And I get that. And what I would say to you is read the section of my book on the AZT trials. And that's all I'm saying is the AZT trials, without any doubt, the FDA's own investigators, Inspector General found that they were catastrophically crooked and that they did not show a beneficial effect for AZT. And AZT was developed by NCI as a chemotherapy drug, and it was rejected as too toxic and glyco-mounded. And it did kill the HIV virus in a petri dish. And so it passed one test for being an effective

Starting point is 00:19:10 antiviral, which had killed HIV. And the question is, is it going to kill you or the HIV first? And I would just say to you, take a look at that part of my book and it may change your opinion. And by the way, what you said about the desperation of compassionate doctors and healers in giving something that they are told by a regulatory agency is going to help people is a really important factor, I think, in all of medicine, because doctors are not giving out these drugs thinking that they're harming people. The problem is if the drug is not adequately tested, and by adequately tested, I mean the standard placebo-controlled trial where you give a placebo to a large group

Starting point is 00:19:59 and you give the vaccine to the study group, an equally sized group of similarly situated people. And then you look at all health outcomes over maybe a five year period. And if you don't have that, you do not know what the risk profile is on your product. And there's no way a doctor on the ground treating patients in a clinical setting. Yes. a doctor on the ground treating patients in a clinical setting is going to be able to say, hey, this person died of AIDS or this person may have died from toxicity from the AZT. But you don't know that unless you have a study that really allows you to look at that. Which is very much pertinent to the present moment. For instance, we're using things like Paxlovid under

Starting point is 00:20:46 the age of 65, and we have zero studies for that. Or you have vaccine therapies for five-year-olds, we have zero RCT on this. We have mask wearing in schools, zero RCTs on this. So yes, I'm very sympathetic to that fact. And doctors, to be fair do stuff try something we're trying stuff we think we think we're doing good but we we don't have the data we don't know what we're doing that point is quite relevant we have our clinical experience but we don't really know what we're doing go ahead yeah i mean one of the problems with the um let me just let me tell you just an historical anecdote. The most commonly used vaccine in the world is the DTP vaccine, the Theriotepinospitosis.

Starting point is 00:21:33 WHO gives it to 161 million African children a year, and it is the benchmark vaccine by which nations, the African nations whose health agencies are financed by WHO, they qualify for that financing by demonstrating that a certain percentage of their population has received the DTP vaccine of children. For many years, Bill Gates and the WHO have said, we have saved 30 million lives with this vaccine. They went in 2017 to the Danish government, and they said to the Danish government, will you support the DTP program in South Asia and Africa? We've saved 30 million lives.

Starting point is 00:22:19 And the Danish government said, show me the data. And they couldn't. The Danish government went to Guinea-Bissau in West Africa, and they hired, they me the data. And they couldn't. The Danish government went to Guinea-Bissau in West Africa and they hired, they retained the greatest vaccine that taught the deity of vaccinology in Africa, Peter A. Abe, Sigrid Morgensen, these names that are part of the pantheon of the great vaccine promoters.

Starting point is 00:22:42 And they had 30 years of data on the DTP vaccine in West Africa. And they went through all of that data. And what they found was that girls who got that vaccine at two months of age had a 10-time, a tenfold chance of dying over the next six months as unvaccinated girls. And the girls were dying of things that nobody had ever associated with vaccines. They were dying of malaria, of bilharzia, of dysentery, of anemia, of sepsis, and of, you know, of just random cuts and bruises. And what the researchers figured out is that although the vaccine was protecting

Starting point is 00:23:27 these girls against the target diseases, diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, it had wrecked their immune systems and made them much less able to fend off the kind of daily assaults by microbes and pathogens in our system. And that's why you need long-term placebo-controlled studies with vaccines. With the Pfizer vaccine, here's what we know from Pfizer's data. There were 22,000 people in the vaccine group and 22,000 people in the placebo group.

Starting point is 00:24:01 Dr. Drew, Dr. Fauci did something that should make you mad. He said we were going to get a five-year study, but after two months, they unblinded it. Why did they do that? That's a question you should be asking Dr. Fauci. They gave the vaccine to the entire placebo group, so we will never know about long-term injuries from that vaccine. Then they took six months of data, Pfizer did, and they showed it to FDA. So for the first time, we, the public, got to see it, to get their approval. Here's what it said.

Starting point is 00:24:39 After six months, there were 22,000 people in the vaccine group, and one of them died from COVID. In the placebo group, there were 22,000 people, and two of them died from COVID. And what that allowed Pfizer to do is to say, this vaccine is 100% effective, because the number two is 100% greater than the number one. But what it really means is that most Americans here are 100% effective. And they think, well, that means if I take the vaccine, I'm 100% not going to die from COVID. But that's not what it means. What it means is they have to give 22,000 vaccines to avert one COVID death.

Starting point is 00:25:21 And if you're going to give 22,000 vaccines to avert one COVID death, you better make sure that vaccine is not killing anybody. So now you go to table five, which is the all-cause mortality data. And what they showed is in the vaccine group, 21 of the 22,000 people died over the six-month period from all causes. In the placebo group, only 17 died. So what that would indicate is that, you know, that should be looked at. Because if you look at, if you're trusting their data, you have a greater chance, a 23% greater chance of dying over six months if you take the vaccine than if you

Starting point is 00:26:05 don't. And if you ask why, what accounts for those five excess deaths, they're all cardiac arrests. So in the vaccine group, there are five deaths from cardiac arrest. In the placebo group, there's only one. And that is a very disturbing signal because what it indicates is for everyone, as they're revert for COVID, they may be causing four from cardiac arrest. And now we're seeing real world data from all the early adapters from Singapore, from Israel, from the UK, from Scotland, from New York State, that indicates, and from the insurance industry, from VAERS, et cetera, that we are seeing excess mortality in 2022

Starting point is 00:26:52 that is 40% greater than 2021, and people are dying, large numbers of people, unheard of, are dying of cardiac arrest. So that is something that, again, should be investigated. Yeah, everybody agrees. Where is the data? Why are they not doing the studies? And it's interesting to me that the data you just quoted

Starting point is 00:27:15 reminds me, sounds very similar to the data on Vioxx, which took that drug, which was an excellent drug, ignominiously, I mean, in shame off the market. And I had a lot of arthritis patients who were on that drug at the time and were, lives were turned upside down. I mean, again, there are times when you can take risks and times when you don't. It's weird how it's so arbitrary in the mind of the regulator. But let's take a little break. We'll pace the bills. Yeah, go ahead. Let me ask you something about Vioxx. Because I'm an attorney, and Vioxx is kind of this paradigm of bad behavior.

Starting point is 00:27:53 But the agent advised the company because they knew it was going to cause heart attacks. It was an arthritis drug. The problem is they knew it was going to kill a certain number of people, heart attack, and murk. And they decided not to tell anybody. And I think they ended up killing probably 130,000 to 250,000 Americans. You see a lot of different estimates. What I heard you saying right now is that despite that it was a good drug what i'm saying is when doctors know no doctors

Starting point is 00:28:29 when we make a there was an awareness that this drug was associated with certain kinds of vascular problems they we didn't have the data problem with merck they lied about the they didn't tell us the data but there was an awareness that there was a problem. That drug, everybody was on that drug because it was so effective. Never saw any problems, ever, ever, ever. So when you're clinically, you're having people, their lives restored, and you know there's some risk, and you can, by the way, share it with the patient. The problem really with that story is that they didn't tell us what, give us the explicit data that they had to help us make that risk-reward analysis. And so what I'm saying by bringing it up is, hmm, here we are again, same exact thing happening, isn't it?

Starting point is 00:29:16 Fascinating. If you knew there was that heart attack risk, you'd be looking out for it. But if you didn't know... Well, you know, not only that, as I remember it back in the day when I was using it, I always thought of it as stroke risk because we were seeing that that was sort of what the buzz was, that this drug causes problems in small vessels and stroke. And I certainly wouldn't have ever given it to a patient who had a risk of cardiac pathology. They would be excluded from the use of that medication. So it's a complicated story.

Starting point is 00:29:51 I know it, but it's just so interesting to me that similar numbers today are being ignored. It's being ignored. And that's just astonishing to me. But here we are. And again, more data, more data, more study. We're all saying that. But thank you, sir. we're going to bring dr kelly victory in here we're going to take a little break and pay some bills the book and the movie is the real anthony fauci i suggest

Starting point is 00:30:15 you check all of it out uh caleb i wonder if you can put uh yes all the books up there in fact so you can see what what else real anthony fauci there we are this is all the books up there, in fact. So you can see what else. Real Anthony Fauci. There we are. This is all the books that Robert Kennedy has written. And we will give Dr. Kelly Victory a chance to discuss with him. Those are my books on the pandemic. Yeah, just on the pandemic. Yes, you're right. I beg your pardon. I am selling you quite short that way.

Starting point is 00:30:43 But yes, prolific author. And this is just about the pandemic, which is the topic of the moment. We'll be right back. 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. Now, I don't give

Starting point is 00:31:10 investment advice, but you can visit birchgold, B-I-R-C-H, gold.com. 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 slash true and claim your free no-obligation info kit from Birch Gold. You can own physical gold and silver

Starting point is 00:31:39 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 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

Starting point is 00:32:10 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 GenuCell, I was so happy because it's so affordable and it works great. I was introduced to the Ultra Retinol Cream, which I love at night. All the eye creams are amazing.

Starting point is 00:32:41 People notice my skin all the time, and I'm so excited because it's actually working. And right now GenuCell 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 Genucel.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. 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

Starting point is 00:33:29 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. It is indeed, and welcome Dr. Kelly Victory. And poor Robert, I could talk to him for a month, but now I'm going to hand him over to you for a few minutes. Dr. Kelly Victory. And you ate into my time. So I'm sorry.

Starting point is 00:34:01 I can go for a month. Thank you so much for taking the time to join us here. I have obviously read the book and subsequently did watch the documentary or movie, and it's brilliantly done. And thank you for doing it. Drew and I have disagreed about a number of things throughout this pandemic, although I think he's maybe coming over to our side a little bit more. Both you and Drew are more generous than I am with regard to our colleagues in medicine. I am a disaster, mass casualty, and public health specialist, and I have been reporting on the medical disaster and public health disaster that this pandemic response has been from the beginning. We knew from the very beginning that

Starting point is 00:34:51 we weren't all at equal risk from this thing. We knew that masks do nothing to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. We knew that social distancing was a totally made up construct. We knew that readily available cheap medications like IVM and HCQ were very, very successful at treating this thing. I reported from the very beginning that the vaccines would be an abject failure and likely cause significant harm to people and on and on. So what I didn't know as much about was the details of the fraud, corruption, and illegal activity, and I will call it that, that was going on and has been going on at the CDC and FDA likely for decades, if I really connect the dots from all the research you have done on that part of it. My question to you is, where the heck is Congress? Where the heck are the people who are supposed,

Starting point is 00:35:52 the oversight? Yes, these agencies have sort of run, they've sort of gone rogue, if you will, but where the heck is the regulation, the oversight? Well, you know, what you have is an industry which is now the largest industry in the history of the world and most profitable. It's now more than oil. You know, for most of my life, the oil industry was the biggest industry and wielded the biggest cloud on Capitol Hill. But that's now dwarfed by pharma. Pharma has more lobbyists on Capitol Hill than there are congressmen, senators, and Supreme Court justices combined. It gives, I think, a double in lobbying contributions than the next largest lobbying group, which is oil, and then I think something like three times what military contractors give Congress. Basically, all of the institutions in our democracy that are supposed to stand between a greedy corporation and a vulnerable child have been eliminated by this industry.

Starting point is 00:37:11 And they started with Congress. They went, the next big thing is the press. The FCC changed the law in 1997 to allow, for the first time in history, direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies on television. There's only one other country in the world that allows that, which is New Zealand. Of course, as a result of that, we have the highest consumption of pharmaceutical products of any country in the world. We take three times, Americans on average take three times the amount of pharmaceutical drugs as Europeans. We have the worst health outcomes. We're 79th in the world in terms of health outcomes. So all those drugs that drive, in fact, the three leading cause of death in this country are number one, cancer, number two, heart attacks.

Starting point is 00:38:14 And the third cause of death is misuse of pharmaceutical drugs or misprescriptions. So they're killing us um and they but they they own the uh the television and the media which is why you see so much censorship today the biggest advertiser today on tv by far or for everybody else's pharmaceutical companies about 85 75 of total revenues advertising revenues to the major networks are coming from pharma on the network news the evening news is much higher because that is their demographic it's kind of older people who are buying a lot of pharmaceutical drugs so it's around 85 percent of the network news revenues and um And what that means is they're not just buying advertising space, but they're buying content on the network news.

Starting point is 00:39:11 You know, Anderson Cooper has a $12 million annual salary, but about $10 million of that is coming from Pfizer. So who is he working for? Is he working for the American public or his viewers, or is he working for? Is he working for the American public or, you know, or his viewers, or is he working for the pharmaceutical industry? And I would suggest to you that, you know, this whole campaign of fear scare us into compliance with the pharmaceutical paradigm. And, you know, to shame those of us who said, who asked questions about the vaccine or who resisted the vaccine to make those people kind of redheaded stepchildren and second-class citizens in our country and

Starting point is 00:39:54 subject to all kinds of bigotry, that those were, you know, those are pharmaceutical policies that were promoted by the talking heads on TV. I once went, Roger Ailes was the founder of Fox News, and everything that he believed in, I was antithetical to everything I believed in. But when I was 18 years old, I spent three months in a tent with him in East Africa. That's a long story about how that happened, but we had this friendship that endured our political differences. And so I spent a lot of time talking with him. He was a very funny man, but very, very smart. And he believed that the vaccines were causing problems.

Starting point is 00:40:46 I got him to watch a film that we did back in, I think, 2016 about mercury and vaccines, and he felt that the mercury had actually injured a member of his family. And he said, I wish I could put this on TV, but he said to me at that time, he said, 17 of the 22 advertising slots on my evening news broadcasts are pharma-owned. And he said, if a single one of my hosts was to allow you onto their show to talk about this issue, that I would have to fire them. And he said, and if I didn't fire them, I would hear from Rupert, which means Rupert Murdoch within 10 minutes. Oh, I think, you know, that is from a guy who really believed in it, who really wanted to help

Starting point is 00:41:37 and felt like he had it. And who was also a tough guy who, you know, who was willing to break things, but he was scared of this issue. And so you look at people from other networks who are a lot less willing to go against the orthodoxies and we don't have a chance there. Well, this is such a critical point and I want to get into this further because it is the corrupt relationship between, whether it is corrupt, illegal, undisclosed relationship between the FDA, the CDC and big pharma that is really driving this. Tomorrow and Thursday of this week, it's my understanding that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices or Policies is set to meet to decide to opine on whether or not to add these COVID vaccines to the childhood vaccination schedule.

Starting point is 00:42:41 And for people who are watching, the reason that's critically important is because if those vaccines are added to the childhood immunization program or schedule, they will enjoy blanket immunity. Moderna, Pfizer will have blanket immunity from any liability because of the National Vaccine Injury Protection Program or plan. This is something that you had called out early on, that that's their big interest in getting these vaccines into the arms of children so that they can mainstream it and get it on the childhood vaccine schedule. If this happens, and there's been very little talk about it, it's scheduled, my understanding, to happen tomorrow and Thursday. If this happens, Moderna and Pfizer, with the help of the CDC, will receive

Starting point is 00:43:31 total liability protection for this vast number of injuries that have happened. And we're only at the tip of the iceberg, if you want my personal opinion. I think we haven't seen the worst of it yet with regard to vaccine injuries. What's your understanding of where that's going? Is there any way to stop it? Well, you know, you saw President Biden a couple of weeks ago said that the pandemic is over, the emergency is over. And he said that on national television. And then yesterday, the HHS announced that it was extending the emergency for another three months. And why are they extending the emergency?

Starting point is 00:44:11 Because the emergency allows them to give emergency use authorization to these vaccines and to protect the vaccines under the PrP Act to shield them with liability immunity so that no matter how negligent the company is, no matter how reckless, no matter how toxic their products, no matter how ridiculously inept their testing protocols, et cetera, and manufacturing quality control and all these other problems they have, no matter how grievous your injury, you cannot sue that company. And that's the only reason that they'll put a vaccine out there. These vaccines are so reactogenic that that company would be buried if we were allowed to sue them. All the people out there who've been injured right now and who have died, 30,000 people on fares, 1.3 million people injured, dead on fares, 1.3 million people injured, 250,000 people seriously, like lifetime injuries,

Starting point is 00:45:19 the company would go under. So they will not market a vaccine unless they get full liability protection. Well, the only way legally they can do that when the emergency is over is if they can get it listed as a childhood vaccine, which means it's going to be mandated for many states like California and New York for children. And we know that children get no benefit from this vaccine. Children are harmed by the vaccine. One in 2,700 boys will get myocarditis. Probably one in 1,100 girls will get a lifetime debilitating neurological injuries from the vaccine. The reactogen, this is according to Pfizer's own studies, the data from their studies.

Starting point is 00:45:59 Why not, you know, people, I always say, Kelly, people should not believe what I say, and they should not believe what I say and they should not believe what CDC says. Do your own research. I'm telling you, and you can go to my website to see Children's Health Defense website. You can see the studies. You can see Pfizer study there and see what I'm saying to you is true. Oh, they have to get it on that childhood schedule.

Starting point is 00:46:21 Now, why you ask the people who sit on that panel, which is a panel that's put together by the CDC. It's a panel called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. People who sit on that panel are not, for the most part, CDC or government employees. And so you think, and Dr. Fauci always describes them as independent doctors and scientists who have made this decision. But if you look at who these people really are, these are people who make their living on grants, developing drugs and vaccines for the pharmaceutical companies. And there is an unwritten rule. They trade places on these committees. They get millions and millions of dollars from pharma. There's a 2008 study showed 97% of them had undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Starting point is 00:47:16 And a 2003 investigation by Congress showed that 80% of them were taking payments from the company whose products they were approving. And what happens is you sit on that committee, you work at a university doing clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies, and your phase two trial or phase three trial is ended. You then take your product back to ASAP and get it approved. So all the people who are on there, many of them in the future will have drugs that need approving. And so they just have this system where they rubber stamp everything for each other. And it says, you scratch my back, I scratch yours. It's a reciprocal altruism deal that they have. There are also studies that show that people, when they leave that panel, are showered with sinecures and with wealth and with

Starting point is 00:48:15 grants and with junkets from the pharmaceutical company and from NIH. So they're all given rewards or rubber stamping, anything that comes from that panel. So if it goes to that panel, that panel is incapable of saying no. It will say yes, no matter, even if they brought something in there and said, this is going to kill all these kids. It would still stamp it, go ahead, because they're all on the take. And, you know, as many of them are what we call PIs, principal investigators for NIA, for NIAID, for Tony Fauci's, you know, NIH gives away $42 billion a year. And if you add Bill Gates, his foundation, and Wellcome Trust, which is the UK version of Bill Gates Foundation, they control 63% of the biomedical research funding in the world.

Starting point is 00:49:16 So any product that they developed, and they developed the Moderna vaccine, they own half of that vaccine. They will get billions of dollars in royalty. NIH will, and employees in NIH will. Tony Fauci wants that to go through. And if you disagree with him, he is going to punish you. And he can bankrupt your institution because all these universities rely on NIH funding, all the funding, 63% of the funding in the world, biomedical research, which keeps these medical schools moving, is controlled by that agency and by his confederates. And so nobody is going to say no to a product that he wants approved. And he wants the Moderna vaccine approved.

Starting point is 00:50:04 It's his vaccine proof it's his vaccine it's his baby he nurtured it he created it and he put it in the first in the pipeline no animal studies and um and he needs it approved so and his guys who work for him that he designated are going to make $150,000 a year for life between four and six of his top deputies for life. As long as that thing is approved, then it's given liability protection. So this whole thing is just fixed and they don't, you know, you look at the data and we know this is not going to help children. It is going to harm them grievously. Well, we know you're right. Drew and I talked about this on a previous show. Dr. Paul Offit, who is one of the people on the advisory committee,

Starting point is 00:50:51 who said, used the exact terminology you did. He said he thought the fix was in when they were talking about approving these vaccines under the EUA for use in children. And he essentially, his services were essentially dismissed once he made it clear that he was not planning on voting for approval of these things. It's my understanding, I'm not an attorney, obviously, so I'd love your take on, if we were able to prove fraud, that the EUA was obtained through fraudulent means because Pfizer and Moderna did not disclose information, as you rightly point out, they already had. We know from the FOIA requests that they knew lots of these things, that the mRNA didn't stay in your arm, that it invaded every major organ system, and on and on. If we could prove fraud, would they face liability? Would this

Starting point is 00:51:47 do away with the blanket liability protection that they are currently enjoying? Okay. Well, there's two issues here, Kelly. One is if they committed a criminal act, which fraud is a criminal act, they can be prosecuted. But they would be prosecuted by the Department of Justice, a federal agency. There are certain, if they did it in Georgia or in one of the other states, or if there's a nexus to those states, it's possible an attorney general, a state attorney general could bring a case, but it'd have to be a state attorney general who had, you know, very, let's say, a lot of guts because you're going up against, you know, huge forces. Oh, but the U.S. attorney can bring them in the Department of Justice, but they usually

Starting point is 00:52:43 won't because that agency that committed the fraud or can bring them in the Department of Justice, but they usually won't. Because that agency that committed the fraud or was complicit in the fraud is their client. And so the U.S. attorneys in the Department of Justice don't like to bring those kind of cases. Now, theoretically, people like me can bring those kinds of cases. And if they go through ASIP, they get approval, which they're gonna. Then you have to go through the vaccine court first, but you then could sue them technically for fraud. Now, this has never been done except in one case, which I'm the attorney in, and it's in the Gardasil case, the HPV vaccine case, where Merck committed fraud, and we can show they committed fraud, and we can show the injuries that have resulted from that fraud, and we so far have passed the most difficult thresholds, which are pass the motion to dismiss. We are in discovery right now.

Starting point is 00:53:52 And we're about to go into the highest threshold, which is called the Daubert hearing. And if we get past that, then we can successfully bring these cases for fraud. And that will be the model for the future for people who want to bring these kind of cases against Moderna and Pfizer for their fraud during their clinical trials. The thing is, their partnership that they have with the government, it's like a choreographic dance. Because Pfizer will say, oh, we never told anybody this would prevent transmission. And Moderna would say that. And they'll say, you know, we never told anybody that it doesn't cause cardiac arrest. But they had Tony Fauci telling people those things, and they had Bill Gates

Starting point is 00:54:46 telling people those things, and they had President Biden saying, you know, all three of those guys. And, you know, Boris Johnson and everybody else were saying, if you take the vaccine, you can't get COVID. You can't die from COVID. You can't be hospitalized from COVID. That's a quote from President Biden and from Tony Fauci. So we'll stop the pandemic if you take the vaccine. And now in the Dutch parliament, last week, one of the top executives of Pfizer said, we never even tested it for transmission. And it doesn't prevent. We all know that it doesn't prevent transmission now.

Starting point is 00:55:22 If you got the vaccine, you're as likely to pass it on to other people. And yet we were told you do it to protect granny. And we're going to force you to do this to protect other people, but it doesn't protect other people. They just wanted to force us to do it. They knew from the beginning it didn't prevent transmission. They knew from May, 2020, I knew it. And I wrote an article about it. They knew from the beginning it didn't prevent transmission. They knew from May 2020. I knew it. And I wrote an article about it. How did I know it?

Starting point is 00:55:50 Because I looked at the monkey studies. And when they gave the vaccine to monkeys, to macaques, and then they exposed them to wild virus, the vaccinated monkeys had the same amount of viral concentrations in their nasal varix as the unvaccinated monkeys. And right then I said, game over. They cannot mark this product because it's not going to end the pandemic. It's not going to prevent transmission. And Pfizer knew it then and Fauci knew it then. And yet for two two years, he told everybody they lied and said it will prevent transmission. It will end the pandemic. That was just a lie.

Starting point is 00:56:31 Right. And that was the entire basis for all of the mandates. Because you have to stop. In order to mandate it, it has to be stop transmission. And it never did that. And in fact, we now know there's negative efficacy. At five months from your second shot, you are at higher risk of getting COVID than if you'd never been vaccinated at all.

Starting point is 00:56:50 At five to seven months. Talk a little bit. Yep. Talk a little bit. The VAERS system, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, was put in place by the CDC specifically as an early warning signal, the proverbial canary in the coal mine. It was supposed to pick up on rare events that would heighten their awareness that something may be going awry with these. Yet we have now millions and millions of reports of adverse events to VAERS. By all estimations, it is an underreporting by somewhere between one and 10 times, or 10 and 100 times, excuse me. It's wildly underreported. We know that. Yet the CDC has refused to look at any of that data. It is their job. That's the job of the CDC is to look at that data. They've done not a single autopsy on somebody who's had a vaccine injury that resulted in death.

Starting point is 00:57:51 Is there any way to compel, in your mind, the CDC or the federal government or some other agency to actually open this book of adverse events and start explaining them. Well, let me tell you something about VAERS that, you know, people should know. Is that Congress, because you see a lot of people, you know, like people who are like the, you know, proponents of all vaccines are safe and effective, and people who criticize them are crazy. What they're saying is people like me who look only to the VAERS data and say we have more deaths in one year in VAERS than in 36 years from all the billions of vaccines, 72 doses of 16 vaccines, billions and billions of doses that have been given since 1986, since we passed the act. And they say, well, that's not legitimate because VAERS could

Starting point is 00:58:52 overstate it. Well, there is no study that shows that VAERS overstates injury rates. There are many, many, many studies that show it dramatically understates injury rates and that VAERS is what's actually designed to fail. The Vaccine Act told CDC, you got to put in place a surveillance system that will give us an accurate view of how many people are being injured by these vaccines. The Vaccine Act says vaccines in its preamble are unavoidably unsafe. We know people are going to be killed and injured. And so you need a system for telling how many people are getting injured from each of those vaccines. So for many years, everybody knew VAERS didn't work.

Starting point is 00:59:41 Why? Because it's voluntary. So what it means is that the doctor who gave you that vaccine, and then you get a seizure three months later or two months later, a week later, he then has to call, he has to spend 30 minutes filling out forms for which he's not paid to say one of my patients got a vaccine injury. And by the way, CDC is telling them vaccine injuries don't exist. So if that kid gets food allergies three years later or gets rheumatoid arthritis or diabetes, he's going to say that's not a vaccine injury and he won't report it. So everybody knew it didn't work. And David Kessler, the Surgeon General, said it is a catastrophe. We need a new system. So in 2010, the HMO has all your vaccine records and then all your medical claims. So they can correlate each vaccine record with clusters of injuries that are,

Starting point is 01:00:53 that are recorded in your medical claims. And it's a very reliable way of correlating injuries with particular vaccines. You can collect 90% of the injuries that way. So they designed a system that could do that. They tested for three years at Harvard Pilgrim, which is an HMO. And then they got a very accurate idea of how many injuries actually exist. And what they found was one in 32 people who get vaccinated are injured. It's not one in a million, one in 32. And they had a very accurate retention. And then they compared it with the VAERS data from the Harvard program during that same period. And what they, it came back, the CDC said, the system we designed works like a charm. CDC promised to roll it out to everybody else. And then they saw the data.

Starting point is 01:01:47 And what the data showed, and this is in the study that anybody can look up. It's published, I think, in Pediatrics. It's called the Lazarus Study. That's the lead author. It was a team from the Harvard Medical School who did this study, and what they found was that fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries are ever reported to VAERS. That means more than 99% are not reported. When you look at the VAERS data and see 20,000 people dead, which are being reported, that is highly unlikely to be an undercount. It's highly likely to be an overcount.

Starting point is 01:02:30 It's highly likely to be an undercount and a really catastrophic undercount because what we know is the VAERS system undercounts and may undercount by 100 times. It may undercount by 10 times, but it is definitely undercounts and it may undercount by a hundred times. It may undercount by 10 times, but it is definitely undercounting. And what CDC did is it took that study, the Lazarus system, that it was going to roll out to all the HMOs and put it on a shelf and never said anything about it again. And the actual study, which you can go read, the researchers who developed that system said that after we showed the results to CDC, CDC would no longer answer our phone calls. This is a group that CDC had given millions of dollars to of Harvard Medical

Starting point is 01:03:21 School people do this study. They did exactly what they were told. And CDC said, we don't want anything to do with it. Well, I think the really compelling thing also is that it's consistent, Robert, with what we are hearing from the life insurance companies, the disability companies, the medical insurance companies, everybody is reporting huge increases in incidents of new onset seizures, myocarditis, blood clots. Ambulance companies. Yes. Right, right. The cardiac arrests that are being now picked up, the insurance company. Insurance companies in Europe, the United States, everywhere are saying 40% greater excess deaths in 2022 than 2021 at the height of the COVID pandemic.

Starting point is 01:04:12 And they're unrelated to COVID. Something is happening. And this is what Dr. True said, which, you know, probably the most troubling feature. If you care about science, my whole life has been science. That's what I do. Every, you know, I brought 500 legal cases. Every one of them involves scientific controversies. I read science for a living.

Starting point is 01:04:35 And if you care about science, if you believe that science at its best is a relentless search for and fearless search for empirical truths. You have got to be offended by how they manage their data and the data quality and the analysis quality from the beginning of this pandemic. They never played it straight with us. There was always a bias on how they reported it. They never stratified by age. They never told us the age. They never told us the real. They were never straight about the

Starting point is 01:05:07 infection. That and the extraordinary measures to which they went to crush anyone who raised their hand and said, just questioning, is this okay here? Which was the part that really caught my attention early. But I want to, Kelly, I want to go back around on what you asked

Starting point is 01:05:24 to see if we can get something in our conversation here about this. You asked, where is the functioning government to disentangle this cozy relationship? And I'll ask it even more concerning to me than that relationship, because I'm beginning to think that the reason it happened was they needed money they found money in the private sector there it went and that was it you know what i mean like they got their budgets were dialed down by somebody and they dialed it up from the private sector and on it on it went but be that as it may my graver concern is the excesses and kelly you and i've talked about this incessantly, the excesses

Starting point is 01:06:06 of our public health authorities. What is going to dial that back so this can't happen again? I noticed they were talking about locking down again for Ebola. And again, using fear, claiming it was respiratory-borne, all this craziness. Look, if somebody vomits, you're going to have some airborne Ebola, but you're not going to get it from coughing on somebody in a bus station. But the point is that at least I understand that that doesn't happen. But the point is how can we, or what's happening to try to reduce these excesses? So should, and when this happens again, there's some sort of due process that people's lives and liberty aren't taken away from them, that the things that make life meaningful are not taken away, and the horrible, horrible unintended harms that are caused by all this. Robert, what are we going to do with that?

Starting point is 01:06:57 Well, you know, Drew, that's really a larger question about how do you restore democratic institutions when they've lost their integrity, when they've lost their purpose, when they've lost public respect. In a nation that has nurtured and built these institutions to be kind of a barrier against corporate power

Starting point is 01:07:19 since 1790, that was the big challenge is how do you create civic institutions that will protect the essential values of society against these mercantile and commercial pressures of very, very powerful actors within the society who are constantly trying to undermine those institutions for their own benefit. And, you know, I could say that is a much longer conversation than we have here. I don't think that there's a single fix other than you elect a president who totally understands that, you know, what's happening at these agencies. And, you know, there's some people who are like running, who are running today who say these agencies have to be burned to the ground.

Starting point is 01:08:12 And I think that's a mistake. I think, you know, there's ways that we need to fix them and there's ways to do it. And I can tell you there are ways to do it, but all these agencies are susceptible to capture, and all of them have now been so thoroughly captured that they really function. They've lost all their civic function, and they've now become wholly-owned subsidiaries of the pharmaceutical industry. They are sock puppets for the industry that they're supposed to regulate. Well, tangential to Drew's question, I would say to you,

Starting point is 01:08:52 since you are truly the expert on the real Anthony Fauci, Anthony Fauci is scheduled to step down in December. I suspect we're going to be playing a bit of a whack-a-mole. What is your prediction for where he's going to end up? I don't see him just sort of, you know, riding off into the sunset. Is it going to be the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Where is he going to be on the board of some pharmaceutical company? Where does Anthony Fauci go from here? I will say, Kelly, that I never make predictions. And one of the things I try to do in the book is to stay away from any kind of speculation. I don't speculate as to what Tony Fauci's or Bill Gates' motives are ever. I just report what happened. And people can then make their own decisions about why it happened or what the possible motives are.

Starting point is 01:09:50 I don't know what Anthony Fauci will do. I mean, the one thing I would say is that this is not – Anthony Fauci is a figurehead for corruption at that agency. But removing the figurehead is corruption at that agency. But removing the figurehead is not going to end the corruption. That agency is filled with dry rot. And all of these institutional structures are fortifying the corruption. And the relationship with the pharmaceutical industries, the payments that they get, the academic. I mean, Drew, this is one of the things.

Starting point is 01:10:33 I talked about all the institutions that stand between big pharma, little children, and you have the press that's been corrupted because they're all purchased by pharma advertising. You have the social media companies who have these very complex and rich deals with pharmaceutical companies. You have Congress. You have the medical associations like AAP, which receive, you know, 80% of their budget from pharmaceutical companies. And so all of these institutions are really, are not functioning anymore. They're dysfunctional. They're not doing the thing that, you know, that they really, we need them to be doing if we're going to really have healthy children and good health outcomes.

Starting point is 01:11:19 And we don't. When I was a kid, in my generation, there was a 6% rate of chronic disease, and then earthy allergic diseases like asthma, food allergies, which I never knew anybody with a food allergy. I had 11 brothers and sisters and maybe 70 cousins. I never knew anybody with a peanut allergy. Well, I do five of my kids have allergies. The eczema, the anaphylaxis, and then this huge category, this cascade of autoimmune disease, like rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, lupus, and all these others. Now, as of 2006, which is when they stopped doing this data collection, 54% of children had these diseases. So we have 54% of American children who are permanently debilitated. And, you know, what greater

Starting point is 01:12:35 crisis do we have in our country than that? And, you know, I can tell you some of it's from the vaccines, but not all of it. Our kids are swimming around in a toxic soup. And, you know, and there are many, many culprits to this. And it's, you know, ADD, it's, you know, pesticides and glyphosate and neonicotinoid pesticides and PFOAs and Wi-Fi radiation. and all these assaults on their immune system that operate on the same pathways that are just made this generation the sickest generation in history. And there's emotional problems that are all linked to these chemical exposures, including eating disorders and depression and suicide and many, many others. And, you know, we need to be, we need a public health agency that is going to spend a

Starting point is 01:13:28 $42 billion budget figuring out what's happening and then helping us put an end to it so that we can actually protect our children and do what they're doing. And that's not what they're doing. They've taken that money and they farm it out to the universities and develop new drugs. And so all of academia, this is what I was talking about before, that's the final institution that's really supposed to protect us is the scholars and the journals. Journals are totally corrupt. The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, they're owned by pharma.

Starting point is 01:14:03 And so you have, you know, literally every institution that is supposed to protect us from big pharma has been compromised. And, you know, that's why we have an opioid epidemic because nobody stood up and said, wait a minute,

Starting point is 01:14:19 how can you say Vicodin is not addictive? You know, and anyway, you guys already know this. You don't need to hear it from me. Well, no. Well, you're saying something that I've said many times. As I say, I've said it over and over again. For the record, I stood up. I'm sure Kelly stood up.

Starting point is 01:14:37 But we were crushed by regulatory agencies, by the Joint Commission, by our local state societies. But, I mean, you were told you were a bad doctor and interested in patients' suffering, and you were threatened with legal and civil action. That's what we were threatened with, not by the drug companies, by our own organizations and by patients and attorneys. So anyway, Kelly, finish up there. People don't realize they actually added during our training,

Starting point is 01:15:11 we're the same vintage, they added pain as the sixth vital sign. And you had to document the pain level. And then if you didn't adequately treat it, it was one of those things where you got just derided and ridiculed and, you know, sanctioned. But I think back to this issue about public health. That movie, that documentary on Netflix, Opsic, every American should look at that because it's like the blueprint for how they corrupt the agency. And anybody who looks at that and doesn't see a parallel to what happened with these vaccines, you have to see the parallel.

Starting point is 01:15:52 And it's the same people doing the same tap dance and corruption. But the point you make, Robert, about the damage that this has done to people's feelings about public health. I have said many times on this show and elsewhere, God help us when the next thing happens, because there will be a next thing. There will be a next public health crisis. And God help us when we try to get Americans and people around the globe to listen to us as public health experts, because nothing has undermined people's confidence more than this debacle of this pandemic response.

Starting point is 01:16:33 We have harmed children. We harmed the elderly. We decimated the economy. We have a pile of bodies to account for. We have destroyed the health of the population. We have created a masterful disease care system. We don't have a health care system any longer. We have a disease care system that makes a lot of all the millions of people who are harmed, the loss of faith, the loss of trust in public health, I think is going to be the greatest casualty of the entire pandemic. I think we're probably winding down the clock here, Drew. I'm watching. Is there anything else we should finish out on? It's really that Robert has been very generous with his times. And I wanted Kelly to get back some of what I took from you. So I think we got there. And Robert, we cannot thank you enough for coming and sharing your thoughts. Again, this is an environment where we're trying to hear all ideas and allow people to arrive at their own conclusions. As you're saying, go read these

Starting point is 01:17:40 studies for yourself, read the books, read the materials, think for yourself. And, you know, there are the books. And I'm just so, so concerned about a lot of things. I've learned a lot from talking to people that have been silenced or marginalized. Go ahead, Kelly. I was going to say, how do people access, Robert, the film? We've referenced it, but how do people access the film? Yeah, it's free. I think, how many days? 10 days. 10 days it's free. And then you have to buy it.

Starting point is 01:18:14 So you should go look at it today. I think we opened it today. And it's called DRAF, which is the real Anthony Fauci. DRAFmovie.com. If you go there to watch it, I just wanted to say one thing before we close. Drew, I want to thank you so much for your courage and allowing me on because allowing me on is going to hurt you in ways that you'll feel. I'm sure you'll find out soon enough.

Starting point is 01:18:44 Yeah. Anyway, I know it's a big risk and that you'll feel. I'm sure you'll find out soon enough. Yeah. Anyway, I know it's a big risk and that you took it, but also you're open-minded and congenial and respectful willingness to listen to, you know, people like me who don't agree with you on everything.

Starting point is 01:19:03 And your openness to change in ways that you feel are appropriate and i just i want to thank you for that i think that is well the energy of what a public health official is supposed to be doing so and kelly i don't have to thank you in there she's all the way in but but to your point, first of all, A, I treat guests like guests when they're on our show. I'm not going to treat anybody other than as a guest when they agree to come on this thing. But as Kelly and I, from the beginning, our whole thing was, where has the process gone that moves us towards the truth? We're used to fighting. We're used to deliberating.

Starting point is 01:19:42 We're used to disagreeing. And that all has gone away. We couldn't believe it. So she and I started disagreeing and deliberating. We thought, let's bring more people into this mix and let people kind of listen in on it and draw conclusions for themselves. So you've been a part of that and we appreciate it. Robust, vigorous debate that's what that's yeah robust vigorous debate so thank you for participating i don't want to put it i'm going to put it on a ring and send it to you kelly or a necklace or something vigorous debate and uh we thank you all for being here today and uh susan thank you ke you uh caleb thank you for producing thank you dr kennedy mr kennedy of course i caleb told me he was going to say thanks for the people who are watching and commenting and great comments today and we appreciate the viewers we really do yeah

Starting point is 01:20:38 don't don't assume you know what my position is uh as any more so than i would assume what i know what your position is uh and uh and i just i really want to just constantly probe and constantly talk and constantly listen to people that have an interesting and different point of view that's how i learned the most we have dr vanaya prasad in here now he is somebody that i agree with everything he says this contrary to my general philosophy but he has been in there he is he that I agree with just everything he says. This is contrary to my general philosophy, but he has been in, there he is, he's an oncologist. He reads medical literature better than anybody I know, and he has been on fire lately on social media. Very concerned, particularly about masking and about boosting and about Paxlovid and boosted patients, particularly under the age of 65. What are we doing even over the age of 65? And so he is just asking the important questions.

Starting point is 01:21:27 And we will get to him tomorrow at 3 o'clock. Kelly will be back again. Thank you, Kelly, for coming in for a special session. And we'll see you all tomorrow at 3 o'clock Pacific time. Before I go, next week, do we have guests up yet? Do we know what's happening next week? Anybody? I'm not exactly sure. I think I'm traveling next week.

Starting point is 01:21:42 Yeah, Pierre Corey on Monday. Pierre Corey on Monday. Pierre Corey on Monday. And then Tuesday, I think I'm traveling next week. Yeah. Pierre, Pierre Corey on Monday. Pierre Corey on Monday. Pierre Corey on Monday. And then Tuesday, I think we're taking calls and then you're leaving town on Wednesday. Yes. We need to, we will need to,

Starting point is 01:21:53 after all this, we'll need to decompress. So I will take calls on Tuesday, your questions about any of the things we've learned or heard or thought or been exposed to, give you a chance to come and talk about it on a show on Tuesday at three o'clock Pacific time. So again,

Starting point is 01:22:04 see you tomorrow at three o'clock Pacific. 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

Starting point is 01:22:38 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.

Ask Dr. Drew - Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Alleges Dr. Fauci, CDC and Big Pharma Collusion – with Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 137

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.