Ask Dr. Drew - saRNA: Is ‘Self-Amplifying mRNA’ More Dangerous – Or Just More Hysteria? w/ Sasha Latypova & Dr. Jay Bhattacharya – Ask Dr. Drew – Ep 410

Episode Date: October 13, 2024

“To date I have seen no evidence that any manufacturer of these magic potions consistently produces what they claim they produce,” writes Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical R&D executive with over 25 years of experience, who says panic around “self-replicating mRNA” is not the real concern. “The manufacturers demonstrably are unable to manufacture a single mRNA sequence to specification (e.g. coding for Wuhan “variant”), so how are they going to make a self-replicating Wuhan variant?” says Latypova. Sasha Latypova is a former pharmaceutical R&D executive with over 25 years of experience in clinical trials, clinical technologies, and regulatory approvals. She owned and managed several contract research organizations and worked for more than 60 pharma companies worldwide. She interacted with the FDA as part of a scientific industry consortium on improving cardiac safety assessments in clinical trials. Follow her at https://x.com/sasha_latypova and read more at https://sashalatypova.substack.com Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. He is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research, a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and at the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute. His research focuses on the economics of health care around the world with a particular emphasis on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations. Follow Dr. Bhattacharya at https://x.com/drjbhattacharya 「 SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS 」 Find out more about the brands that make this show possible and get special discounts on Dr. Drew's favorite products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors  • FATTY15 – The future of essential fatty acids is here! Strengthen your cells against age-related breakdown with Fatty15. Get 15% off a 90-day Starter Kit Subscription at https://drdrew.com/fatty15 • CAPSADYN - Get pain relief with the power of capsaicin from chili peppers – without the burning! Capsadyn's proprietary formulation for joint & muscle pain contains no NSAIDs, opioids, anesthetics, or steroids. Try it for 15% off at https://drdrew.com/capsadyn • CHECK GENETICS - Your DNA is the key to discovering the RIGHT medication for you. Escape the big pharma cycle and understand your genetic medication blueprint with pharmacogenetic testing. Save $200 with code DRDREW at https://drdrew.com/check • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get 15% off your first order at https://drdrew.com/paleovalley • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at https://twc.health/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 Portions of this program may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. Always consult your 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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

great guest today as always sasha latipova comes back former pharmaceutical r&d executive with over 25 years of experience was in a better position than probably anybody in the covid vaccine conversation in terms of analyzing and forming opinions about the manufacturing process of these vaccines, as well as the process under which they were examined prior to being brought to manufacturing. And then we're going to be then visited by the great Jay Bhattacharya. He had a wonderful conference about a week ago where he brought together, I think it's the first of its kind, bringing together varied opinions on the successes and failures of the COVID pandemic. It was a valiant effort. It was criticized roundly by some idiots, and we'll talk about that. But generally, it was a rousing success, and more like it should be attempted. Be right back with Sasha Ladopova after this.

Our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre the psychopath started this right he was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography ptsd love addiction fentanyl and heroin ridiculous i'm a doctor for say where the hell you think i learned that i'm just saying you go to treatment before you kill people i am a clinician i observe things about these chemicals let's just deal with what's real and we 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. I want to teach you about pharmacogenomic testing.

This is changing the way we approach healthcare. By analyzing a patient's genetic profile, pharmacogenomics helps physicians personalize drug treatments for more effective results. First, it enhances medication efficacy by predicting how a patient will respond to a specific drug, reducing the trial and error process, especially in mental health care. For example, it can guide the choice of various medications to minimize side effects and improve outcomes. In the long run, pharmacogenomic testing leads to cost savings. It shortens the time to find the right treatment and avoids expensive side effects. It also supports more personalized care, helping physicians make better decisions, and ensuring that treatments are tailored to each individual's unique genetic makeup.

Test simply requires you to swab your cheek, then you send in the sample to our lab. Discover the power of personalized medicine with pharmacogenomic testing. Tailor your treatments based on your unique genetic makeup. Reduce trial and error. Avoid side effects. Find the most effective medication for you. Take control of your health today. Go to drdrew.com slash checkgenetics. That is drdrew.com slash checkgenetics. Joint and muscle pains are exhausting and frustrating, but I've got an over-the-counter

medication I want to introduce you to that provides great relief using the power of, check it out, chili peppers. Capsodin is made with a proprietary formula that contains no non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents, no opioids, no anesthetic or steroid, nothing, no chance for addiction, no side effects, no chance it's going to interact with other medication you might be taking. Capsodin contains capsaicin, which is the substance in chili peppers that burns your tongue.

It gives you that burny feeling. And of course, I've recommended capsaicin creams to patients over the years, but other capsaicin creams burn your skin. That's what makes capsaicin so unique. In clinical trials, capsaicin has actually been demonstrated not to burn. I've been using capsaodent to relieve my pain in my hands and my wrist from carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis.

The results have been amazing. I use it every day during my show and I highly recommend it. Get the pain relief you need from various sources, even back aches, sprains, bruises even. Order now at capsodin.com slash drew to get a 15% discount plus free shipping. That is C-A-P-S-A-D-Y-N capsidin.com slash D-R-E-W.

Susan is very excited about her capsidin. There she is using it behind me. She was just using it during that break and I was just like, yeah, show them what you're doing. There she is. Excellent. So again, capsaicin creams have been around for a long time. This is a significant step forward if you have those sorts of pretty neuropathic pain and that kind of thing.

So let's get to Sasha Latapova. She was an R&D executive for over 25 years of experience, clinical trials, clinical technologies, regulatory approvals. She sees through a lot of the nonsense about the conversations on the vaccine manufacturing. You can follow her Substack, Sasha Latipova, L-A-T-Y-P-O-V-A dot substack dot com. And Sasha underscore Latapova on X. Sasha, welcome to the program. Hi, Dr. Drew. Thank you for inviting me again.

It's good to see you as always. I was thinking about, you leave me with lots of concerns every time we have a conversation. I use, it sort of borders on scaring me. You border on scaring me because, because I believe what you, not just, I believe what I believe, what your opinions are highly authoritative.

So I take them very seriously, but I wonder if you can, if your thinking has evolved since we last spoke, it's probably been six months or so since we last talked to you. What, what kinds of things? I don't want to yet talk about this nonsense about the self-replicating, whatever. To me, that looked

like hysteria right from the start. But before we go to that, what else has happened since we last spoke? You had grave concerns about your manufacturing process last time we talked. So the manufacturing, those remain grave concerns about the manufacturing process last time we talked. All right. So the manufacturing, those remain grave concerns. In fact, I've gotten additional information that it's even worse than I thought.

And the problem actually goes a long time back. Even my colleague, Catherine, traced the relevant U.S US law all the way back to late 1700s. And so we now have a better understanding of the regulatory frameworks in the US as it applies to vaccines, all vaccines in general, and then a much greater understanding about the COVID shots, which are EUA countermeasures, and how that's regulated. And, you know, in summary, I can say none of it is regulated. The FDA kind of pretend regulates these things, and that's been the case since forever. And another important discovery— I'm going to interrupt you because we've got a little delay here. So people get frustrated with me stepping in. But I want you to actually give us a little disposition on what you've learned.

And if indeed the FDA is really a faux supervisor, if their regulations are so lax, that would explain why the studies were so shitty, frankly. Because they really had no intent to really do the work in the first place. So please give me the cliff notes or the shark notes, as we call them now. Right. So the law research is ongoing and Catherine and one of the colleagues

are writing a big report on relevant law tracing back to, as I said, late 1700s, when vaccination, as we kind of know it in the modern world, has started being used more or less in mass subjects. Now, in the US, the vaccines have not been under FDA mandate until 1973. Many people don't realize that. They were not regulated at all as pharmaceuticals.

They were manufactured essentially by Public Health Service, which is predecessor of CDC, the US government, Public Health Service. And they were sort of, you know, you could order the samples or whatever you needed, the box. You could even like order it in the mail from the US government and they would send it to you and so up until 1973 there were no regulation and no standards for manufacturing for purity testing for contaminants for characterizing what you have made in the pharmaceutical process which is standard for anybody who works in pharma making drugs that didn't exist really it wasn't anything codified uh after 1973 they technically came under fda purview and as you know in 86 there was a vaccine national vaccine um i forget the correct name of the law but basically the act that came in that uh shielded all the

manufacturers from liability that was under reagan and since then the manufacturers of vaccines had no liability and if you have no liability uh for injuries or deaths that you cause then it's as if regulations don't exist for you because you have no consequences um and so is does that is that does that wouldn't that though motivate the fda to be more circumspect and cautious in what they approved you know what i mean isn't that their fiduciary responsibility if there's no other checks and balances aren't they the reviewers of last resort to make sure that the public is only exposed to something that isn't dangerous? In theory, you would say that if FDA had the best interest of the public in mind.

But looking at their actions, looking at what's transpired, I don't believe that at all. And so FDA, likewise, has no liability because they are protected by sovereign immunity of the U.S. government. And neither does any agency in the executive branch. As we recently learned, the case which was filed by Children's Health Defense, George Watts versus DOD, was the only case where the family of a 24-year-old student who was killed by COVID shot, and it's known that he was killed by COVID shot, it was proven by autopsy. They sued the DOD, and the case was just dismissed

in a two-page dismissal by the judge saying that U.S. government is immune to persecution. Not arguing the merits of the case, not disputing that this young man was killed by the U.S. government, forcing this on him as a condition of attending the university. They're not disputing it. They're just saying, you can't sue us. We're immune.

What about the university? Why not go after the schools? And the school will point to the government. And so there's this, you know, there's constant, okay, well, it's the government or is it the private employer that's forcing you or the private employer is taking federal money. And as a condition of taking federal money, they also have to enforce all the government mandates. So that's how the, you know, the system operates, right?

So that's kind of the state. But as I i said the vaccines were never regulated as drugs so there are no real requirements for them to to comply with what the label says um both in the components and the ingredients and how they're made in impurities in other other contamin, in structural integrity of the ingredients that are supposed to be there, nor in the claims that are made with respect to safety or efficacy, because those are also claims that go on the label. But there's no enforcement.

So hold on. So again, slow down. So is this why when you looked at the manufacturing process and were so alarmed? Because you were expecting it to be held to the standards of usual pharmaceutical production. And what you saw was gross under service. Exactly. So my first analysis, I know we've talked about it before, but I started looking into this whole thing from the manufacturing perspective. But just looking at VAERS adverse events versus batch numbers for these vaccines.

So I've done about two years of that research. We set up a website together with a colleague, Craig Paradis-Cooper, set up a website, How Bad Is Your Batch? And where people could see this variability. So we were tracking it for a long time. I have a huge amount of data collected on that. At that time, when I first saw that data, which was sometime in the fall of 2021, enough data was assembled,

I immediately said this manufacturing process is not compliant with pharmaceutical regulation, as I know them, because I worked on the pharma drugs. And I said, this product is noncompliant because look at all this variability that's going on. It's not supposed to be this, like, at all. Yeah.

And nothing has changed since then. Nothing has changed. And this was the, were you working also with the Dutch physician researcher? I can never pronounce her name. Wiebeke? Oh, Wiebeke, yes. Yeah. And so she has the best.

Are there other publications that documented as clearly as she did? Yes. So there is one new one came out from Children's Health Defense. I think Brian Hooker wrote this paper with colleagues, Yes, so there is one new one that came out from Children's Health Defense. I think Brian Hooker wrote this paper with colleagues confirming her findings, doing some more in-depth findings because more data became available through FOIA, like more detailed shipment information about these lots. So that all confirms the same findings. Which makes sense. And then the 1986 law, I was persuaded or brainwashed to believe that vaccines were a lost leader for pharmaceutical companies. Now, the recent, what we all witnessed happened to Pfizer and Moderna in response to the massive distribution of COVID vaccines. Clearly, there's profits to be made. Where did that,

do you know where that came from, this idea that they had to have a restriction and liabilities because otherwise they wouldn't make vaccines because there was no profit from vaccines? Yes. So there is always this back and forth between private pharmas and the U.S. government. And that's been going on since the 80s and maybe even before. So the U.S. government comes in and says, we need to vaccinate everyone.

It's our policy. We can address that. Where is that coming from? We can address that. Like, where is that coming from? We can address that separately. But let's say, you know, U.S. government comes to private pharma and says, you must make these products for me. I'm going to buy, you know, this many. And the pharma says, well, I need guarantees. And then pharmas know that you can't make safe vaccines.

And actually, that's another recent discovery I've made. Not my discovery. This is discovery from 100 years ago but everybody knows this in that sector that you can't make safe vaccines that's not possible it's not possible to vaccinate safely uh due to anaphylaxis and they all know it so they know for sure if they are forced to vaccinate large percentages of the U.S. population, large percentages of U.S. population is going to get injuries and is going to die because of these products. And it will eventually come back to them. They're smart. The people, they're very smart. They have internal systems to protect themselves from liability like you won't believe.

Like there's so many processes designed specifically to shield the company and its executives from any liability. So when this proposition comes on the table and they all know what's involved, they're saying, I need guarantees. I can't make this. Oh, this is a loss leader for me. You know, I'm so inconvenienced by this that U.S. government has to give me a bunch of concessions before i agree to this deal and that's how they kind of back and forth negotiate over time and so so that's that's the 86 law now in 2005 they actually

went even further and said oh now we need prep act in addition to all these other layers of protection that we have we also also need the PrEP Act. So you see, it's this cycle that they do, the U.S. government with the government. It's incestuous, which is why the cross-pollination of executives between the regulatory agencies and the companies is that much more disturbing. So you mentioned anaphylaxis as inevitable, which, yeah, but aren't there

other adverse events that they're worried about too, given any particular vaccine product? So anaphylaxis, you may think of very narrowly and I did too, you know, as all healthcare professionals today I talk to, they all think that way. So everybody thinks that anaphylaxis is only type one reaction when somebody drops immediately on the ground because their blood pressure dropped very quickly. I witnessed it with COVID injections walking into a grocery store. I saw it. And so that's the type one reaction.

But it turns out, so Charles Richet was a French researcher in 1913, was given a Nobel Prize for his work on anaphylaxis. And so he has demonstrated clearly that injection of any non-self protein, any, and this includes not just toxins, but any protein that's considered benign, like milk, like cereal, like corn protein, soy protein, peanut oil, gelatin. You know, all those components of vaccines, when injected, induce anaphylaxis. And anaphylaxis is anything from mild rash and, you know, some kind of an allergy to a very severe shock. And it's the same phenomenon. At the same time, people were introducing this idea of colonic allergy, and he said it's inappropriate because it's the same underlying condition. And it's unpredictable.

So you don't know who is going to get anaphylactized by what and to what severity. And then today, with the COVID vaccine, we worry about the pathological mechanism being the spike protein being produced in quantities that are out of control or at least enough to cause adverse events. And again, do you have any theory? One of the questions I keep asking is why,

if they're so hell bent on vaccine, and I want you to tell me about that vaccine distribution or vaccine, everyone needs want you to tell me about that vaccine distribution, or vaccine everyone needs to be vaccinated mandate. Why only the mRNA vaccines? Why can't we use Covaxin?

Why can't we use Novavax? Why do we have to use something that produces the pathogenic mechanism? You know what I mean? Forget the platforms, forget the nuclear, forget everything else. Just we're only going to use the vaccine produces the protein that we know is the problem

as opposed to whole virus alternatives. What is going on there? Do you have any theory? Well, so it's a very interesting question. Yes, why everyone went that way, even for the IP reasons, you know, different pharma companies wanted to compete with each other. The intellectual property situations typically drive them

to use different mechanisms, not the same. So here we have this very strange, right? So I think this is the choice of mRNA platform was driven by the U.S. government because mRNA, Moderna is a US government, specifically military company. It was funded by DARPA, by BARDA and by the Department of Defense. And they've thrown huge amounts of money behind it, both from the formation of the company in around 2010-11 up until to COVID when they gave them these huge contracts without the company ever producing any product before.

And so I think that choice of mRNA is driven by whoever's financial interest. Let me give the kindest sort of blush on it and say, look, it was an emergency. We were in a hurry. This platform provided the opportunity to produce something that we knew would create immune reaction fast and just be able to manufacture it up and distribute it widely.

I almost fault, I fault very little of what happened during Alpha and Delta because there was a lot of emergency stuff done. But you react differently in an emergency than way down the line when things are no longer an emergency. And in fact, we're treating a different illness now.

It's called Omicron. It's a different illness. And the risk of the vaccine remains the same. The risk of the illness has dropped dramatically. And you still are fearful of something about the illness. I don't know quite what. Everyone's freaking out about Omicron. But okay, some neurological injury.

Okay, some cardiac stuff. Okay, why not Covaxin? Why not the whole viral alternative if somebody really has strong feelings against the mRNA platform? Right. Well, that's because, as I said, it comes back to who owns that platform? Who owns the mRNA platform? Who is going to benefit from it. And we now have a whole company. It's also a U.S. government company.

It's backed by the CIA. Scott Gottlieb on the board of directors. It's called National Resilience, who is the manufacturer of these juices for everyone. So they get cooked up in this national resilience behemoths, which brought up a whole bunch of biological manufacturing facilities from pharma companies, cranking out these shorts, owning the IP, getting the royalties, getting the profits, sending this to everyone who then rebadges it into Pfizer, Moderna, Omicron, Delta, whatever, right? But the interests are held by those people,

so they need to be questioned. We need to question those members of the Board of Director of National Resilience, of Moderna, of Pfizer, you know, about their interests and who are they tied to. And you will see very quickly that it all comes back, the strings go back to the cia the dod the the u.s government who is pushing this otherwise there is no explanation is that well yeah i know i'm

struggling still three years out here but but uh you mentioned uh the government says you have to vaccinate everybody and that comes from the cdc or somebody and you said I'll tell you about that later I want you to tell me about that now well so uh so that also points to intent to harm and an intent to harm going back decades maybe a couple of centuries and so the because as I said because of the knowledge of uh of the effect of anaphylaxis and because of the knowledge of uh what are the components of those vaccineshylaxis, and because of the knowledge of what are the components of those vaccines, which resided primarily with the U.S. government, it got pushed into the private sector, but as you can see, also comes back now through the military to this new mRNA platform. But it's been known and documented that the people, relevant people in CDC and their predecessors, whoever

the public health service were, they knew about how toxic vaccines are and that you can't really vaccinate without avoiding the effects of anaphylaxis, hypersensitizing everyone. And it's almost, you know, there are some authors that are saying, who studied this for longer than I am, they're saying it's almost like they don't care what's in those brews as long as they inject everyone and they inject everyone with these random sets of proteins that eventually hypersensitize almost everyone to something and eventually that something arrives later on and it causes a severe reaction it causes autoimmune condition causes cancer or causes something else but it's sort of a built-in mass poisoning system that's been there and as you

and as you know the the push to vaccinate everyone and vaccinate more and more and more is has escalated dramatically so where before the vaccine schedule was three to five shots, now it's 70 shots by the age of 18. If you have 70 chances of anaphylactizing somebody by the time, and actually 27 before they're two years old. So if you have 27 shots in your Russian roulette thing, do you think you're going to hit it? Yes.

That's why we have the epidemic of chronic illness, of anything. And we have children now that you can't have children's parties anymore because they're all allergic to something. Talk about, I want you to switch gears for two, I have two sort of remaining questions. One, switch gears for a second

and tell me about the so-called self-replicating vaccine that was being discussed. I'm worrying about the excesses on all sides. And to me, this was evidence of people getting carried away again. Yes. So, yeah, just to briefly address it. As I looked at manufacturing before, I found that mRNA vaccines are not produced to what the label says at all, not even close. So there are general things found in them, such as RNA, DNA in very, very large quantities, toxic metals that are not supposed to be there at all, other contaminants, even macro things floating around. So all these things found, not a single vial that I'm aware of has been found to conform to the label. So they're telling you, you're getting a Toyota Prius and the next variant will come out and you will need a Jeep.

And the next variant will come out, Maybe you will need a Yaris. So you have an idea in your head that this Delta, Omicron, and something else, they have these distinct properties. And these products are designed specifically. We will take the sequence of Delta and we will put it into here and it will produce this spike protein in your body. None of this happens. They don't have the Yaris, the Jeep, the Prius, whatever. They don't have any of that.

They're just globes of metal. They're giving you one globe of metal and then another one and saying this one is a little bit heavier and this one is a little bit lighter. That's the only difference between them. And that's the only thing that they can measure in their manufacturing process. These products are just complete mess so to say that oh you know now you have you're going to have a self-replicating one meaning that oh we have now another sequence that has another

piece of sequence that creates this replicon situation and it produces more. It's nonsense. If you can't make a forward focus, you can't make a turbo forward focus. So they can't make them. Yeah. Good. So that's nonsense. I don't know why it's not being it's weird that it floated around out there as a story for a long time without

much pushback, but thank you for sort of helping clarify that. I mean, you probably pushed back on X, but I'll happily amplify that. I'm not saying they're safe. They're completely unsafe. They should not be injected. But it's not going to like, oh my God, it's going to end humanity. No, it's not going to end humanity. Just don't inject these

things. They're just as bad as the other ones. And then my last question before I let you go is, you're pointing at the US government and the cozy relationships with some of these manufacturers. Why did the whole world go along with this? That to me is one of the biggest mysteries of the entire COVID experience, other than maybe it's just a new world order in the sense that we are all so connected in ways we didn't realize. What's your theory? I mean, and picked up with the same enthusiasm,

sometimes more in some areas, both not just in terms of vaccines, but in terms of lockdowns and masking, all these things that were essentially, and not the vaccine so much, but certainly the non-pharmaceutical interventions were the products and interventions of the Chinese Communist Party

and sort of picked up in Italy and then dispersed to the world. What the heck? What's your theory about what happened? Well, so this wasn't a surprise. COVID wasn't a surprise. COVID was pre-planned, obviously. So this shows evidence of pre-planning.

And I'm not just saying that the behavior, but we actually did look at the law as well and when those laws were put in place. And so the laws have been harmonized to this pandemic preparedness, public health emergency laws are very, very similar in the US, in the EU, in UK, all the especially five countries and then the rest of the world as well, pretty much harmonized to the same. But hold on. But hold on. So it is all that international pandemic preparedness stuff we heard about, you know, the different war gaming and stuff. You're saying that harmonized the entire world, which I get. But we largely abandoned our pandemic preparedness plan.

There was no six-foot distancing. There was no lockdowns in our Pandera. And yet we went, we ran to that side of the boat and everybody went with us. Right. So because also when they announced it, they announced it as a military emergency. So in the U.S., on February 4th,

a phone call went out to all pharma companies telling them COVID is a national security threat when we had less than 10 cases in the U.S. Colonel Matt Hepburn made that phone call. I'm still, I would like him to be subpoenaed to the Congress and ask his question, who gave him the authority? How did you hear about this? I didn't even hear about it. How did you hear about this?

I have a leaked audio from AstraZeneca, including their CEO, Pascal Soro, discussing this in an internal AstraZeneca meeting. You need to come back and can we play that? Yes, we can play that. Yes, we can play that. And so that alliance was started in 2017 between DARPA and AstraZeneca. So, as I'm telling you, there's been a lot of years of pre-planning of this exercise, harmonizing the laws, making sure that when the military says, oh, it's a military exercise now. Remember Mike Pompeo said we're in live exercise and Trump was very surprised on air. So, okay, so that's when that shift happened and the military took over what was supposed to be a civilian public health emergency. So that's why people that were in public health behaved so strangely.

Because the behavior was inexplicably strange. And why this was Redfield or Redfield invented six feet out of thin air because somebody in the military was probably literally holding a gun over his head. Is there, do you have a thread on this? I have, I published an article. I'm very happy to come back and play that audio on your show. And people can assure themselves that this was, first of all, a pre-planned exercise, pre-practiced all over the world. And then the military switched the tables on them immediately, telling them it's beyond your pay grade. It's national security.

Now we're in charge. Doesn't that suggest that there was something about the viral release that had a, you know, like you said, a national security, weapons of mass destruction sort of quality? You're a yes, okay. Well, so yes and no. So there are layers of lying that is involved here. So the first layer is it's a zoonotic virus that jumped from a bat. And everybody believed that and remember

how much how much censorship went on if anybody tried to question that right okay so that's the first layer the second layer after a few years of this and fighting and truce is coming out they're like okay fine we lied about the the pangolin but we it was national security because bad chinese people cooked up a virus and released it from the lab, right? Forgetting that NIH gave money and ordered specifically what virus to cook up. And also, you can't really make a pandemic virus. It's probably another longer discussion, but you can't make a pandemic-causing virus in the lab. You can make poison. You can deploy poison. But you can't make something that just like walks out and infects the entire world for a variety of scientific reasons.

Very well documented. So that part is also not quite real. They just use it as a narrative, as a very useful, scary narrative for people to fall in line so that they can tell to a public health professional, it's a military situation. Don't worry about it. It's national security. Just go and do this. And they go do this because they think that, oh yeah, maybe there's some secret stuff came out from the lab. And that's how they just get people to comply with it. Wow. Well, listen, I have to let you go. I want to do a part two with the AstraZeneca tape. Where can I

see the article you wrote, or can you send it to me? I will send the link to you and to Emily, yeah. Okay, beautiful. This has been very interesting. I knew things would have evolved since we last spoke. I didn't know it would be quite this astonishing, and I need to read up. I didn't know it would be quite this astonishing.

And I need to read up. I need to follow your evidence and see what I think about it. So I do appreciate you sharing with there, but I don't know if everyone is quite as gobsmacked as I am by what you said. There's like 20 different things that you have pointed out today that I want to, you know, in my brain was thinking, huh, really? Which one stood out the most? The AstraZeneca tape. I'm starting to swim in some of it because so many of it had exclamation points at the end of the comments. But the fact that defense took over, the coordination internationally, the fact that it became a military exercise, the fact that the drug companies were engaged, and of course, there's the NIH funding the research in Wuhan. I mean, this all has to be, these lines of evidence need to be kind of

almost like you need a giant flowchart. Is there a flowchart on your article? I haven't made a flowchart. I haven't made a flowchart yet. But there is actually, yeah, I also have Australian colleagues who have traced the same situation

from Australia. It's showing the same scenarios and the same pre-planning activities, the same situation from Australia. It's showing the same scenarios and the same pre-planning activities, the same law. So it's undeniable that this was pre-planned. But I'll be happy to come back. But I mean, you can, I always try not to put a sinister twist to it.

Like, yes, it was plea-panned because they thought they were doing the right thing, and then it got used to do not the right thing. And so, you know, here we are. And then within that was a lot of question marks about why was it a national security threat? Why is the Department of Defense calling the shots? Why is everyone in the world

listening to our Department of Defense? Was it something that we funded? You know, again, we need that flow chart. But Sasha, please keep going. I appreciate you sharing the information with us. I think I got all my questions answered for the moment. And let's find Sasha. Let me put out your particulars.

SashaLatipova.substack, which I'm sure you can read more about some of these fascinating ideas. And on XSasha underscore Latipova, L-A-T-Y-P-O-V-A. Let me quickly look at the restreams here. Susan, anything going on in the rants or anything that I should be aware of?

Susan? No, but I was going to say, I don't know if you remember on Dose of Dr. Drew when you and I used to do the little live stream and I kept saying, I don't know, this just looks like a weapon of mass destruction. And it leaked out and China was planning this the whole time. Like I always said that. Susan's been concerned about this. And we should get you in, what's our Chinese scientist name?

You probably know her, Sasha. Caleb will remember, i can't yawn yeah yeah dr yawn yeah you did my pronouncing name right what's the first name i believe it's uh li ming yang i believe li ming yang li ming yang she she she worked on the virus for the people's liberation army in hong kong and uh was told she'd be disappeared if she spoke up and she came over here. She had to come over here. So she has lots of ideas.

It'd be interesting to get the two of you side by side and see how these things sort of overlap. So, all right, listen, thanks again. And sleep well tonight. I know I might have trouble, but thank you for sharing all this with us and we'll see you again soon. So, and we're going to take a break.

Of course, we're going to take a break here and we are going to bring Dr. Jay Bhattacharya in here. He put on the Stanford Pandemic Conference, which is a model for how we should be moving forward with our analysis of what happens. We don't make these mistakes. Again, people with differing opinions getting together and doing science and sharing ideas. Shocking. Imagine that. Isn't that what universities have been throughout human history? I guess during the Spanish Inquisition, not so much. Do we want to be like them? We want to be like the universities as they were meant to be. We'll be right back

with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya after this. I'm excited to bring you a new product, a new supplement, FATI. I take it. I make Susan take it. My whole family takes it. This comes out of, believe it or not, dolphin research. The Navy maintains a fleet of dolphins, and a brilliant veterinarian recognized that these dolphins sometimes developed a syndrome identical to our Alzheimer's disease. Those dolphins were deficient in a particular fatty acid. She replaced the fatty acid, and they didn't get the Alzheimer's. Humans have the same issue, and we are more deficient in this particular fatty acid than ever before. And a simple replacement of this fatty acid called C15 will help us prevent

these syndromes. It's published in a recent journal called Metabolites. It's a new nutritional C15, pentadecanoic acid, it's called. The deficiency that we are developing for C15 creates something called the cellular fragility syndrome. This is the first nutritional deficiency syndrome to be discovered in 75 years and may be affecting us in many ways and as many as one in three of us. This is an important breakthrough.

Take advantage of it. Go to fatty15.com slash drdrew to receive 15% off a 90-day starter kit subscription or use code drdrew at checkout for that 15% off or just go to our website drdrew.com slash fatty15. Many of us have not gotten over COVID. I'm not talking about the virus itself, but the response. We were flabbergasted about what the government could do to us. There is no telling what they might pull next time, and it's looking more like there will be a next time.

So we all have to be what I call rationally ready. That's where the wellness company comes in. TWC is about access. Access to physicians via telehealth. Access to potentially life-saving medication. Years ago, having access to medication and telehealth might have seemed crazy, but now it seems crazy not to. Now, with claims that gain-of-function research have been done in the bird flu, I urge everyone to take control of their healthcare with the help of the wellness company. Go to drdrew.com slash TWC for 10% off all their products, including the four medical kits, each of which has a different purpose. And we've added Tamiflu to one of them in case the bird flu does become a problem for humans. Be rationally ready. DrDrew.com slash GWC for 10% off.

The smell is sexy. Or sushi. Or Dr. Drupinski. What? Yeah, we're so lucky to have some of these great sponsors. Again, they have the pediatric kits now with the EpiPens carefully sourced in terms of the price. Check genetics. We all should be doing that so we can know what medications our doctors should be prescribing and avoiding side effects. Fatty. As I say, I take fatty.

I make Susan take fatty. And now, seeing that we're going to talk about paleo and that the chicken sticks are back in stock, paleo valley. These guys made me crave a beef stick. You can read more about the chickens at drdew.com slash paleo valley. They're one of my favorite in addition to the venison and the beef. Chicken sticks does come in two varieties. And they're only like, I think, 40 calories, maybe 60 calories. They're very low and high in nutrition. They have a buffalo-style teriyaki style. And at Paleo Valley, the chickens

are all pasture-raised. They're carefully sourced, as is the beef stick. Protein sticks are nutritionally dense. Seven grams of protein, amino, essential amino acids, of course, because these are good sources of protein. B12, niacin, selenium, antioxidants, phosphorus for bone health, and they're 50 calories. 50 calories in each chicken stick. Get them while you last. They're drdrew.com paleovalley for 15% off your first order.

Better yet, subscribe so you save 20% and you don't ever run out. That is drdrew.com paleovalley. You know what's really cute? What's that? I opened up a beef stick, and all of a sudden, Georgina came running through the curtain and was just staring at me like, can I have a bite?

Yep. So she loves them too. And so do I. They're healthy for your dog? Yep. We really like... She's 15. It's almost odd how much Paleo Valley

is part of our regular nutritional plan. You got to let a dog that's 15, whatever it wants, right? We've got the bone broth, we've eaten our coffee. Yep. Why didn't I? Yep, yep. All right, let's get Dr. Jay Bhattacharyan here, a physician. He's an epidemiologist.

He's a decorated professor. You can follow him on X at drjbhattacharya, B-H-A-T-T-A-C-H-A-R-Y-A. And he very kindly joined us today on a moment's notice to give us a report on the pandemic conference that he held. Was it over the weekend? It just happened. Welcome, Jay.

It was Friday. Yeah, it was Friday. Thanks for having me on, Doctor. Listen, I was so excited about this. Don't be silly, of course. As I've said, you to me are the poster child for the excesses of the pandemic. And as such, I love that you're leading the charge

to take a good hard look at where this thing did well and where it jumped the shark and where it jumped off the rails. I was mortified that there were weird, people were taking aim at the conference, which I found reprehensible and sort of inexcusable, that the idea that to attack the idea

that clinicians and experts come together to share ideas is somehow anathema to the current functioning of a university. That is disgusting that anybody even suggests that, but tell me about that first, and then tell me about what you learned. Yeah. So the conference itself, I've been trying to get Stanford, where I work as a professor, to have a conference like this for four years, Drew. And it's really, it was a big, I was stressed out for three months

trying to organize it and get, but the university really stepped up to the plate. I was really happy with my department. I thought so too. I mean, and the president of the university gave opening remarks where he emphasized, he didn't take sides on any of these issues, but he said, look, we're a place,

Stanford is a place where these kinds of discussions are supposed to happen. We're a university after all, right? And he, yeah, I think that that was a big step. And then the people who came to the conference were amazing. Anders Tegnell, who led the Swedish COVID response, was on a panel. My Great Britain Declaration colleague, Sunetra Gupta, was on a panel. Actually, she was on two panels.

One panel where she agreed with me on various things about the pandemic management. On another panel where she disagreed with me on the origins of COVID. It was a really, really interesting collegial exchange. My department chair was there who very vehemently disagreed with me about lockdowns. But he stepped up and defended his positions in civil conversation with people like Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins University, Martin Kulldorff. Oh, I'm sorry. I know Martin didn't.

Unfortunately, Martin couldn't make it. B'nai Prasad. You know, and we talked about, we talked about how to manage a pandemic, global impacts of pandemic management, censorship, and COVID origins, like really, really hot button topics with people that disagree with each other.

It's exactly what a university is supposed to do is host those kinds of discussions. Yeah, Vinay has become clear and red hot in his positions over the last few months. And I was really, really interested to see his presence there. Because, you know, I found, Vinay used to do a, maybe still does it, a podcast called, oh, shoot, I'm blanking what it was called.

Sea Dog. But it was, he was, no, no, no, it was before that. He did essentially a literature review of oncology publications as they came out. And I used to listen to him because I thought, wow, I'm fascinated by people that can penetrate literature of various types. Like I like philosophers that can read Kant and penetrate it and understand it and then explain it to me. And I feel the same way about certain oncological publications because he could contextualize it.

He could criticize it. He could understand it with great clarity and then present it to any of his listeners. It was called plenary sessions. Plenary sessions, it was called back in the day. And I thought, wow, this guy is really so, such a great thinker and such an asset. And then COVID. And then he started, his opinions started moving around

and then they sort of lit fire in the last six months or so. But with the same clarity as he applied to everything else he's always done. And did any sort of consensus get reached in the course of all this? Well, I think everybody agreed

that whatever it is that we did, the United States was a total disaster. Like we closed schools, we United States was a total disaster. We closed schools, we lead to tremendous harm to children. So I think at the very least, we all agreed on that, whether whatever you thought the right policy was. That's amazing. That's amazing. That's a thing. That's something because that's been Vinay's point all along. It's like you close schools for no reason. You hurt kids, please. And then you mask two-year-olds. This is other thing.

And both of which have no justification in terms of benefits. Yeah, I mean, like, I think there was some interesting discussion about, well, what happens, what you do when there's like real uncertainty, right at the moment, right? So could you justify doing something?

I mean, of course I have a position. I actually tried to stay out of it, Drew, because I didn't want to put my thumb on the scale since I was like one course, I have a position. I actually tried to stay out of it, Drew, because I didn't want to put my thumb on the scale since I was like one of the organizers of the conference. I wanted to like

have everybody feel comfortable having their say. And as you know, everyone knows my positions anyway, so they're not that interesting to articulate over and over. But hold on, but hold on.

Let me ask this. It seemed like a lot of the, consistently, the tent that everyone runs into is, we didn't know. We didn't know. And how come Jay Bhattacharya knew? How come Drew Pinsky knew Jay Bhattacharya was right? How do we know?

And I would argue, we didn't panic. We used our usual brain, our usual risk-reward analysis, and we arrived at a conclusion. These people were in a panic. And I think that was the error, is to allow emotion to determine your public policy. I mean, it's not that I disagree with that. Of course, I agree with that. The issue for me is how do you change structures so that knowing that people will panic, even experts might panic, How do you have a structure so that good decisions nevertheless get made? So to me, the key thing is you have to impanel

these discussions of people that disagree even when you think you shouldn't. Even when it's like there's an emergency. So early. Right away. But by the way, that's what Ron DeSantis did, didn't he? You went down and did that panel with a couple other Nobel laureates and things,

and he sat and you gave him the literature, he read it, you talked amongst yourselves, you sat at a panel, and he made a decision. And guess what? It happened to be the right decision in terms of outcome. And no one did saying that out loud. I mean, nobody has the monopoly on the truth. And people can make decisions,

they end up getting fixated on certain ideas. The way we correct that is by talking to each other. And you mentioned earlier at the beginning of this, Drew, this kind of counterattack to the conference. You know, I was trying to think about why this counterattack is happening. The problem, here's the premise. I'm going to put myself in their shoes, right? So why are they attacking me and Stanford for having this conference?

Yes. What they object to is that they think that by Stanford having a conference and them, those people who were in favor of lockdowns and all the other things early in the pandemic, if they appear with me, they platform me. They give me, they essentially authenticate my authority. Please, I choke on that word. That word is, that is a word that has been invented to be used to silence people

who are trying to have free speech and discourse. There is no such thing as platforming. For God's sake, I ran a show on HLN for 10 years where I interviewed Nazis and all kinds of interesting people. Is that platforming them? No, I just interviewed them and wanted to hear how their brains worked. And so we could really examine things carefully. This idea of platforming, this is a propaganda word.

I choke on it. I hate it. Sorry. I don't want that word. I mean, I obviously don't like this kind of reasoning. I'm trying to look at it from their point of view, right? But ironically, and this is the thing, by having this conference at Stanford with people from lots of different points of view reasoning with each other, the people that are attacking the conference because

they've platformed people like me, ironically, they've de-platformed themselves. They've taken themselves out of the conversation, right? And it's, you know, it's the conversation itself is the cure for the problem that you suggested earlier. The conversation is how we get to the truth because nobody has a monopoly on it. We learn from each other, right? So I saw you publicly trying very hard to get Peter Hotez onto the ship. He didn't come, and did he explain why he didn't come or anything? Yeah, I mean, we tried.

In addition to the public invitation on Twitter, one of the conference organizers actually reached out to him directly and invited him in very kind ways. He told me to fly him out directly on whatever, first cloud. And then Hotez's reasoning was that 200,000 Americans died

because of vaccine misinformation, because they hadn't taken the vaccine, and that by putting people like Vinay, Marty Macri, and others on the stage, it was platforming them, and that he didn't want to participate in that effort. And then, yeah, it was just, it's funny, like, Hotez wrote a book called The Rise of Anti-Science.

He might have been writing about himself. I'm not sure. I haven't read the book. But my friend who helped organize the conference invited him to come and say, look, you can even promote the book. And my friend offered to voice Hotez's criticism to the panel that he was moderating, which was on misinformation, which he actually did, so people could respond to what Hotez's ideas were.

I wanted Peter's ideas at the conference. It is not a bad thing to have them. I'm not threatened by them. I don't agree with them, but I'm not threatened by them being articulated and then reasoned over. Maybe I'll learn something. Drew, I just don't understand this idea

that we should get rid of people because they have ideas I disagree with. It doesn't make any sense to me. Well, it made sense to chairman mao and it made sense to uh lisenko during the early years of uh of stalin i mean i mean is it it is it the his the and it made sense to the spanish inquisition so so mean, just look at the historical antecedents and which group do you want to be a part of? I mean, do you want to be part of the ones that said, let's welcome speech and open discourse

or the one that was the propaganda machines that silenced anybody that had contrary opinions? It's so apparent, but whatever. I mean, my great concern about Dr. Hotez, he's a lovely guy. He really is. Is I would like to know how he got up publicly and repeatedly changed his opinion as though he hadn't had a previous opinion about how many vaccines and what boosters and all that. Like, how did you do that? What were you thinking at the time?

Because each time you came up, you said with new certitude, it's always been a two-part vaccine. And then fast forward a month, it's always been a vaccine with boosters. It's like, well, if it's always been that, why didn't you tell us? Or what were you thinking? I'm just curious about that. And then secondly, I am getting very concerned about pediatricians having fiat opinions over adult medical doctors and opinions. I want their opinions in here, but for them, again, so many of the vaccine, infectious disease, public health personnel are pediatricians. And did I tell you about my conversation with Dr.

Hotez? Did I ever share this with you? No. He was in a panic. He, by the way, panicked. He was in a panic that if he got COVID, his brain would shrink. Haven't you read the British literature about the brain shrinkage? And I thought, well, I have, and it concerns me. But then I thought, oh, shit, he doesn't understand that anytime an adult gets a serious illness, we get brain shrinkage. In fact, I have an article, it's here on my

computer right now, I don't have it up, I have a different computer, about the mechanism for brain shrinkage during pregnancy and during severe illness in the elderly. It happens routinely. And guess what? Most of the time, at least if it doesn't get too bad,

and if we're at a certain age, we recover. And there are things we can do to help ourselves recover. And we all kind of know those things these days. But he was convinced that he would lose his cognition if he got COVID. And he did not have any clinical experience to understand how adults deal with severe illness. And of course, it would affect him because guess what? Kids don't get that. Kids don't have that. They don't get that reaction.

Adults get that reaction. And so I thought, wow, his entire vaccine panic is around that phenomenon that is not in his judgment arsenal around infectious diseases. He doesn't have the right clinical experience to make a call, a risk-reward call around that particular issue that he's so focused on. So I don't know if, I'm sure that didn't come up during the conference, but that's one of the things I'm concerned about in terms of public health policy. Well, I mean, that just points to the fact that we need to be speaking to each other. There's not, you remember early in the pandemic, you couldn't speak unless you're an epidemiologist. Only epidemiologists apparently know how to order all of society during a pandemic.

So it was an absolutely insane kind of reductionist approach to the kind of expertise needed. You know, I would rather have had philosophers in charge. I would rather have had theologians in charge than the epidemiologist who thought- No, I get that. I get that. Yeah. And I think we just need to be much more tolerant of each other.

And I think like Dr. Hotez, I don't know. I mean, I just, I don't know what else to say about him. Maybe the less said the better. I do think like for just- Let's get him to a conference. Let's get him to a conference. Let's get him to a conference.

We got to get everybody on the ship and start functioning again as a scientific community. The fact that we don't is heartbreaking on certain levels. Adults. I guess there's a weird

thing about academia these days where alternative opinions aren't any opinions. There's a canon and that's it. Thus saith the Lord. And that is contrary. I'm so glad to see Stanford not being like that. It's a breath of fresh air.

It's sort of surprising. That's radical. Yeah. In 2020, I've been at Stanford now for almost 25 years, or I suppose 24 years now. And in 2020, I was so disappointed in the university. I've collected a lot of swag over the years, you know, hats, like T-shirts, sweatshirts and stuff.

I almost burned them all. I mean, I was like, okay, I was so disappointed in the university. And now after the conference, I went and bought a hat. I don't think I have. I bought another hat. I'm wearing a Stanford red shirt underneath. I mean, I'm pretty proud of the university all of a sudden. Because I mean, it has to be for.

No, listen, you said that when we were in Canada. You talked about how much you love being in academia and how much you love Stanford. That came ringing through to me. And so when this conference happened, I thought, wow, this is good. And then the president speaking to me, that was a cherry on top.

Yeah, it was quite something. And I think the idea is that this should not be a one-off. I'm hoping that having Stanford hold a conference like this, it authorizes universities all across the world to start holding conferences like this. The idea is to have a conference like this. It authorizes universities all across the world to start holding conferences like this. The idea is to have a, you know, like we're not, it's not going to,

it's going to take a long time. What happened during COVID was so complicated, affecting so many aspects of life, not just medicine, that it's going to take a long time for us to process and unwind. And that means we're going to need

lots and lots of, lots and lots of people talking to each other. And I hope universities all around the world take this up and start saying, let's hold these conversations. Let's figure out how to be a society that responds to pandemics better than we did the last one. I have another one, Susan.

We got to go to the next one. We can sit and take it in. And for sure, I would like to go to another one of those those wherever it should occur, but especially up under your umbrella. You know, there's another layer to this, too. I just before you was talking to Sasha Latapova, and apparently there's a Department of Defense component of this that I didn't realize how pervasive and how its tentacles were sort of reaching out into so many of the inexplicable aspects of the pandemic response. I'm trying to get her to put together a flow chart as she understands it. She says the same findings were uncovered by her Australian colleagues independently of her work. So if I can get that, that would be interesting also to sort of, I'll send it your way,

to sort of, again, these layers to all the complexities. Well, you know, I heard the tail end of that conversation. I didn't get here the full of it. I will say this, a couple of things that I've learned. One is that in the US, I don't have security clearance or special access. This stuff is just out that I've learned from reading unclassified stuff. First, the CDC wasn't the primary decision-making body in the US, as you might've expected during a public health event, right? It was actually the National Security Council in 2020,

the National Security Council, which is actually a striking thing. Like essentially the federal government treated this more like a bioterror event than a public health event. Like normally the public health- Well, I mean- And that's the question we have to ask ourselves if maybe it was some something on that level we just don't know it yet well it's you know i don't know exactly but i mean my what i've seen is that it's very likely

was a lab leak an unanticipated lab leak it was a lab leak that at a lab that the u.s government in china that the u.s government supported with research that where It was a lab leak at a lab in China that the U.S. government supported with research where there was a Defense Department proposal not funded by the Defense Department in 2018 that looked like a recipe for how you create a

pandemic virus. This virus. Yeah, exactly. Publicly available knowledge. Yeah, it's called the Taffuse proposal, and DARPA was the agency that denied it. But it was a recipe for how to do it. You know, I don't know for certain.

This is the kind of thing where, like, governments have very strong incentives to cover it up. The researchers themselves that were involved have very strong incentives to cover it up. But it looks very, very, very fishy. It seems very likely that this was like that. Certainly, what I can say is that the normal public health response to a pandemic that I would have expected is not what happened in 2020.

What happened, the lockdowns were an absolutely extraordinary inversion of what I thought normally we would do to respond to a virus that spreads by aerosols, respiratory virus kind of pandemic. It just didn't make any sense to me. But if it were a mistaken response to a bioterror, like thinking it's a bioterror event, well, let's lock down. It's the kind of thing you do if there's a, you know, like in some horrible sci-fi movie

about Andromeda strain or something. Although that's a great book, by the way. But yeah, I mean, it would make a lot more sense in that sense. But then the question is, how can we be robust to that? We should not be doing bioterror responses to public health events. Yeah, that's right. And let me just point out that that was exactly the reaction I had back when it all happened, which is like, this is not making any sense at all. It's opposite. Since when the last time we quarantine healthy people was in Venice in the 11th century, and it was a huge mistake. And then you proposed in the Great Barrington Declaration to propose to quarantine sick people and at risk populations.

Nothing shocking about that. But when it comes to pandemic preparedness, I've spoke to some people who were on the pandemic preparedness committees, and the pandemic preparedness looked nothing like what we did. We abandoned all the pandemic preparedness, which is essentially isolate sick people, mitigate risk. CDC serves a advisory function to clinicians. Local clinicians make the decisions. None of that happened. It all came from on high in this centralized way

that was shocking. And then people with centralized authority like county health officials, state health officials, hospital administrators, took the rest of these, sucked up the rest of the authority and did exactly what the superior authorities were saying, which was the wrong thing, not the right thing.

And it was dangerous and it was destructive. And they maintained it in states like this where authoritarianism appears to be attractive way longer than they should have and harmed more people as a result. That's the reality of what happened. Why did it happen like that is still yet to be answered. And I think we got to answer it so we can mitigate

the potential of that ever happening again. Unless it's appropriate. We can specify when it is appropriate. You know what I mean? This was not that time. It would have to be an absolutely extraordinary set of circumstances. It's really hard to think of a kind, like if you have, suppose you have a very deadly virus and it doesn't spread

but it doesn't spread all that easily. Take Ebola or something. Lockdown is the wrong response. Local quarantine is the right response. It would have to be something like the kind of virus or pathogen would have to be very, very, very extraordinary. And you'd have to account for the fact that the lockdown is not going to work for very long, if at all, especially for the vast majority of the human populations that cannot lock down. So it's hard to think of a scenario where this would have been the right response.

Actually, one thing we could do is, I've joined an organization called Biosafety Now. They joined the advisory board. And the goal of it is to have public oversight of scientific experiments like these gain-of-function responses. Right now what happens is the scientists themselves can decide whether to take risks that involve potentially putting everyone on Earth at risk. I think the public should have a say in that. And there's a bill that's now going through the U.S. Senate

that would allow the public to have a role in saying whether scientists... You know, it's kind of like, I don't know if you ever saw, if you saw or read about the, about the nuclear, the development of the nuclear bomb, you know, like the movie Oppenheimer, right? There were a lot of concern that just testing the nuclear bombs would create a chain reaction that would like destroy the earth. And they were like physicists doing these calculations saying, okay, is it going to do, is it going to do it or not?

Is it going to, They were like very, very concerned about that. The public didn't really have a say in that, did they? Like they're doing these experiments where if the math is just a little bit different, it consumes the earth. The question if you're going to do risky

scientific research is, shouldn't the public who is going to be impacted by this research have a say in whether it gets done? So there's this Risky Research Review Act put out by Senator Rand Paul to allow the public to have some say over whether those kinds of risks ought to be taken. That's good. I mean, Rand Paul has been spot on the whole way through on this thing. And yeah, you got to get him to one of these conferences too. It'd be very interesting if he would show up. Politicians are a little harder to get to come, but yeah, absolutely.

I bet. Are you, are you planning another one yet? Or is that just, is it too much? It's funny because I told you a three months of stress to organize this one. And I woke up sick the day, up sick two days after the conference. If you finish a final exam, your immune system's shot. And that's what happened to me. So I'm going to rest this week.

But I do want more of these. Oh, Susan, go ahead. You caught COVID? I don't think so. I think it's just a cold. All right, listen. Congratulations on this. This to me is a breakthrough moment.

I hope it continues to be a crucible that can be carried forward. I do feel like, I think there's going to be, people are so aversive. I think Stanford's going to have to continue to do it before anybody else picks it up and follows your lead, but they will if Stanford continues to lead the way. It's a perfect, it's a great university

to have leading this, and I think it's a feather in your cap and in the university's cap generally. I just want to see a restoration of public health as we know it, scientific discourse as we know it. There's so much that needs to be restored, scientific discourse as we know it. There's so much that needs to be restored.

I don't know. Hats off to you. I'll come up and buy my Stanford hat and tip it to you as well when the next conference happens. Thank you for having me on. Of course. Thank you for doing this. And any time you need to discuss anything else here,

please join us, okay? Appreciate it. All right, thanks so much. Yes, as I say to everyone all the time, Jay is the poster child for the excesses of the COVID experience. And my hope is that he will continue to lead us out so he can, he just needs to be at the front end of all this and I'm glad he is.

Okay, let's look at the schedule. I know. That's a pretty big deal to get the president of the university to allow this type of free speech. Like I didn't think we'd ever get back to that point. He spoke at it. He spoke. He did the opening speech.

And Stanford is up there with the, obviously with the Harvard's and the Princeton's and whatnot. I don't think anybody else in the Westvards and the Prinstons and whatnot. I don't think anybody else in the West could have had the impact that Stanford does. There are great institutions here, but if Caltech had done it, it would not have been the same thing. Having Stanford do it, I think, is very, very meaningful.

It does give me hope. Some people are seeing through the fog. The president of the university has got to be deep, deep, deep in all this stuff and see through the fog and be like well let's let's just let these people have some free speech let's not suppress everything from them that's that's what they teach in colleges right no they don't anymore they don't this is the point that's not really happening on college campuses as much as we imagine it is it needs to to be restored. Ideas need to be restored. Free speech has got to be our goal here. All right. I don't know if you have the full list up there, Caleb, but we have

an extraordinary list of guests coming up, including Alex Jones in here tomorrow, Robert Malone in on Thursday. I think I saw Malone at the conference. I'm not sure. I got to get Alex Jones on my show. Good luck with that. Absolutely. She'll be doing her show on Thursday afternoon. I'll be at noon on Thursday with Malone. Chef Andrew Gruel coming back. I think he's going to be in studio with us. Dr. Scott Atlas and Darshan Shah. Elizabeth Pibko and Brittany Meyer.

We have so many. And then Cheryl Atkinson just got booked. These are very significant guests with lots to say. Emily's on her game. Yeah, it's very exciting. It's just such a pleasure to talk to all these people. A few that aren't on this list, including Salty Cracker that we have booked in November

that you aren't seeing on here. Yes, Salty Cracker's back on the list. And I've talked to her about some other folks that I want to try to get that she's working hard on. So yeah, thank you so much to Emily and everybody for being a part of this. We've crossed 300,000 at Rumble. So we appreciate your support there.

On Rumble said that he's in college and it's all about just falling in line. Yeah, it is about being, towing a line. And so it's the opposite of what I thought college was, was learning to think and think for yourself. This is not something that is tolerated as well now.

Let's see. Looking at the restreams. If you want to pass the class, you have to go with whatever the professor says. Okay. Oceana did a, let's put a,

Super Chat says, I'm not sure if I get this, a campaign would be to be a clip of this show disappearing live when I mentioned alternative treatments. Oh yeah, that was, Caleb, you remember that? We had to go to other, when the YouTube would just drop out and we mentioned certain medicines and things. It's crazy.

Okay. So tomorrow we are here at three o'clock again, and it is Alex Jones. I, you know, I'm reflecting back on when RFK Jr. told me I was courageous for having him on a show and having a conversation. I feel like tomorrow I'm being courageous having Alex Jones on the show. We'll see how that goes. He. Jr. told me I was courageous for having him on a show and having a conversation. I feel like tomorrow I'm being courageous having Alex Jones on the show.

We'll see how that goes. He loves you. Listen, I'm committed to talking to everybody, and we'll see how that goes. He's getting everything taken away. Well, I'm interested in who Alex Jones is. No one ever talks to him about his story. He's an old radio guy,

and so I'm just interested in how he got to where he is now. So we're going to do a lot of that kind of talk. He started in Austin, Texas where I grew up. I do know that. He was on small radio there. I used to hear him on the radio. Oh yes. In my dad's truck when I was a kid, you would hear him yelling about stuff and

now being proven correct on at least a bunch of those things 20, 30 years later. So I definitely have some interesting, a couple of interesting questions for him about his history. I would love you to jump in early on that. Thank you for bringing stuff to the table. I had a long day today. I'm going to wrap it up right here.

We appreciate you guys being active on the rants and over on the restream. I'm looking again over there. Susan, anything else on your front? Somebody just asked if I was doing a show on Thursday. Yes, Molten Salt. Yes. Who is it? Oh, Molten Salt was asking the question.

Do you have a guest yet for Thursday? Emily Barsh. Emily Barsh can come in on Thursday? Wow, that would be interesting. We're putting together two psychics with two potential guests and Emily Barsh. Yeah, I'm working on it. It's coming together. Right.

Fair enough. It's going to be a good time. All right. Thank you so much for being here. We'll see you tomorrow at 3 o'clock. Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky. As a reminder, the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment. This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only.

I am a licensed physician, but I am not a replacement for your personal doctor, and I am not 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.