Ask Dr. Drew - Steve Kirsch on mRNA Spike Protein, VAERS Data & Sudden Deaths w/ Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew – Episode 161

Episode Date: January 4, 2023

Steve Kirsch – a tech entrepreneur who founded multiple billion-dollar companies and is an inventor of the optical mouse – has become an outspoken critic of Dr. Fauci and the United States' response to the coronavirus pandemic. Kirsch appeared with Bret Weinstein and Dr. Robert Malone to speak out on his research into the potential dangers of spike proteins. 「 LINKS FROM EPISODE: https://drdrew.com/12222022  」 Steve Kirsch is the founder of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF), the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, and speaks frequently about the pandemic on Twitter Spaces. He believes that repurposed drugs and early treatment are the fastest and easiest ways to end the pandemic, but fears that the financial priorities of pharma companies are blocking research and discussion of any alternatives to their vaccines. Steve retired at 64 after founding and selling multiple billion-dollar tech companies, including 1990's search engine Infoseek and Frame Technology Group. He has a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from MIT and is an inventor of the first optical computer mouse.  Follow Kirsch at https://twitter.com/stkirsch and at https://stevekirsch.substack.com/  「 SPONSORED BY 」 • BIRCH GOLD - Don’t let your savings lose value. You can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it. Claim your free, no obligation info kit from Birch Gold at https://birchgold.com/drew • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get 10% off with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. Hundreds of millions of people have received a COVID-19 vaccine, and serious adverse reactions are uncommon. Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician and Dr. Kelly Victory is a board-certified emergency specialist. Portions of this program will examine countervailing views on important medical issues. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.  「 ABOUT the SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 WITH DR. KELLY VICTORY 」 Dr. Kelly Victory MD is a board-certified trauma and emergency specialist with over 30 years of clinical experience. She served as CMO for Whole Health Management, delivering on-site healthcare services for Fortune 500 companies. She holds a BS from Duke University and her MD from the University of North Carolina. Follow her at https://earlycovidcare.org 「 GEAR PROVIDED BY 」 • BLUE MICS - Find your best sound at https://drdrew.com/blue • ELGATO - See how Elgato's lights transformed Dr. Drew's set: https://drdrew.com/sponsors/elgato/ 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 For over 30 years, Dr. Drew has answered questions and offered guidance to millions through popular shows like Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Dr. Drew On Call (HLN), Teen Mom OG (MTV), and the iconic radio show Loveline. Now, Dr. Drew is opening his phone lines to the world by streaming LIVE from his home studio. Watch all of Dr. Drew's latest shows at https://drdrew.tv Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Appreciate you being here. Of course, we'll be watching you on the Rumble Rants and out there on the Restream. And those of you over on Twitter spaces, do listen along. I don't believe we'll be taking calls today, but there's a possibility if you do want to be, ask a question of our guest or either of the hosts, you just raise your hand there and I'll try to see you and get you up to the podium. on multiple platforms. So today it is Steve Kirsch. We've had Steve on before. Steve has been very vocal in his concerns about vaccine therapy. His history, he has had retired after founding and selling multiple tech companies, including research engine InfoTech, excuse me, InfoSeek, as well as Frame Technology Group. He has a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from MIT. And he was an inventor of the first optical computer mouse. Of course, Kelly Victory is here to help me out. So let's get right to it. Our laws as it pertained to substances

are draconian and bizarre. The psychopath started this. He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction, fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous. I'm a doctor for f***'s sake. Where the hell do you think I learned that? I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people.

I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat. If you have trouble, you can't stop and you you want to help stop it, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say.

BetMGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long. From tip-off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with the sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with BetMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season.

Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM, a sportsbook worth a slam dunk and authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you please contact connex ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge bet mgm operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming ontario and although i have more to say uh at the present moment i want to bring steve right in here please welcome steve kirsch There you are. So Steve, do me a favor. Do me a favor. If you could just sketch for people who may not have seen you before or heard you before,

just how you got into all this, the fluvoxamine study, just kind of a brief sketch. And then I'm going to ask you to bring me up to the present from when we last spoke. Sure. So when COVID hit, I stayed out of the office because we were kind of locked out and started doing research as to how I could help and found that early treatment was considered to be the safest, fastest, cheapest way to end the pandemic. So I put in a million dollars of my own money, raised 5 million from other people, and started asking for grant proposals for early treatments. One of those proposals was for fluvoxamine. Fluvoxamine was very successful in the phase two trial, and then it was replicated in a real-world trial by David Seftel, and that

led to it being featured on 60 Minutes. And even with the evidence at hand, which was extremely compelling, the FDA said, man, we're not convinced. We want more trials. And then a phase three trial completed, and then they still did nothing on it. And so it was very clear that the FDA wasn't going to approve any kind of treatments with repurposed drugs for treating this disease, even if it saves lives. that should have been my tip off, but I still believe that the FDA was legit and that they, if they didn't approve fluvoxamine, which has virtually no downsides in the dosing and the duration that we're giving the fluvoxamine, if they don't approve that, then they must be like super strict. So the fact that they approve these vaccines and I thought, oh, this is new technology

that explains how they got it so fast. I kind of thought, okay, you know, FDA has been super strict in the past. I should trust them. So I got vaccinated in March right after the vaccines rolled out as soon as I could get it, basically, because I totally trusted the FDA and I trusted the CDC. And then about a month later, I started hearing horror stories from my friend. So one friend had three relatives who died within a week after they got the shot and they were perfectly healthy before that. And I did the math. I said, you know, this thing is only killing one out of a million. So we're looking at, you know, one, you know, basically one over

10 to the 16th. I mean, if you, sorry, six times, 10 to the 18th. Basically, there is no chance that this person was telling the truth if what we were told is true about the vaccines. And the standard for putting a vaccine on the market is like one death in a million people given the drug. So having three relatives die right after they got the vaccine, that was pretty stunning to me. And then a week later, one of my vendors that comes to service my house, they had a heart attack within two minutes after getting the vaccine. And his wife also was vaccine injured for months. It took her months to recover from her vaccine injury. So there are too many black swans. And so I started looking at the data. And then I wrote this huge article, a hundred page article that was in trial

site news on May 25th. They said it was went viral. And I basically said, Hey, should you, the article title was, should you be vaccinated? I went through the whole, everything I found in the month since I was woken up, all the evidence. And all the members of my scientific advisory board for my COVID-19 early treatment fund quit within a week. And I asked them, hey, was there an error in my analysis? And they said, no, you're a misinformation spreader and we don't want to talk to you again. Or actually, never contact us again. And so this is how we settle debates in science nowadays. You basically tell the other person, I never want to talk to you again, go away rather than to resolve the scientific differences. Because it used to be very collegial. We'd be

interested in what the truth is and have a nice discussion like we're going to have today. But nowadays, you disagree with what we think. And so therefore, you should be platform censored, intimidated. You should be fired and all that. So I had all of that happen to me. I was fired from my job, essentially. They said, look, it's either you keep your job and shut up, or if you don't want to shut up, then we're going to fire you. And so I voluntarily resigned at that point, because this is too important not to speak out. So that's the quick background. Quick thing to the present is that the evidence that we have collected right

now, and I would bet serious money on this, okay? And if anyone wants to bet serious money on this, believe me, I'm really anxious to take your money. So the numbers that we're seeing right now from the various polls and studies that we've done is two out of a thousand people will die from the vaccine uh who are vaccinated it's it's higher it's 30 out of a thousand if you are 65 or older uh but general population the overall statistics are two out of a thousand and so that means that if um and you have to put clay Clay, yeah, he has to put this disclaimer on. But this is just my research. This is what my research found.

And CDC clearly doesn't agree with me. But you can replicate this stuff yourself. Okay. And the numbers were, you know, just basically half a million people killed. And in the military five percent disabled and and then we were seeing more than a five to one number of deaths from the vax versus deaths from covid and we can talk about your your patients as well by the way yeah yeah we will we'll get into the numbers and stuff i want to get kelly in here for that, but I find myself, every guest, the part that I'm struggling with is what happened here? What happened to my profession? What happened to my fellow citizens?

What do we think happened? Let's start with fluvoxamine. Why do you think they resisted going forward with that so aggressively? Oh, I'm sure they were told they were told not to they got they got some sort of message from the nih saying don't do this uh don't approve this um because it made no sense you know we had a real world trial where the people who are the sickest opted for the drug which means it's better than randomized because in randomized you don't get a pick but here the people who felt really sick yeah i mean it just made no sense i remember the study i remember the study i i took the medicine for long covid and it really helped me it now i've had other people take it and not get so much help from it but but you know it's a total i did not was not even aware

i was taking it had no side effects, no, no even effects other than the ringing in my ears went away and I had a little more energy and things like that. And my thing, my syndrome seemed to resolve, uh, over about two weeks of therapy with the fluvoxamine, even though it had been stalled out for weeks and weeks and weeks prior to that coincidence. I don't know, maybe, maybe not, but I certainly did feel better. So it's just, again, I have this feeling, you know, Lieutenant Colonel Teresa Long told us yesterday that her public health training was that when you come up in an emergency like this, you come up with a unified, simplified message, and you just repeat it over and over and over again. And no one is allowed to deviate from that message under any circumstances. And I thought, wow, A, draconian, but B, prehistoric. Maybe when you had a radio or something or Morse code, that would make sense. But in today's world

where you can sit on a stream and explain yourself and put the data out there and tweet it all day long doesn't doesn't make any sense whatsoever so i'm wondering if that psychology was entering into everything they were doing do you think it it's worked i mean i'm right now i'm uh in in tahoe right now and and the shuttle going to the slopes, a family came on and the entire family is wearing a mask. And I'm like asking them questions like, well, I'm curious, are you wearing your mask to protect you against COVID? And he said, yeah.

And I said, do you know how much it protects you? And he said, no, but a little. And I said, is there a study that you, you know, a reference or whatever where you heard that from? He said, no, I can't recall. And then I said, are you vaccinated? And he said, yeah, yes. And I said, did you know that all the cardiologists in the UK, none of them are taking any more shots? And he said, no, that's nice. It doesn't change my opinion. Right. And I asked him why he's wearing a mask. He said, no, that's nice. It doesn't change my opinion. And I asked him why he's wearing a mask.

He says, my doctor told me to. Hey, why'd you get vaccinated? My doctor told me to. And so fundamentally, what you have to do is you have to go and silence the opposition because you can't win on the facts. This is why nobody will show up for a debate. I mean, we can't even get this debate going on um on on twitter

places where we're reaching yeah twitter spaces because you know you're reaching in into people like having to have debunk the funk represent you uh represent the other side like you mean you couldn't find any infectious disease expert and when we're going for for debunk the funk to represent you. It should be Pfizer going up against it. Pfizer should be putting their A-team on this and just debunking us. But they're not. They're not showing up at the table. The CDC is not showing up at the table.

The editor-in-chief of The Lancet says, hey, misinformation is this big problem. So I sent him a letter. I said, hey, why don't you host a debate? Let's find out what the truth is. Why don't you host a debate let's find out what the truth is why don't you host a debate you know and you just just moderate and i i gave my my cell phone number no nothing um and i talked to peter if we offered to have one maybe maybe one behind closed doors would be in order i'm not kidding like maybe get a group to you know i'm not kidding i get a group together just so we can see where everybody's at i i'm trying i really want to understand the other side of the table i really do yeah yeah by the way go ahead yeah i mean if

this is from our side this is all about the truth okay we don't want to win the debate we know i want to be wrong truth to win the debate if We want the truth to win the debate. If I'm wrong, I'm happy. You know, I wrote an article about Celine Dion. And I said, hey, it's 284 times more likely that she got it from the vaccine than natural. And I got debunked by Professor Norman Fenton and Scott McLaughlin, both writing papers. That's not as bad as that. And I read it.

I said, oh, hey, Scott's paper. He's right about this and that. You know, I should have multiplied. I should have reduced this by at least a factor of five. I admit that. I made a mistake. But, you know, the thing is that I read someone's critique. They were right on the money.

You know, there's foreign reports that come in and more people got the COVID vaccine. So you can't just compare apples to apples that way. I didn't do the adjustment factor, my error, but fine. I admit it when I'm wrong. So, hey, I got egg on my face on that one, but I'm still right in the direction. You know, there's no question that vaccines cause stiff person syndrome, right? And that's why it was listed in that FDA document that Pfizer filed. Not because necessarily this vaccine causes it, but because it is known that vaccines can cause SPS to appear in people. So I acknowledge my error.

I want to bring Aaron Cariotti up here, who's a bioethicist, who's been interested in, who's lost his career too because of standing up for what he believed was right. Aaron, can I get you up here? Just to kind of click on,

I invited you to speak. If you don't want to speak, that's okay, I get it. Steve, I invited you to speak. If you don't want to speak, that's okay. I get it. Steve, I'm a big fan of Aaron's work. I think he must be yours as well. So Annals of Internal Medicine just came in my house just this afternoon. And this was the journal that published, had the balls to study the, to publish the Danish study on masking.

Here's Aaron. Hold on a second, Aaron. Okay. Hey, Aaron. Hold on a second, Aaron, okay? Hey, Drew. Okay. So they had the huevos to publish the Danish study that nobody else would study because it was negative on masking.

They have a new study in here that showed masking generally, it's in healthcare settings in Egypt and Israel and Pakistan, that masking has some benefit in healthcare settings, but that N95s really didn't add much. So that was interesting. And also a study in here on effectiveness of the booster, the bivalent booster, suggesting that you do get four months of decreased deaths and decreased infection after the booster. That's just been published, just telling you. So Aaron, you're here. What are your thoughts? You've been listening to what Steve was saying?

Yes, I just jumped on, Drew. But I was on another Twitter spaces with Steve the other day and heard him echoing some of the remarks that he's already mentioned. Steve has been trying, really from the beginning of the pandemic to get meaningful public debates going, even offering, you know, people on the other side of these debates, very large sums of money to try to entice them to engage, you know, in a fair structured public debate. And remarkably, no one has taken him up on that offer. And this is part of a pattern that we've seen of our pandemic response being advanced under the auspices of science, but with very little pretense to scientific rigor. And then when you push back on that and you start asking pointed data-based,

evidence-based scientific questions, you get either radio silence or you get slander you get censorship you get it's weird it's odd being you get steamrolled which is not how credible well and aaron in addition to being a bioethicist and a scientist he's a psychiatrist and i'm trying to understand what is going on Can you help me understand what is going on in these agencies? Well, when your position is very brittle scientifically, then you obviously don't want public debate. I think anyone who's really confident in their evidence, in their data, that they're standing on solid ground is happy to debate and happy to respond with reasoned arguments to challenges. Let me push back and say, I think we've been through this weird delusional wave. that by allowing any other opinions out into the world is somehow going to fuel conspiracy theory

and make the so-called misinformation catch on in some way uh they're they're somehow convinced themselves of that yeah i you know i think that's that's what many of them have said when you ask them you know pointed questions about why you're supporting censorship, they say, well, misinformation, what they consider to be misinformation is going to be harmful, you know, people are going to be duped by it. And that's going to, you know, cause them to put themselves at in harm's way. And so, you know, we're not even going to engage in people that we disagree with, because, you know, even giving their ideas space to be heard is dangerous. And that's fundamentally nonsense, first of all.

But Aaron, not only is it nonsense, again, from your psychiatric perspective, isn't that how you induce paranoia? Isn't that how you convince people to be paranoid? That's how you define a recipe. A recipe for paranoia is to push things into behind a barrier and protect it. The sunlight is what reduces the paranoia. Just so. And it also shows a remarkable condescension for the average American person. Yes. That the average American person is not actually in possession of rationality, common sense, logical reasoning.

Yes, they may not have expertise in virology or immunology or statistics or what have you, but they can spot a logical contradiction. They can spot fallacies. They can see weak arguments with weak data or information trying to support them. And so instead of trusting the good judgment of the vast majority of Americans who want to do the best thing for themselves and their own health and their families, no, you all are too stupid, quite frankly, and too easily swayed by stupidity or by propaganda to know what's good for you. And therefore, we're going to silence opinions that we don't like, only give you the information that we deem is approved or is sound. And ironically, the people who are doing that are engaging in

the very definition of propaganda, which is, which is not, I'm going to give you nuanced information and, and then let you make a judgment about it. It's, I'm only going to give you information that I think is conducive to making you do what I want you to do. Right. And it would be hard to come up with a clearer definition of propaganda than that. Yeah. Jesus. It gives me a chill when I hear you say it like that clearly. But Aaron, I'm going to put you back in the group. Okay. I'm going to get Kelly in here. Okay. Thank you for coming up. I appreciate it. Aaron Cariotti, Caleb, maybe we can put up all his particulars somewhere in the lower third here. Steve, sorry that Aaron and I got into that conversation, but I find myself, before I bring Kelly in, every time just shaking my head and asking, what's happening here? What's going on? Why are we in this situation? I've never seen anything like this. It's so opposite of what my profession has always been, including something that Aaron just mentioned was the lack of

collegiality. I mean, we're always collegial. We always called outlying opinions interesting, not misinformation. So let's you and I take a quick break. We'll start to dig into the numbers a little bit with Kelly and get her in here, okay? All right. Sounds good. Right back. Want to give the gift that keeps on giving? GenuCell Skin Care keeps everyone on your holiday list looking young and refreshed. And who doesn't need that type of luxury, especially over the holiday season?

GenuCell has so many products that Susan and I love. GenuCell's X-Fee Moisturizer locks in moisturizer on top of the serums, making dry spots a thing of the past, especially great with the colder climate and all the dryness of our skin, right? And with GenuCell's Immediate Effect 2 Eye Cream, you can see the results in as little as 12 hours, guaranteed or your money back. Susan loves GenuCell's DFS Vitamin C Serum, the new deep-firming serum, as well as the hyaluronic with C and lactic acid, which hydrates your skin and makes fine lines a thing of the past while hopefully preventing future wrinkles from forming. I am a snob when it comes to using products on my face. The dermatologist makes a ton of money for me. But when I was introduced to Genucel, I was so happy because

it's so affordable and it works great. I was introduced to the Ultra Retinol Cream, which I love at night. All the eye creams are amazing. People notice my skin all the time and I'm so excited because it's actually working. Take advantage of amazing holiday savings by going to GenuCell.com and you will get 60% off with a special holiday stocking stuffer. When you subscribe to my favorites package at GenuCell.com slash Drew, and all orders are upgraded to free shipping for the rest of the holiday season, we will get it there quickly. Use code Drew at checkout for an extra 10% off your entire order. That is GenuCell.com slash Drew, G-E-n-u-c-e-l dot com slash drew my guest is philip patrick he is a precious metal specialist trains at university of redlands he has spent

years as a wealth manager at citigroup and his current position is with birch gold group so gold has always been somewhat of a safe haven, particularly in times of great turmoil, much like our present moment, I imagine. Gold has always traditionally been a safe haven asset. Gold specifically has always been about wealth preservation. Gold has always held its buying power. You can look at as far back as you'd like in history. In biblical times, one ounce of gold would buy somebody 400 loaves of bread,

and today it does the same thing. So it's a store of value. But I would say in times like this, as you mentioned, it's particularly important when you're dealing with things like 40-year high inflation, the air that's coming out of a stock market bubble. These times in particular tend to drive gold and silver up quite significantly. If things are different, the solution needs to be different as well. So I encourage everyone to get informed and we have a lot of good information here to help your listeners. Just a reminder, I am not a financial advisor and I do not give out financial advice nor investing advice. 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. Whether you own a bustling hair salon, a painting company that just landed a big job, or the hottest new bakery in town. You need business insurance that can keep up with your evolving needs. With flexible coverage options from TD Insurance, you only pay for what you need.

Get a quote in minutes from TD Insurance today. TD. Ready for you. Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. This episode ends here. The rest of the show is available at drdrew.tv. There's nothing in medicine that doesn't boil down to a risk-benefit calculation. It is the mandate of public health to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population this is uncharted territory drew we are again dr kelly victory joined steve kirsch uh welcome kelly thank you for coming in on a special occasion to welcome steve to the show i'll let you

have it absolutely great to see you steve thanks for being here. It's always great to have a fellow tinfoil hat wear, fellow purveyor of misinformation to join me, kindred spirits. And I might mention, by the way, back to the question about why they put the kibosh on the fluvoxivine study, Drew, I think there's no question they needed to deep six any alternative therapies because let's recall, getting an EUA, an emergency use authorization for a vaccine, is predicated on two things. The vaccine manufacturer has to submit, number one, that they have reason to believe based on preliminary studies that the vaccine will be effective.

And number two, there are no alternative treatments. So if you have alternative treatments, by definition, you are putting your emergency use authorization at risk and hence the hit job on everything from ivermectin to fluvoxamine and anything in between. Interestingly until they came up, hacked up some brand new drugs, remdesivir, Paxlovid, melnupiravir, those sorts of things. Those somehow got miraculously were allowed into the fray, interestingly while maintaining the EUA.

Some people would argue that the EUA should have gone away on that basis. But Steve, I want to talk, we're coming up on a year now, January 1st is the one year anniversary of the top life insurance companies coming out with the sort of bombshell information that there was a 40% increase in all-cause mortality amongst 18 to 40-year-olds. A huge, huge issue that came out now a year ago. You started reporting on this and have been really, along with a few others, really in the weeds on the all-cause mortality. Let's start with that. Start with bring us up to date on where we are, what the data are showing with regard to all-cause mortality, how it compares to what was initially released back in January a year ago now. When you say January a year ago, well,

it's the vaccines have, it's been two years now since the vaccines have been rolled out. So right now the best numbers I have, I mean, and it's funny because I didn't do this survey. I should have done this survey a year ago. Cause I wrote, I started with my sub stack a year ago and I should have done this survey a year ago. I regret not doing this, but I ran a survey recently, and it's the most devastating survey I have ever done because it's so direct. So we're asking healthcare providers, give me your numbers. And most healthcare providers, they don't know what the numbers are and they can't collect them because they're HIPAA issues and you're not allowed to do the research and you're not allowed to do anything.

Like most people don't know, like if you treat someone, you don't know whether they died, right? And so most people don't have the stats. So I asked people who are in large private practices where they're not constrained with the hospital system, the Epic system, you know, locking them out and not allowing them to do the research. I asked these providers, I said, hey, look, if you've got a medical practice, I want to know what your numbers are. And I got a lot of people responding to that. It wasn't like overwhelming, but it's, the numbers were high enough. And the numbers in some practices were high enough that you could make some really—you

can get an assessment that whether you were on track or off track in terms of what the VAERS system said and so forth. Because I always like to have confirmation and look at the whole thing from the anecdotes line up to the VAERS system line up, does the population studies line up, does the government data line up, and then you go and you look at what's happening in these clinics. And so I've got data- So when you say- Yeah, go ahead. I was just going to say, just to clarify what you were asking them, when you were asking

them quote for their numbers, were you asking them for their numbers of incidents of certain medical things like pulmonary embolisms and strokes or asking for incidents of sudden death? What were you asking them for incidents of? So I said, how many patients do you have? How many patients do you have who are vaccinated? How many patients have died in your practice how many people have died who are vaccinated in your practice okay so i'm asking them objective

questions that don't call for any conclusion whatsoever and then i ask them how many people died in your practice from covet how many people who are vaccinated do you think died from the vaccine based on your firsthand knowledge of their medical history? So you're asking the experts, you're not asking uninformed people to make a decision, you're asking physicians to make an assessment as to what they think. And the numbers were off the charts it was like i mean they were so bad that when i said hey here's what the numbers said i had to factor them down so that people would would wouldn't go uh you know say oh that makes no sense right because the numbers were coming in that for um uh it was it was something like at least 25 to 1 in terms of number of people that

they thought died from the vaccine versus from COVID. And a lot of these practices had nobody dying from COVID. And so then when you added up all the numbers, we were seeing like 25 to 1 in terms of if you died, it was 20, the number died from COVID versus number died from the vaccine, 25 times more people died from COVID. So when I talked about the numbers, I said over 5 to 1. Because if I said 25 to 1, nobody would believe me. But that's where the numbers were coming in. They were so off the charts clear that the vaccine was like way worse, you know, at least

five times worse. Yeah. Is there any way to tease out COVID plus vaccine? I've been wondering, because that group, which is most people now, have had COVID and had vaccine. I'm wondering if that's the magic combination. My clinical experience has been COVID plus vaccine plus booster equals trouble. That's sort of where I'm seeing trouble, I think, I think, but it's hard to tell. Right. And I didn't dice it down that way,

because that gets into individual patients, you know, okay, so how many of those patients who died, you know, and I didn't get to that level, because I was just interested in the high level, like, was the cure worse than the disease? And there was no doubt about it that the cure was worse than the disease. And the numbers also made sense. Okay, so the numbers I got from VAERS and I did the calculations from VAERS and then I got the numbers from the doctors and they matched up, like unbelievably matched up. And these are just people just reporting their own numbers. And so we were seeing numbers of like two per thousand overall population that died from the vaccine and numbers like 30 per thousand. So in other words, 15 times higher death rate if you were 65 and older. So we had these geriatric

practices that are 75% geriatrics. And, you know, so I asked, hey, what's the death rate? What's the death count among those people? And how many geriatrics do you have? And what's the death count that you have from the vaccine? And it's just unbelievable. Well, I'm surprised. That's odd to me because I have a mostly geriatric group I follow right now. I've told you this, Steve, before. I'm not seeing that.

I'm seeing it in some concerning stuff in younger people for sure. And I'm not sure, is it COVID? Is it COVID plus vaccine? Is it vaccine? It's hard to tease that all out, as you've said. But I have not had trouble in the 65 plus group. And the data sort of supports me in terms of doing something. In other words, the risk reward there is a little more apparent, it seems like, unless

your data is right. Yeah, so I'm is right. Yeah. So I'm happy to hear that. Hang on. I'm happy to hear what you're saying, though, Steve, because part of the problem here has been throughout this is that physicians have been reticent to connect the dots. They've been really head in the sand. You go to the emergency department with sudden onset, you know, paresthesia or sudden onset Bell's palsy or sudden onset chest pain or whatever it is and said, I got vaccinated 15 minutes ago.

And you have ER physicians saying, yeah, they're not related. You know, it has nothing to do with the vaccine. They are looking every which way from Sunday to try to explain it away. So if you are gathering information from physicians who are actually willing to say, I think this was a vaccine injury, that by itself is somewhat, I can't say I'm happy about the injury, but I'm happy that my colleagues are willing to own it and acknowledge it. Yes. And a lot of people basically filled out the survey and said, hey, you can't contact me, but here's my numbers. I want to talk about Dr. Drew's case because this is really, really important to talk about

here. I mean, really important, okay? Because I want to, you know, I get people all the time saying, I haven't seen it in my practice. I haven't seen any vaccine deaths in my practice, okay? And so they say, look, if I haven't seen it with my own eyes, it can't be real. Right.

Because if it's, you know, if these are the numbers you're talking about, I would have seen it. And, you know, like I would have seen one death or whatever. Right.

So I want to talk about Dr. Drew's numbers. This is really important. Okay. Because I'm going to explode. I may just be lucky. I may be lucky. We're going to find out I may just be lucky. I may be lucky or, or I may,

or I, you know, you may see a sort of a random event segregate non-randomly. Right. I may see a series at some point. Right. All of a sudden I could see a series. I mean,

if, if your dad is right, that's what should happen. You know, I'm, I'm. So let me, let me explain how, how someone how someone, how you, Dr. Drew, can figure out whether I'm telling

the truth or not, okay? So you have 800 geriatric patients. Am I… Yeah. Is that correct? Okay. Let's say… I started thinking about it.

Let's say 500 just for the sake of… Let's just use that number. Okay. I think that might be more accurate. All right. So we we'll take five five hundred fine yeah 500 geriatric patients now in the last two years how many of those geriatric patients have died for any reason whatsoever all cause mortality in the geriatric patients 30 deaths probably something in that area something in there but but my people have all really wound down at the very end of life where there's nothing more to do it was not these were not sudden death these were people in hospice because of aging that kind of thing uh so okay you know i i or or okay okay nothing we're getting

somewhere now we're getting close here okay that's Well, I'm going to ask you just some numbers. But that's a normal flow. I didn't see anything out of the ordinary. In fact, people, I'm sort of amazed lately that people are able to live well into the 90s without difficulty, without nursing homes, without a lot of things that I used to have to rely on. So. Okay. So. And that's 30 deaths. that I used to have to rely on. Okay. So, and that's 30 deaths. It's not been strokes, and it's not been sudden deaths. It's not been strokes.

It's not been cardiac. It's not been cardiac arrhythmias. Maybe a little more atrial fib than usual. Maybe a little more of that. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe that could be something.

I mean, that could be something. So, let me ask you this. Okay. So, let's go into the numbers i mean this is important okay 30 deaths i don't have the numbers they're all top of my head so they're all vaccinated everybody's vaccinated and boosted ah okay all right well okay so 30 deaths so what that tells me is that we'll take those 30 deaths and we'll say that it's 15 deaths um per um uh per year okay fair i mean were they spread out yeah yeah spread out yeah yeah okay roughly yeah

15 deaths per year okay so i i would somewhere somewhere cancers cancers and things too that have been around for a while that kind of of stuff. You had predicted what? Oh, okay. Well, you know, like my main prediction is two, two per, two per thousand, right? Um, so 0.2% basically, or 20, basically 20% of the normal death rate. So if your normal background death rate is 15 per year, then I would expect to see, uh, basically three people in your practice die from the vaccine, at least three people. Okay. Okay. Okay. Now, but it's Poisson distribution. Okay? Yeah.

And so the three people, so for Poisson distribution, we want to take the square root of three, and that would be one standard deviation. Okay? And so if you're within two standard deviations, you know, I don't know off the top what my, the square root of three is off the top of my head. I used to know that. Sorry. I don't either. I know it's between one and one and two. Yeah. Yes. I agree with that. I mean, three point five. Okay. It's 1.7. Okay. So in other words, you're within two standard deviations. So you could very well in your practice see two, because the deaths are not

per annum. It is basically you inject a thousand people, you're going to get at least two deaths and you're going to get more in the geriatric group. And so I would have expected three people, but getting zero is well within- And by the way, maybe there's something- Statistical balance. There's so many variables, so many variables in these situations. And I totally get what you're saying about the two standard deviations within error. But maybe I'm doing something. Maybe I'm more aggressive with ACE inhibitors or rather with statins or something, and that's having some sort of effect on endothelial function. Or maybe some of those deaths are VACs related.

And maybe we can have a separate call where let's go down each of those 30 deaths and see which are the most likely ones and think about, well, does this make sense? You know, because Asim Alhatra's dad was, you know, he's up there in age, right? But he died of a heart attack. But Asim knew that he had no cardiac risk factors and he had blockages in two of his arteries and shouldn't have been there. That's what tipped him off. I think it's harder, Steve and andrew in the in the geriatric population uh and i'm not

saying it's not happening and there's a it's it's harder in the geriatric population because those are the people who we anticipate will die of of various and sundry things i think if you look at the the less usual ones they died suddenly and nary a day goes by that you don't read not just a report, but multiple reports. I mean, today's headlines was Navy SEAL commander at the ripe old age of, I think, 43, American Airlines flight attendant, age 34, drops dead in the middle of a flight. We have surgeons dropping dead in the operating room. I think Canada's up to something like 10 physicians who dropped dead at their offices or in the middle of surgical procedures. When you look at the rates of died suddenly amongst

young, healthy, uber athletes, Olympic level athletes. And the International Olympic Committee had done that study well before COVID to determine what is the average annual incidence of otherwise healthy uber athletes dying suddenly. And the answer was 29 a year. And then you compare that to the hundreds that we are having per month internationally. That's where I think it becomes very compelling. And even with those sorts of headlining kinds of observations, I think it's really important that our viewers saw what Steve just did on the back of the napkin. I mean, this is why things get complicated, because you have to be able to do these sorts of calculations. And it's why anecdote isn't the sole answer here. It's why you have to really look at the numbers and really analyze the numbers.

But keep going on, guys. I'll step out again. No, and again, well, I, like Steve, am happy to have anybody argue with me about my understanding or my analysis of the data. It's the other thing we were talking about with Aaron. It's the censorship, the derision, the cancel culture, the fact that the thing that we talked about yesterday with Lieutenant Colonel Teresa Long, the thing that got me permanently banned from Twitter was posting a link to her sworn testimony. Her sworn congressional testimony was deemed, quote, misinformation. I mean, let that sink in for a minute.

But the idea that for a physician to raise the alarm and say, wow, I'm seeing a signal here that's concerning me and to not be allowed to have that discussion by itself is a problem. Steve, what I want to talk about, you're talking about your data and your study and your query that you just did. Let's back it up. Let's talk about the data out of Germany. Let's talk about the all-cause mortality data that you've been posting about and that I've been talking about out of Germany and what that corroborates. It corroborates everything. I mean, all this stuff is super consistent. The numbers out of Germany, people haven't seen it. Go to my Substack, stevekirsch.substack.com,

and the top article, the pinned article there is, why can't we talk about it? Hey, we're wrong. Tell us we're wrong, right? And I think like the first article is the German numbers. I've been rearranging the order of things. But the first, I think, is the German numbers. Like, how do you explain this? I mean, this is like, you know, it's like flat line, flat line, and then it goes off the charts as soon as they roll out the vaccines. And it stays up. up you know it's not like it's a one-time thing like maybe oh it's bad covet infection that time i mean these sudden deaths went from like small to like large and they stayed large okay there's no way to explain that data

and they tried to to obfuscate it with a this official thing. It wasn't even the guys who released the data that made the statement. They had to go to a specialist to say, hey, we'll pay you a lot of money if you can try to discredit these guys because this is going to cause us a lot of trouble. They make up this argument. We look at it and we said, let's make sure we're right because the query that was done, that was sent to these authorities, give us a data set that has blah, blah, blah, and they had to be alive in 2021. And so there's this bias in terms of the data request that needs to be factored in. But the thing is that the data that the chart was made was made from all the data, not just

the match, what's called match, no match, you know, did it match this criteria versus no match? Because you add in the match versus the no match, and that's everything. And so I was pretty skeptical when this thing first came out, because I saw the, you know, that they were trying to debunk it. I said, hmm, that actually, you know, that makes sense. I mean, these original queries were, you know, and so I went around and around with a Midwestern doctor who was the guy who, you know, first brought this to people's attention. I mean, it was the, it was actually the German, there's this German conservative party that made the request and put out the press release. And then a Midwestern doctor picked it up on his sub stack. And, and he said, Hey, you know, here's this Christmas gift for you.

And I looked at it. I said, yeah, I'm not just sure about it. Because it's really convoluted the way the data was. And I had my doubts. And so he went back and he looked at it and so forth. They met other experts to look at this. And they're now convinced that they got it right. And there are enough people who've looked at it. It's a very complicated thing to look at, by the way. You're not going to be able to do it on first glance. But the bottom line is that that chart is accurate. Okay. You can go, and we'll debate anybody on this,

because if we're wrong, we want to know it. And that's the difference, is that we're opening up ourselves up for criticism and debate, and let's have the debate if you disagree with us. But any pronouncement on their side, it's completely shut up. the lawsuit that he just filed against the people at his university. And you should read that because it is a detailed account of how these people, if you say anything against the narrative, it's not like they're going to go and look into your allegations and look at it. They're just going to go and pound you and try to intimidate you and take away your faculty privileges and try to have all these rules that apply only to you and that makes no sense.

And they went after him so much so that there are criminal charges now being leveled against Glenn Pyle, Professor Glenn Pyle, who is, of course, one of the people who debunked this stuff. And so it's like the tables have turned. And the other thing is that this ABC, the famous news anchor in Australia, ABC in Australia, just came out saying, hey, look, I've been silent up until now, but I want to reveal what I've been hiding. Well, look, you're in the news media. Why are you hiding stuff? That the intimidation, you know, and I just read another email from a reporter saying, hey, I can't cover these vaccines because my editors won't let me. They'll fire me if I do. And so

I've had to go create my own sub stack on this. But, you know, the amount of intimidation tactics, I mean, when you have to resort to stuff like that to silence people and the stuff that the university did to Professor Breidel, I mean, that should tell you everything that these people do not want to defend on the science. They just want to promote the narrative. Yeah, he is one of many. And we have Byron Breidel coming up for an interview in the next couple of weeks. And I'm sure we'll talk about that. What many of the, of the naysayers say about the data, as you well know, Steve, is that they say, oh, this has nothing to do with the vaccine. It's COVID. It's because these people had COVID.

And Drew has asked the very legitimate and well-based question, you know, how do we know what's COVID plus vaccine versus just vaccine, which is why I believe fundamentally that they are pushing so hard to get a vaccine in every arm because I am currently the control group and our numbers are dwindling. I am the control group. I had COVID and have never been vaccinated. I am the proof. And those of us who are in this small control group, estimated to be less than 17% of the entire US population who has had no vaccines for COVID, were the control, have had COVID, but no vaccine. They are terrified of people like me, because this control group is the group that's going to prove no increased

incidence of myocarditis, no increase in incidence of new onset cancers, no fertility issues, no increased incidence of pulmonary embolism and up and up, you know, and on and on. And so they, the more people they can get vaccinated, this more they, you know, chisel away at this, at this control group and make it impossible for us to prove that it's the vaccines, not COVID itself. Yeah, certainly. And the thing is that, and I wrote a Substack article about this, which is that it's not working.

The censorship is not working. I offered a debate to the CDC. It's an open letter to Rochelle Walensky. It's published on my subsect. And I said, look, Rochelle, hey, you know, it's not working. There are fewer and fewer and fewer people getting the vaccine because they don't trust you guys because you won't debate us. So why don't you debate us and you can crush us? And that will cause people to gain confidence because right now it's like 1%, it's like 1.7% of kids are not, are getting the

latest boosters. I mean, they're losing, they're losing on the numbers. This is why Peter Marks of the FDA went out and said, hey, you know, I'll do anything to reduce vaccine hesitancy except to debate any of the misinformation spreaders. I mean, he didn't say that part, but I offered to debate him. I said, look, you can have us all and you can use Peter Marks. You can single-handedly defeat all of us in one debate and it'll all be over and there'll be no more misinformation. You can solve that problem no response i the the executive the editor-in-chief of the lancet he said misinformation

is a problem i wrote him i said you can have us all why don't you debate us here's my phone number no call and and the other the the kicker i think and i've just found out this today because i don't i don't listen to John Campbell religiously. John Campbell is a really, really smart guy. He's articulate. He goes through the studies. He explains really well what everything means to the layman. So, you know, he has this massive audience because he tells people, he doesn't necessarily talk down to people, but he explains what does this mean, this technical term, and he goes into it. He's a superb educator and he has lots of followers.

John Campbell started this whole thing out believing in the vaccines and believing the narrative. John Campbell has been red-pilled. Okay? Now, he doesn't go out and say, I've been red-pilled. Okay? But he's been red-pilled. Oh, no.

He's, he's, he, he, I listen to his stuff actually pretty religiously from the beginning. I thought he did a nice job of reviewing available data, and so I actually, he was a source for me during the pandemic of stuff I discussed on this stream, in fact, because he was just a nice, steady source of good data, and like you said, he'd explain it. He's actually a PhD nurse, there he is,

and he's a nurse educator. That's his thing, and he's been in the, you know, in this, in this, in healthcare for 40, 50 years, like, like me. And I, I, and I know he's got good judgment. And when he smells a rat, he, and he does it with this, you know, this great British irony, you know, it's like, hmm, as you'd think. And then, then, then he, he keeps, yeah, he keeps going and going. And I think Asim Malhotra really got him all the way turned, I suspect. It seemed like that's where he really got really concerned.

And then he's seeing the problematic. In the UK, they are starting to look at things. They are getting the government to start to question stuff slowly. That's where I was going to go with this next and say, why is it that only in the United States, Steve, we are not seeing any softening of the stance on vaccines? All of the Scandinavian countries have eliminated vaccination for people under the age of like 50. In the UK, they came out very strongly and said, you are not as a physician to give these vaccines to a woman who's pregnant or lactating or thinking about getting pregnant. They have eliminated vaccines. They certainly aren't giving them to

children in most of Western Europe. Why is it that the United States doubles down on a daily basis? We not only aren't backing off, you know, we're, you know, it's safe and effective, safe and effective. And they, you know, really are giving you everything from, you know, you've got a punch card, get all 10 boosters and get a free, you know, slushie. It's insane.

I think the WHO came out today and advocated for children or young adolescents or something. So they're kind of moving our direction as well as opposed to the UK direction. But Steve, go ahead. Yeah, I got to jump here because I have a VSRF call starting at 4 o'clock that I'm supposed to be hosting. But I can be a little bit late here. But if it's more than five minutes, we're in trouble here.

So I got nine minutes left. Hard stop. But I want to hear that thought. You had a thought in your mind. I want to hear what it was. Yeah. Well, it's more than five minutes, we're in trouble here. So I got nine minutes left. Hard stop. But I want to hear that thought. You had a thought in your mind. I want to hear what it was. Yeah. Well, it's about money. Look, it's about the money.

Okay. Because, you know, why are all these, the mainstream media, you know, not saying anything bad about the vaccine? They don't want to lose the money from the drug companies. Why does UCSF like play with the mainstream? Because UCFS gets lots of funding from the government. Do they want their NIH funding cut off? Tony Fauci is controlling the purse strings to all the research dollars that goes out to everybody. And Tony likes the vaccine. You speak

out against the vaccine, forget about it in trying to get your next grant. So they're not going to compromise. And plus, a lot of them are still blue pill because they look around and they see these other people like you know saying it's safe and effective and nobody's saying anything but in the uk i i talked to aasim uh mahatra a couple days ago and i interviewed him it's on my rumble channel because of course i get censored on youtube um but Aseem said all of the cardiologists are not getting any more vaccines, any more COVID vaccines, all the cardiologists in the UK. So I think what the UK government should say, look, you either take the jabs that we told you to take, or we're going to take away your license. And great, there'll be no more cardiologists in the UK anymore. I think that's what it's you to take or we're going to take away your license and great there'll be no more cardiologists in the uk anymore i think that's that's what it's going to take i mean it is

it is crazy that none of the cardiologists because the cardiologists are seeing this stuff firsthand they're seeing the death firsthand they're seeing the myocarditis. We had a Thailand study showing up to 30% of the kids. Right. So like 29 point change. Okay. Have- Yeah, 29.4%. Right. No heart damage before, and they have evidence of heart damage after. Come on. Like 30% of the kids? These are kids. These people aren't supposed to... Kids aren't supposed to have heart damage after they get a vaccine. Are you me let's have 30 percent that's Steve before you jump Steve

to stop before you jump can you can you mention this DARPA document that we all looked at before we came on the air here yeah real quick what is that yeah so the this DARPA document and if you have to scroll down uh this has been uh circulating Twitter. I'm surprised this just came out. I think it may have come out before, and maybe this is recirculated. But it basically talks about, hey, you know, we got this SARS-CoV-2 program, and we're developing these vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. But it's like, this is, it's an EcoHealth Alliance proposal. This stuff was funded well before SARS-CoV-2 escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

And there's another, there is some, I forget what the reference was, but there is a second Wuhan Institute of Virology that is right next to the market, the wet market where this thing supposedly came out from nature. So they don't even just have one across the street, but they have one right, like it's next door to the wet market. Kelly, do you know what I'm talking about? I think it's Igor's substack, if I recall correctly. So check this out, an Igor's sub-stack, he writes, there's a second Wuhan Institute of Virology branch office right next to the open market, and they're doing this gain-of-function research. It's like, how could you miss this? I mean, it's so corrupt. Yeah, they didn't miss it. They refused to report on it. The source I've said from the very

beginning, the source of the virus was a lab in Wuhan. It is absolutely undeniable. Anybody who knows anything about genetic sequencing, all you have to do is look at the genetic sequencing. It is not something that occurred in nature. The analogy I've made to people is that if you've ever received a Word document where somebody has cut and pasted something from another document and they didn't get the fonts quite right, like the whole document's in Calibri, but then there's this chunk that's in New Times Roman that's been spliced in and they didn't quite get it right. And you can see that it was spliced in. That's how this virus looks, you know, from a genetic perspective. There are pieces that are

spliced in that do not occur naturally in bats. There clearly is a piece spliced in from HIV, for example. It has every telltale mark of a lab-created virus. Furthermore, we know that Anthony Fauci was funneling U.S. taxpayer dollars through EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak to that lab, and they were absolutely doing gain of function research. To say anything else, it's not that they didn't know that that other lab was there. They covered it up. They tried to make it a you know plausible that this thing came out of a wet market uh this is you know somebody somebody's going to get exposed for this ultimately and hopefully anthony fauci is one of those somebodies uh this document let's leave let's let's see we'll keep talking about it steve thanks for being here i know you gotta go all right, so last words on that is that that document appears to be authentic

based on everything that I've read, but, but it hasn't, you met the, you know, the, I don't know who the author is and they haven't come out and authenticated it, but the people who have looked at it, believe it to be authentic. It makes sense. There's, there's nothing in there that you would look at this and say, ah, you know, they got the number wrong or, you know, they forgot to cite, blah, blah, blah. You know, there's no question. You know, this is just the greatest health care disaster in human history, that the U.S. government is basically promoting a vaccine which has killed half a million Americans. I mean, and there is nobody who wants to talk to me about it. And it's not just me, right?

It's Peter McCullough. It is anybody on our side. Anybody who says that these vaccines are bad, nobody wants to debate them. So saying that, oh, you're just a misinformation spider and you don't know anything about medicine, it's not me. It's about debating the facts and it's about coming to the truth. And what we want is we're happy to be proven wrong. We just want the truth to come out. And we want to get into a collegial dialogue where it's not about whether we win or they win. It's about exposing the truth. And Dr. Drew, if you can act as the moderator here, and you can invite someone who's an infectious disease disease professor and let's talk about the

evidence on your show because you know you're kind of you're pretty much in the middle right you've been like you know saying that right okay so yeah but it's hard to find somebody well i'll think yeah no kidding i challenge you well i challenge you there's people out there to find someone who gets i mean let me bring it on bring it on it will be it will be your most amazing uh well but here's the deal it'll be everybody will watch it i'm wondering if like a monica gandhi would come in somebody more she's pretty reasonable uh but is also concerned about anti-vaxxer sentiments. And she knows you're not going to rip her apart. Would she play the, would she be adequate? Dr. Drew is always fair.

Yeah, right. Yeah, let me see if I can get her in here. And we're all about getting to the truth. And Dr. Drew, I challenge you to invite anyone from the other side because everyone on our side will come. Yes. Okay, well me let me see what i can do it sounds daunting to deal with that but but but i will see if we can put something

together yeah let's get the truth thank you very much as always thank you that's the goal great to see you steve thanks what's going on here all right so kelly i i have a couple questions um and they're dumb and you're going to straighten me out here. So that DARPA, what was the smoke? What was the concern, the energy around that DARPA document that A, they called this an American made bat virus and they called it COVID-2? Is that true? Yes. As I said, I haven't been able to read the document other than just how you have on the screen very briefly before we started this show. So I can't speak with authority about it other than that it references, number one, the U.S. involvement with the development of the vaccine for a virus that they already knew they were creating.

It is clearly, it acknowledges and calls it a man-made virus, and therefore- But isn't it the case, though, that this gain of function, you know, people are mincing words. Gain of function, when somebody mentions it, the CDC then goes, you're talking about bioweapons. We don't do gain of function. We're not doing bioweapon. But they did do altering viruses that gained function in order to generate vaccine therapies to learn about the vaccine therapies of altered viruses.

Would that be accurate? 100%. This is tantamount to Bill Clinton saying it all depends on the definition of what the word is, is. This is mincing words. This is the definition, Drew, of gain of function. Gain of function is when you take a pathogen, you alter the way it behaves to do one of several things, to make it more transmissible, to make it more lethal, and to make it more resistant to treatment. Those three things. That's exactly what they did with this. They made it more transmissible, they made it more lethal, and they made it more resistant to treatment.

They did all three of the possible things and by the way one at one and by the way just the fact that in that letter they have they have the moniker of american what was it caleb you zero on an american made bat virus or something but the reason i want to zero on that yeah there it is an american created that to me means that there must be a French created and a China created and an India created. This is probably not that uncommon a thing, the fact that it has to be identified with a country. I think we need to get that curtain pulled back entirely on what's going on in viral research and not just be mincing words. Well, here is what happens. Not to be mincing words. Well, here's the background. You know, there wasn't much that Barack Obama did that I agreed with. But the one thing I did absolutely support was the moratorium that he put in 2015 on gain-of-function research.

He determined in his administration that it was too dangerous. So they said, no more. We are not going to participate in gain of function research any longer. So rather, Anthony Fauci was very much involved with it at that time when the moratorium started. Rather than stopping his beloved gain of function research, they simply crafted this shill corporation, this nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance with his buddy, Peter Daszak. Peter Daszak founded this nonprofit and Anthony Fauci said, okay, we won't do gain of function. We're just going to funnel money, US taxpayer money. And they gave millions of dollars of US taxpayer money

to EcoHealth Alliance. EcoHealth Alliance then gave the money to the Wuhan lab of virology. They used that as a shill corporation or shill organization to run the money through so that there wasn't a clear chain from the NIH, the NIAID under Anthony Fauci to Wuhan any longer. They ran it through EcoHealth, which is why Peter Daszak and their emails, this isn't again, Kelly Victory's opinion. There are many, many emails that have been released under the FOIA requests between Peter Daszak and Anthony Fauci saying, we need to get on this. We need to suppress any chatter about this being a lab leak. We need to suppress that. And that is really what started Anthony Fauci and the federal government colluding with big tech

and everybody else to censor anybody who talked about a lab leak. Because without any question, Peter Daszak clearly has blood on his hands, but so does Anthony Fauci because they were funding research that was essentially forbidden by the federal government following that moratorium put in place by Barack Obama. And to be fair, there may not be a direct relationship between this virus that was in this document and the virus we call SARS-CoV-2 I mean who knows absolutely the fact is fact is this stuff is going on and all I mean reasonably it's going on that's that's how they study this stuff but I want to I want to bring in I'll tell you I'm going to bring in here is Alicia Chan that MIT biologist

who wrote the book with Matt Ridley about the virus. And she seemed very reasonable, very knowledgeable to me. So when it comes to us getting deeper into the genomics of the virus, I'm going to get her in here at some point for us to talk to her about that, okay? Absolutely. And here's the thing. I think anybody, the reason that we don't do gain-of-function, gain-of-function is something that's been done over the years, but it needs to be done in an extraordinarily controlled setting. The concept of doing it with

our greatest geopolitical foe really doesn't pass the sniff test. I mean, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to go, you know, I got a really bad feeling about actually doing this with the Chinese Communist Party. You know, maybe you do it with, I don't know, Canada or, you know, England. But doing it in China, just, you know, you really have to question why someone would think that that was even vaguely in the realm of safe. Yep, I understand. But it's equally as mystifying to me why they would have accepted the interpretation of their Chinese colleagues on lockdown as some sort of wonderfully thought out, beautifully executed answer to a pandemic as opposed to just random action of a local Soviet essentially to try to protect himself from the up-the-ups who might be upset with them if

they don't control this thing. But anyway, whatever. Okay, so it's been interesting and overwhelming at the same time. Somebody asked me just a few minutes ago We'll see if we're still on YouTube next week. Can we think of any other medical interventions? If we're not next week, head over to Rumble. Hang on a second. Whether it's biologics, whether it's vaccine

therapy, or whether it's just traditional sort of pharmaceuticals, can we think of anything that was disproportionately harmed young people? you think of anything because that seems to be the what what i think is going on here with this vaccine and somebody asked me oh there have been other things like that that we could think of and i really couldn't think of anything although other things outside other things outside of what we did with covid because there's no question the interventions with covid disproportionately harmed young people every one of them he's saying this guy was guy was asking me if there were other things that crossed the course of our careers or things we've read about perhaps in medical history where it was disproportionately

born, the injury is disproportionately in young, healthy people. And I couldn't really come up with anything. Everything I came up with really sort of went out of the category of active developmental processes being interrupted, like in utero or young children or things like that. Yes. And I think the thing that comes closest to that is whatever aspersions have been cast at vaccines in general. I am extraordinarily pro-vaccine, by the way. I really didn't question vaccines in general much until COVID. But I think that we have launched some vaccines that have been problematic, including, for example, the one that was launched for dengue fever,

which was just catastrophic and absolutely was responsible for killing hundreds of children in the Philippines because it caused, it hadn't been adequately tested and it caused a huge problem. So the vaccines are generally the thing I go to that say, you know, where have we disproportionately, you know, hurt kids? You know, there's no question we've had other vaccines that have been pulled from the market including for example the live uh the live attenuated polio vaccine that ended up giving polio to hunt but these are vaccines that are so yeah but these are probably given to young people you know what i mean that's what i'm saying that's what i'm saying so i think yeah that that's what i mean so i think of vaccines because they are the kids are the ones that are getting the vaccine. I can't think of something that was given to all ages,

but disproportionately affected kids. Was it, was dengue given to all ages? No, it was given to children. It was given to the kid, it was given to children in the Philippines and it, and it caused essentially kids when they subsequently became exposed to dengue, they created the wrong antibodies, kind of like COVID, because you're creating antibodies to a variant that no longer exists rather than creating antibodies to the virus you're actually being

exposed to. And that's what happened with dengue. The kids got vaccinated. They created a lot of antibodies to that particular thing. When they subsequently down the road got exposed to the actual virus, they didn't mount the appropriate antibody response and they died. Maybe if Steve is correct, if his data is correct, maybe we're just noticing the adverse events more in young, healthy people. In other words, when elderly people get vascular pathology, whatever it might be, or cancer, well, that's part of taking care of older people. You don't really notice it. That's kind of what he was pressing me on. While if a 25-year-old suddenly shows up with a heart rate of 270, that's wild. That's where that's wild. And that was my point. And that was my point is it's harder to show it in the geriatric population because those you can always explain away, well, this person's 82 and now they've got an aggressive colon

cancer. It's hard to say. In the younger pop, when you start seeing cancers, for example, that we talked about with Dr. Ryan Cole, particularly lymphomas, melanomas, colon cancers in people under the age of 40, that has never happened before. These are things we simply haven't seen in that age group. And therefore it makes it a lot easier. I'm not saying it's not happening in the older population, just that it's easier to connect the dots in a younger, healthier population. There's a guy I'm bringing up here right now who I spoke to the other day.

I don't know if you were on that show. And he's got some data out of Massachusetts that goes right out what we're talking about. He's on the spaces. He didn't put his hand up. I asked him to come up here. So, John, if you wouldn't mind, I know you've emailed me and I've been waiting to get back to you, uh, unmute yourself there and explain to Kelly what your data has shown. Okay. Well, first of all, thanks for having me up and, uh, nice to meet you, Kelly. Um,

so I got all the death certificates. It's in Massachusetts. I'm sorry. Keep going. I'm sorry. Nice to meet you too. Okay. Oh, okay. Great. So 420,000 at first, and then we got an update. It brings up to 460,000 death certificates. It's roughly on average about 60,000 deaths per year. I have every ICD-10 code and every CODIA BCD field as well as conditions contributing. So that's the narratives that the doctors write as well as the coders that the medical coders apply to it. And what I've, it's hard to do without my slides, but I'll try to do the best I can. Within about eight weeks in Massachusetts, now this is just Massachusetts, bear in mind, every state is different and finding signals is very difficult unless you separate it. And what I did was I separated 15 different age groups. And I used semi-monthly periods. So 24

periods per year, 15 different age groups. The COVID was really about eight weeks in Massachusetts from middle of March to middle of June. There's about 8,000 excess deaths in that time period alone. Most of them were over 85. Now what happened was the over 85 population that died off in that short period of time, it created a deficit where people say dry tinder, right? So it created a deficit that stepped down the signals for nearly two years. And I show that in the graphs and in the data. So what you mentioned, geriatric, and people talk about young people dying. It's not young people dying. Everybody's dying at the same rate that they have COVID, except that, I'm sorry, in distribution, but at a greater rate than COVID. So the older people, I'll give you an example.

One death certificate, Vermont. I might've mentioned this the other night. I'm not sure, but a 98 year old woman gets injected within minutes. Heart rate goes to 145 beats per minute, stays there for two days. You know what happened after two days of a 98 year old with a heartbeat that fast? She died of a heart attack. Okay. So it gets coded as a heart attack, says nothing about the vaccine. You have doctors all over the US asking for, we need codes for vaccines. No, we don't. Y5-90 is viral vaccines. T881 is complications from immunization elsewhere, not classified. They exist. There's one single death certificate that one medical coder, probably an intern that came out of college and didn't know better,

actually used the real codes on one death certificate with a medical examiner, Rebecca Diedrich in Boston. I think it was Solomon Kizito was the decedent. That's how I found it. John, there's a weird phenomenon where the coroners and the county health facilities and whatnot will not accept certain things. It's very odd. There's a part of this story that only doctors know, which is when you actually try to describe what happened, they won't. If you put aspiration pneumonia, God help you. And so you have to say, died of heart stopping, cardiopulmonary arrest due to pneumonia.

And then later, sort of off in the corner, you can put aspiration pneumonia somewhere. But that's just the way this system works. It's draconian. I get it. I get it. In fact, looking at them, I can tell you the behaviors of each individual medical examiner. Interesting. Yeah. Two of them are defendants. In fact, looking at them, I can tell you the behaviors of each individual medical examiner. Interesting. Yeah, yeah.

Two of them are defendants. Actually, I have four defendants in my lawsuit. Four of them are medical examiners from Massachusetts. The chief medical examiner also, the commissioner of the Department of Public Health, and the governor of Massachusetts are all named in my federal lawsuit. Exhibit F is 123 pages of correlated death certificates and VAERS records, as well as many that say, yeah, it's X42 acute fentanyl intoxication. And they tested the dead body. It says SARS-CoV-2 positivity in the setting of...

Fat male overdose. Yeah, I said that backwards. Drew, I used to laugh and say, when they'd hand me a death certificate to fill out, I'd say, they should give it to you as a multiple choice. What are the diagnoses you're willing to accept because rather than me yeah that's right it was it was that just in california for you was that just no i was in north carolina and ohio and florida no you'd say so weird make it a multiple choice

and tell me which one i can it's funny you mentioned that because you don't want the truth yeah it's weird no it's funny you mentioned this because i can tell a physician from a medical examiner just by by the way they're coding things now there's this one physician that i found and i i looked up i think 20 or 30 of his records and he just put the same thing in codia cause of death a every single time no matter what and then filled in the rest yeah because listen and then and then the then the then the uh press goes leading cause of death is cardiac arrest and the heart stopped and guess what that's the way they make you code it because the heart does stop of

course but they they won't let you talk about the reality anyway that that's a topic right maybe that maybe you'll change that with this lawsuit. And maybe this lawsuit will be the public debate that Steve was just talking about. Maybe you'll get to actually show both sides of the vaccine story. Well, it's not just what I found. I mean, I did interview a medical examiner working in Boston for three and a half hours and reviewed hundreds of death certificates with her. And I know the practices that they were doing. They're supposed to do things. They did not, they didn't show up to work because they were afraid of COVID in the first wave. And they coded things without

seeing, they didn't do blood labs. They didn't do tissue samples. They didn't do imaging. They called up the old folks home and said, what happened? Well, she started coughing and then she died. Okay, COVID. I guarantee you 80% of the deaths from COVID in Massachusetts are fraudulent. Oh, I saw it all the time. Yeah. There's no question that we had people who had mass trauma. Go ahead. There's a little girl seven years old who, this is what set me off i saw it in the

news seven years old said she died of covid like there's no way she's a healthy girl which i have seen seven-year-olds die of covid but they're obese down syndrome you know they get major problems um but this was a healthy girl so i got all the records through a public records disclosure and then and uh found her, found a VAERS record. She reacted within five minutes of the vaccine, threw up for eight to 10 hours. They injected her again three weeks later, and she had stomach pain, spiked 103 degree fever, and died in three days. You know what they put on the death certificate? COVID.

So, John, are you an attorney? No, I'm doing this pro se. I want to hear something funny. Well, it's not funny. I lost my son four and a half years ago and I'm doing this to try to save families from losing kids. What I was going to say was funny is I went to law school for a year at 56 years old. I got kicked out because I wouldn't get the vaccine. And so here I sit at 58. Yeah. And I'm deaf in one ear because I got a shot when I was four years old. They mixed streptomycin and penicillin together in 1968 as a prophylactic for the Hong Kong flu.

And that's how they learned. The streptomycin did that. So, Jesus Christ. So, we need to interview some more, of course. I want to get you to have you show your slides to us at some point here. But I'm sort of overwhelmed when I hear you talk because it all sounds so familiar from the depths of the dark hours of this pandemic. And some of the things that I was fearful was going on. You're telling me we're going on. What do you, I'm going to ask you what

I normally ask at the beginning of this program. What happened? Why do you think people did this? What happened to us? What happened to my profession? Well, so I was in sales for over 30 years in semiconductor research. Um, and it was my job to know people and everything. So what happened at every level, there's, there's a different story. There are doctors that felt coerced. There are doctors that felt, um, that they should just follow the authority. The younger doctors who grew up with EBM instead of just regular scientific method, they were told that just listen to the authority, listen to the FDA and that's it. The older doctors who were, you know, it used to be that a practice would have, I don't know, four, five, two, ten at most. And you would go to a doctor and there'd be the elder

statesman, one or two doctors that the younger guys would defer to because of their wisdom and experience. And the central authority might say, oh, you have to do this. And the old guy would say, no, no, no, you don't do that. They don't know this case. Yeah. You know, all the time. I live through the opiate thing. You don't need to.

I mean, if you want any example of how centralized authority kills people, just the opiate overprescribing that was mandated. I was crushed by all the regulatory agencies for resisting that. It was a terrible, dark time for me. So this all feels very familiar to me. But the magnitude of this one, the intensity of the— That's the incredulous thing that people have trouble with. But if you look at that letter from the American Board of Internal Medicine, American Board of Pediatrics, American Board of Family Medicine. I think I missed one there. But anyway, you can look at it on the web.

It says any doctor spreading vaccine misinformation will have their certification suspended or revoked. That's coercion right there. And it's out in public. And it's from the three CEOs of those boards. Now, if you look up where those boards get their money, there's a lot of Gates money going around. If you look at the New England Journal of Medicine from the Mass Med Society around since the late 1700s, it's one of the premier journals in the world. You'll find that Gates came by and dropped off $12 million in 2018 for whatever research, which is basically grants to write papers, and you've got to write the right paper to get the money. So this is all coercion. Yeah, we get it.

But Gates, even he has been softening lately. He's been a little concerned and looking at things, it seems like. But anyway, guys, we could chase our tails through this for a long period long period of time we will i'm going to get you in here john and kelly email your deeds to contact dr he did he did you forwarded it to me i did yeah i'll get it back and you can get them set up you know kelly i'm gonna wrap this up it's been a really uh challenging show for me i'm upset you know what i mean i i'm normally kelly and i are gonna go have vodka for my birthday. I know. Yeah.

Happy birthday. Happy birthday, Susan. No, I understand that feeling. The feeling shows up. It's shaking. No, that's the thing. It's hard to stay. It's hard to not get sucked in. I did a show before I was on with you today, a radio show, and I said, truly, I say this not in a condescending

sort of way, but more because I struggle with it myself. It's very easy to get sucked into the constant negative to say, to really lose hope in what's going on with our profession, with humanity. And all I could say is put down your phone, go celebrate. It's a time of great joy. It's Susan's birthday. Mankind still has a lot to offer to one each other. There is hope. I don't intend to stop saying the truth. I think that we will encourage people to have open debate. And I'm hoping that

our participation together on this platform will help to rejuvenate the more abundant history of a robust, vigorous debate in medicine. And so let's bring it back. And I hope we're wrong. I hope there is some sort of middle ground that we emerge into that we find that we can sort of still have some value in some of these products and use them properly. Just no understanding of the risk reward, which with much greater clarity. All right. So we will see you next week for Asim Malhatra,

which again will blow everybody's mind. He's a great guy. Susan, are we going to do Tuesday and Thursday? We're off to New York. So Tuesday, no, we're flying.

I think, aren't we flying on Tuesday? No, we're flying Monday. Monday. Oh, maybe. We're flying. Aren't we flying on Tuesday? No, we're flying Monday. I don't know. I haven't talked to Caleb. We might do some Q&A from New York. It's Christmas. We'll do what we can. We'll see what Susan's mood is on Tuesday.

Happy birthday. Have a martini for me. Happy birthday. We will see you next week. Kellylly thank you so much and merry christmas merry christmas everybody uh not yet our happy new year happy holidays everyone it's all the same time this year this has been a really interesting couple of years that we've been doing this show it's been probably two years now susan

this show this show yeah what with kelly no yeah about i would think it's yeah about two years but Two years now, Susan? This show? This show? Yeah. What, with Kelly? No, with Kayla. Yeah, about, I would think it's, yeah, about two years, but it really took off in the past six months, specifically the past three months. But I would say that, you know, we- Because they didn't censor us on YouTube. But look, let's just recap the sort of history here. We started as the French Underground. We were just trying to get people to calm down and be a source of information.

And then I did dose of Dr. True. And a place to answer get people to calm down and be a source of information. And a place to answer questions and to cool everybody out a little bit and to try to keep people abreast of information as it came through. And then it started getting increasingly clear that something was up. Something wasn't making sense. We were hearing points of view that sort of were concerning. And then getting pulled off YouTube. And then we will, and then we started getting crushed for things that didn't make sense. And, and then we started seeing people like Jay Bhattacharya, who we got to meet these people as we went along with like these, these are the

people that were, were, uh, canceled. I mean, it made no sense whatsoever. And then a growing swell started coming along, uh, of physicians and concerned professionals and concerned citizens that something is not right. So that's where we are right now. I don't know where we're going to end up. I want to believe that I still believe that when the day is done, we'll be able to give better informed consent on what we're doing with young people particularly, young people who have really no risk from COVID and may have some real risk from the vaccine. We can weigh these things out

and talk to our patients about it. In the very elderly population where the risk of the COVID is quite substantial and the risk of the vaccine may not be as substantial, but maybe something, we can understand more clearly what that something is, we will have made real progress. So hopefully-, hopefully, uh, well, we got lucky with rumble coming along too, when they did. Right. So we could keep talking. Thank you, Dave Rubin. Yes. Because we had, we, we were

able to diversify and get out on a lot of platforms when we were being pushed down. And I don't know, I just, I can't imagine Drew giving medical misinformation. That's just, you know. It's a weird idea. But because they were able to sort of paint me that way at the beginning of the pandemic, and I hope you guys understand how these videos and things work now. Well, they were threatening your credibility and your license. When you have a license, you have to go underground, I guess. But they cut videos up.

Do you not? Speaking of misinformation, I guess. But they cut videos up. Do you not, speaking of misinformation, I hope you understand stuff now you see on Twitter is presented in a certain way. The stuff that was specifically edited from all of my comments was, listen to the CDC, listen to Dr. Fauci, stop panicking, which is what I was ultimately concerned about. What is this now?

Pandemic is over. Yeah, I mean, I always said history will not be kind and it's it's starting to turn into that because smart people are going out and getting the facts and that's that's what you know looking back on something you can make better decisions based on what the actualities were we didn't know what they were going to be but you kind of predicted it but well i do remember this video of me kaylee you probably can find this i actually gary over at uh corolla has this the night that la county decided to close the schools i am sitting talking to the school where members going why are you doing this who what

doctor to what infectious disease nobody told us we just think it's the right thing to do i was like what why are you doing this what where did the decision-making come from? What's going on here? It's all was just out of sheer panic and this running to one side of the boat. It was just a crazy, crazy time. And I feel like we're kind of coming out of that, the delusional, whatever we were in. And that that is as a result of us sort of emerging from that, we're starting to look around at some of the other facts that are troubling us. And we're able to actually sit and talk about it. it's just today was an interesting show and uh i'm troubled but i'm gonna have a good holiday and a good birthday dinner with susan and i hope you all

have a nice holiday as well and i'm sorry for everybody who lost one to the vaccine that just sounds horrific especially we had to call her yesterday or day before it was it just it breaks my heart and you know i'm just hoping that we can move forward and not have that event happen for anybody in the future. Or at least if things happen, the patient or the family who makes the decision to proceed with the therapeutics or the vaccine, whatever it might be, understood the risk going in.

We're not presenting risk to anybody. Kids don't understand that. What are you putting up there,aleb what is it's a meme it's one of my favorite memes from the pandemic what do pro vaxxers and anti-vaxxers have in common they'll never be fully vaccinated i'm not sure i get it look at steve kirsch's twitter Kirsch's Twitter. It keeps going. Okay. All right. Just because it keeps going. Well, thank you for having Steve on my birthday because I've loved him for a long time.

When we were getting censored on YouTube, I asked him to start a new platform. Remember that, Caleb? I was like, if you want to make Dr. Drew TV into YouTube, we could do that. And then Rumble came along and they beat us to it. But he has been very passionate from the beginning. And I appreciate it. And he pitched this idea to me like a year ago. What idea?

The having a debate between him and a doctor. And, you know, we couldn't then. I mean, it was just it we would have gotten in trouble by somebody you know just do you think monica gandhi is adequate for this we need somebody you'd have to chat absolutely ask her because i she would be very interesting would be good oh oh yeah yeah she's she yeah but she's not she's not but she's my more like me she's in the middle a bit you know hmm uh i don't know it's it's difficult because the the type of person that would be the best to speak with steve kersh and to be a part of that they actually wouldn't come on like you've seen how hard we've actually

tried to get some of the people on that have been attacking you on twitter and none of the experts will actually do it like that doctor that we had on last week was the only one that's agreed so far. I've actively tried to get them just to come and back up their claims. Yeah, exactly. He's the only one that can do it. I don't know. They're also boring. Well, but if it's Steve versus some of these folks, it'd be, I don't know.

It's hard to find people who are really like pro-vax now. It's harder. Well, no. What about Dr. Selene? It's just hard to find people. Dr. Gounder. Selene Gounder. Yeah, at some point in the future.

Not now, but. She just had a major loss. Right, right. And I don't want to be, I don't want to risk the possibility that somebody says, hey, what do you think? Yeah, yeah, yeah. We don't know if it was because of the vaccine. I just don't want to do that to her. But she would have been perfect.

She would have been perfect. She would have been, yeah, before her husband died. I wonder if like a, what is the woman that, well, let me think on it. Anyway. I know, it's hard. Yeah. We have a long list of people. Someone suggested Dr. Peter Hotez as well.

He was on the show before. Yeah, Hotez was somebody I was thinking of. I really would like an infectious disease doctor in here, somebody who's actually actively seeing patients somewhere in that zone. The hard part is Steve talks about data, and you're going to need to have Dr. Fauci come in. We're going to need to have like an epidemiologist, I think, to really get at it. We tried to get Dr. Fauci and he almost came on and then he made a 360.

Is that true? Yeah. Michelle almost got him. We tried to get Dr. Campbell too, but he ignores us. Yeah, Campbell would be great, but he would just be a good interview. Okay, let me think on it. Who knows, maybe now they'll come. Anytime, everybody have a great holiday

and we'll see you on the other side. Be happy. 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.