Ask Dr. Drew - Taped FDA Call Exposed mRNA Cardiac Death Of 7YO & VAERS Failures, But New Leaked Letter Reveals FDA Plans Major Overhaul Of Childhood Vaccine Approvals w/ Dr. Joseph Fraiman & Dr. Stephanie Venn-Watson – Ask Dr. Drew – Ep 563

Episode Date: December 7, 2025

In March 2022, Dr. Joseph Fraiman taped an internal call between FDA directors and physicians who were concerned about mRNA side effects in their patients – including the cardiac arrest and sudden death of a 7-year-old days after being injected with Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine. “This was a top level meeting of directors,” Dr. Fraiman revealed to Ask Dr. Drew in Sept 2023. “This entire meeting terrified my entire work group.” The call – legally recorded by Dr. Fraiman – included FDA Director Dr. Peter Marks, Dr. Peter Doshi, Dr. Celia Witten, Dr. Sarah Walinsky, Dr. Lorrie McNeill, and many other experts. “What they’re saying here is they’re not doing statistical testing on adverse events. This is really insane to me,” Dr. Fraiman continued. “You know there’s a problem if the vaccine group has a higher rate of them.” Dr. Joseph Fraiman, MD is an emergency physician and clinical researcher focused on harm-benefit analysis. He served as Medical Manager of Louisiana’s Urban Search Rescue Disaster Task Force 1 and is lead author of a widely known re-analysis of mRNA vaccine serious harms. Follow at https://x.com/josephfraiman Dr. Stephanie Venn-Watson is Co-CEO and Co-Founder of Seraphina Therapeutics. She is a veterinary epidemiologist and author of “The Longevity Nutrient” (March 2025). Her background includes DARPA, the U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program, and research on nutritional C15:0 deficiencies. Learn more at https://drdrew.com/fatty15 「 SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS 」 • AUGUSTA PRECIOUS METALS – Thousands of Americans are moving portions of their retirement into physical gold & silver. Learn more in this 3-minute report from our friends at Augusta Precious Metals: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/gold⁠⁠⁠⁠ or text DREW to 35052 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠• FATTY15 – The future of essential fatty acids is here! Strengthen your cells against age-related breakdown with Fatty15. Get 15% off a 90-day Starter Kit Subscription at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/fatty15⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get 15% off your first order at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/paleovalley⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • VSHREDMD – Formulated by Dr. Drew: The Science of Cellular Health + World-Class Training Programs, Premium Content, and 1-1 Training with Certified V Shred Coaches! More at https://drdrew.com/vshredmd • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twc.health/drew⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 「 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. Executive Producers • Kaleb Nation - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://kalebnation.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • Susan Pinsky - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/firstladyoflove⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Content Producer & Booking • Emily Barsh - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/emilytvproducer⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Hosted By • Dr. Drew Pinsky - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/drdrew⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I'm very excited to get with it today. We're going to have Dr. Stephanie Van Watson back for us. A new study or a new article was advocating that perhaps our nutritional recommendations around saturated fats and dairy products, not quite very accurate, not quite up to what the standard of science should suggest. Once again, nutritional recommendations, shocking. Dr. Joseph Freiman, he was with us years ago reporting on a study he had done. Well, he reanalyzed the Pfizer data, and lo and behold, there were many deficiencies. We can review some of that.

You can follow Dr. Fryman on Joseph Fryman on X-F-R-A-I-M-A-N. And Dr. Stephanie Bed-Watson is at Meat Fatty 15. And Dr. Watson, Dr. Fryman, rather, expert in harm benefit analysis. He was the medical manager of Louisiana's urban search rescue disaster task force. He's an author and an important study around the Pfizer. vaccine and we are going to get to him now that he's out he was in the government for six months he's now out got a report for us after this our laws as it pertain to substances are draconian and bizarre the psychopaths start this he was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography

PTSD love addiction fentanyl and heroin ridiculous I'm a doctor for I say where the hell you think I learned that I'm just saying you go to treatment before you kill people I am a clinician observe things about these chemicals but 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 you have trouble you can't stop and you want to help stop it i can help i got a lot to say i got a lot more to say And Dr. Joseph Freiman joins us now. Joe, it is such a privilege to talk to you again. I have looked forward to this moment since our original interview after you did the big study around the Pfizer vaccine.

We rolled in a little tape before the show started. And in that tape, you were describing the holy shit moment reported by the pediatric rheumatologist who'd had a child die of the vaccine. I want to come forward from that last interview. My first question, though, is did the FDA ever follow up on that pediatric death? Yes, yes, they did. The rheumatologist, he did email them. And, you know, yes, it was followed up on, and he did end up getting. It reported after a meeting with the directors of essentially FDA's divisions on vaccine approval and safety.

But the problem I would posit was I want to know this piece of the story, even if they followed up with him. I have seen so many situations where I am absolutely clear clinically that these are vaccine reactions that the FDA guy, they got a guy who decided it's not a vaccine. reaction. So did that guy decide that this pediatric death was not related to the vaccine? Well, we know for sure, actually, that during that period of time that this particular incident was not considered a vaccine-induced death because they have not, they have, through all their evaluations, they have said that they had never found one. They had never found a vaccine-induced death. And that was until, until recently, until, Phil, well, now we know through this leaked email with Vinay Prasad, who's the head, the director of the Center for Biologic, Seber. And they are now reporting that they have 10 autopsies of pediatric cases, what that are showing, that are showing likely caused by the vaccine. And these are not new cases. These did not occur in 2025, as your quote here is clear.

it. These were there when they were analyzing this prior to the current, the current directors at the FDA. So yeah, they did not initially consider this one. And I don't know if the new, if that one of the 10 that is being referred to is one, is the one that is from the rheumatologist. I can say that they reported that the ages were 7 to 16. So it's possible that it is given that this child who, tragically did die was a seven-year-old. And in his letter, Dr. Vanai Prasad, who I've spoken to on this program before, and he's been saying exactly what is in that letter for about four years, but okay, but he says something very specific in what we just showed up on the screen here was no fewer

than 10 deaths, meaning there may be quite a few more, but categorically not less than 10. What was that based on? Is there a mechanism? Was there some brain inflammation? What did they see that led them to say this categorically is vaccine-related? We don't have the details, because this is all from just a leaked email. The whole report isn't out, but presumably it's the reports it's from autopsy data. And when you're doing autopsy work that is looking at the cause of death, it is a difficult, sometimes quite a difficult task to figure out what is, the exact cause and in all fairness it's it's a never it's often there are situations where it can't be

determined with 100% certainty and you basically you say this is one of the causes and then you rule out that it couldn't be any of the other other causes yeah i would presume for these 10 that given based on the letter and the discussion of myocarditis that these particular particular autopsy reports they're referring to were likely children who had myocarditis who had confirmed myocarditis on on autopsy probably within a certain proximity of the timing of the death and so of the vaccine and so and they couldn't find any alternative cause probably of the myocarditis is that's the most likely way that these would be done and I know that Tracy Beth Hoag and

Benai Prasad had been working on this and as their report it's been ongoing investigation into these cases to determine these causes of death and I know that they're very disciplined on this and they most likely have done a very good

job in analyzing all of these data. They had 97 or 96 deaths that they were reviewing and these are the 10 that they felt were that there was probably no other likely cause and that the only likely situation is that it was the vaccine. And if you think about it with 10, 10 of those, there's very, very few myocarditis deaths in general in the country, probably

probably in double digits. It would be my estimate. There's not a very good estimate of how often they occur. But when you think about how many of those would even just occur by random chance in the days after the vaccine, the likelihood of it being just random, it's quite unlikely. Well, and when I think about the deleterious effects of cardiac inflammation and myocarditis, I think about cardiomyopathy years down the road.

We don't even have that data yet, so that'll be interesting, number one. And then number two, I really wonder about some of these athletes that were dropping and things and what that might have been. And was it pulmonary embolus? Was it myocarditis? Are we finding going to, rather than having a guy that walks by and goes,

no, no, no, no, no, are we going to, it seems like this, this is a sign that there's going to be a much more systematic analysis of what happened. Yeah, I would hope so. I mean, when we compare this to how COVID deaths are determined for this entire time, the counting board of COVID deaths where you had COVID within, in 30 days or so of the death and it was counted as a COVID death. So the standard for how we're calculating, how we're determining the causes of death here is

not equal. And but I hope that, you know, I think that Vinaya and Tracy here on this particular project probably have identified cases that are going to be quite convincing would be my guess. but I actually think that when you just the autopsy cases they bring attention to the problem but the real problem here is not we the problem is brought up in the letter in that he says very clearly he asks the question did the COVID vaccine in these in children cause more death than it prevented and he answered this by saying we honestly cannot know we don't know the answer to that and here we now have these likely deaths that were caused by the vaccine and we have no ability

to determine if the vaccine has caused more harm or or benefit in children and the reality is we we never knew that when the vaccine was unleashed when it was you know first authorized and this was a thing we talked about years ago when I was on the show that that there's just uncertainty. We literally cannot tell if this vaccine is helping more than it's hurting. And it's just belief. We've been basing it all on belief of the government was believing that this was going to lead to more benefit than harm, but without actually data to support it without the randomized trials, which are necessary to determine this. And that's, I believe, the most important takeaway from this is that we didn't need to have them identify 10 children who were

killed by the vaccine to know that we didn't have the knowledge if this vaccine was killing more than it saved. Yeah. Yeah. And I've quoted you a million times since you pointed out irrational certitude. Irrational certitude is religious belief, essentially. And rational uncertainty is scientific posture. It's an objective posture. It's an ascension to an approximation of the truth, knowing you will never fully know whether you're there or not. But to say we are there, you know, the QED case closed, that is insane. That is religion. That is not science. Scientism.

Irrational certitude. I always called it irrational confidence, actually, would be the idea. You could even say irrational eubris. And it is. But the sad part about this irrational confidence that many people in the country have towards these vaccines is sad that these are scientists and these were scientists who are running our government. And I think that the country is actually quite lucky to have someone like Vinay Prasad there who is definitely not an irrationally confident person. he is rational rationally uncertain he's very clear cut in that he is saying we don't know he didn't say that they caused more death than they or they saved more death he was very clear cut and and that he was showing that we're uncertain and but that is the oh thank it's like thank you that we have a rational human being in charge of the approvals of these medic of these biologics And yet you had people identifying themselves as physicians, such as Francis Collins, saying publicly into a microphone, we didn't take risk rewarding denial. We didn't care. What were the risk? We just wanted to stop this thing. Like, oh my God, he said it out loud. That is an indictment. That is disgusting. It is the opposite of the practice of medicine. I don't understand why that wasn't just a national scandal. yeah that's that's that is it's a pretty dangerous viewpoint on how we're going to deal with novel novel substances that we're going to inject into people i think that in general we need to

um and and in this letter you know there's actually it's it's an incredible letter i found that and uh he made so many great points in it uh and what he took from this and this idea that we don't know if the vaccine harmed or saved more, you know, which, this mystery, I guess. And he took that and he pushing it into our policy and saying, we cannot allow this to happen anymore. And he gives various, you know, he gives specific ways that we can prevent this from happening. And it's, we've always known how to do it. And it's, we know that what you need, and he clearly demonstrates this is that we need randomized trials. We can no longer be using surrogate markers.

such as in vaccine trials, it would be antibodies. They have to be clinical outcomes, and is what he was saying, which means a surrogate outcome is a thing that you would never know unless your doctor told it to you. And what I mean by that is if you could take this surrogate outcome for any drug, and cancer, for example, it would be how big is your tumor? You have to get a cat scan, and then your doctor tells you,

your cat scan is bigger, like, oh, God, that's bad news. So it seems logical that a drug that makes your cancer smaller would be a good thing. But actually, surrogate markers are actually just sort of the first step in terms of figuring out if a drug works. Because you know how the drug, you have an idea of how the drug works. You need it to then do the surrogate. It needs to change it.

It needs to make the tumor smaller, for example. But if your tumor is smaller and then you die of liver failure, that's right. really doesn't matter. Right. Because the reason you're taking that cancer drug is to live longer. And so if you just are looking at the tumor size, you're going to get it wrong because and the same is true with vaccines is that if you're only looking at antibodies or things that are you could even use a clinical outcome, but if it's not a relevant one, such as do you get a case of the sniffles, that is actually going to, if the answer for, if the reason for the vaccine is to prevent hospitalizations, prevent death. If you don't do that,

a study that shows it prevents hospitalizations or death, then we don't know if it reduced hospitalizations or death. And more important, and importantly on that, you also need to make sure that it's doing it not on a cause-specific basis. If it reduces COVID-19 deaths but then increases a death son in another place, that's not a thing that we want either. So we know This is not new information that I'm producing here for you that I've come up with a new way to do trials. We've known this for many years, that this is how you determine if a drug is a good idea for human beings to take. And our FDA is supposed to allow only the ones through that are good for us. And I believe that the FDA for a very long time has been failing at that.

And the COVID-19 vaccine, I believe, has brought attention to this problem to the general population in a way that these issues really have not really caused a stir because, you know, for each drug that gets approved, generally, they are for one small disease and it doesn't affect the whole population. But for this one, not only did it affect the whole population, it was mandated onto a large percentage of them. Yeah. One of the things, you mentioned that last time you were in here. I've got an antsy group over on Rumble. They want to know the answer to this question. Is it accurate to say that the ACIP VerbP Verpac Group Committee only gets information from the drug manufacturers? They don't do any independent research. There's no autonomous, no third party research, and they themselves don't do research. Is that accurate? That is false. No, that is not accurate. ASEP, the ones who make recommendations for the CDC. No, they are allowed to gather research from very, from a large amount of sources. They can, within their conferences, they present information from various different places, including from industry.

But it is not, it is not only. However, generally for the, are they talking about? They might be talking about Veerback, which is the committee. They asked about that also. Beirback, yes, generally is only receiving information from, generally I would say, is only getting their information from industry. And that's because the way that our current system works is if you want to get your vaccine or your drug approved, then the company, the industry, pays for the trial.

so they have all the access to the information. No one else is doing a study on their drug, and then we make a decision on this. And I believe I said this on the last part of your show, last time I was on your show and the absurdity of that is it's crazy because we're listening to the manufacturer's review of their own product, which we wouldn't even do for anything that we bought off of Amazon. You rarely read what the company tells you

when you're buying a product on Amazon. You look to the independent reviews and how we have not figured out that this is an absurd system that we don't have an independent party performing studies of evaluating our drugs and we're essentially taking the whoever, the electric toothbrush manufacturers

through you. You wouldn't do it for an electric toothbrush, you know? And yet we do it for dangerous, potentially very dangerous chemicals that we're then going to recommend to the entire population. It's a pretty, it's not a good idea. Recommend, by the way, recommend is one thing. Mandate.

That's when you get into really weird bioethical territory that even three of five communist countries don't do. Do you know that? China does not have vaccine mandates. 88 countries around the world do not have vaccine mandates. That is a bioethical standard that is really high. We don't get anywhere near that. So I've got to take a little break here.

but thank you for answering that. I've got so much more I want to talk to you about. All right, we'll take a little break here and be back with Dr. Joseph Reimann right after this. Next year, the national debt is going to hit $40 trillion. As insane as that sounds, it's even worse when you consider unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare. If our status as the world's reserve currency suddenly changes,

our nation could collapse under the weight of its debt. And as we all know, there are many forces trying hard to take down that U.S. dollar. This is why thousands of Americans are moving portions of their retirement into physical gold and silver. Our friends at Augusta, precious metals, have put together a three-minute report entitled Debt Will Hit $40 trillion in 2026. Prepare your retirement now. It details how a self-directed IRA with real physical assets may be the best option in 2025. Go to Dr.Doo.com slash gold, that is, DRD-R-D-R-A-W.com slash GOLD, or text Drew, DERIW to 35052, that's 3-5052, and you'll get instant access to this crucial report.

If you have $50,000 or more in your IRA 401K, TSP, or other retirement accounts, consider our friends at Augusta Precious Metals to give you the information you need to make an informed decision about your retirement. find a fight for our nation's future, but we all need to protect our own futures first. Read this important three-minute report by visiting Dr. Drew.com slash gold. That is, dR.d-D-R-D-Ws.com slash G-O-L-D or text Drew to 35052 and see what Augusta can do for you. That's brilliant. And thank you, Drew. Who's Dr. Drew? Where is he?

Dr. Drew. Dr. Drew. So we have Dr. Joseph Reimann with us, Stephanie Edwards and Watson joins me in a few minutes. So, Joe, talk to me about the experience of being inside government and what you learned about the way government functions, particularly at the HHS. But a corollary question I have to that is, do you have any more or less sympathy for some of the shortcomings that we identify during COVID? During COVID, more or less. That's a, it's, you know, what you, I was at the NIH with, you know, with the director, Jay Badachari. I was a senior science strategist and working on various, helping him to get various types of policies to help improve scientific research in our country.

and at times I would be working with different agencies and what I had said I found is that you know you have it's very difficult within government because the way these systems have been designed it's you know I don't know if I have a fix but because for example like the NIH it's the way it's been built is over 80 years Congress has enacted

decides that we're going to have a new institute. There's 27 institutes, 29, I believe, offices, each one with its own director. And this is just piled on it. And it's done by Congress, who aren't, they are representatives, but I don't see how they would really know how our scientific funding system should be working. And then to fix it, you need actually an act of Congress,

which I learned when I was in Washington, D.C., is just the term they used there when you say, we need a change. They say, that's an act of Congress. And I was like, wait, that sounds impossible then. And they're like, no, no, no. I know the guy who we're going to talk to to try to start this.

But it's quite difficult to make any sort of the changes because the system, and that has its pluses and minuses. But it's led to a very difficult system to change everyone who's tried to change things in the past what they do is they essentially just add on something new and it's very difficult to remove something or change it and no it's how their response was for COVID is a different story I believe that what happened there was really not not acceptable and I don't think I would blame the the makeup of government for what happened there I believe that there was a lot of mistakes that were made specifically, I would more so say ethical mistakes in terms of

presuming that they could make the decisions for people when really their job was to give us information. And I think that they failed at that. And I think they also failed at even evaluating the policies that they were creating. And they failed at the, they failed at evaluating even the drugs that we're now just talking about they may have led to the deaths of children. So I don't think that the structure of government is an excuse for why things may have gone wrong

during COVID. Gotcha. You know, I just was thinking to myself, I used to listen to Vinay Prasad, as I could pronounce this, his name. He had a podcast called Plenary Sessions years ago, before COVID. and I used to listen to it because he has a some people can penetrate literature you know what I mean they're penetrative in their analysis and he was one of those people and one of his big complaints was shrinking the tumor not assessing all cause mortality or hiding it a lot of cancer research has that kind of stuff yes I would agree with that completely I think that that I feel from from a Prasad's email and I really hope that he can turn that into something real is uh because it's you know this idea there's this idea that floats

around where you say we need to do this trial to get these results and to show that it actually helps and there's a viewpoint out there that says oh that's going to be you're you're asking us to build a trial that's so expensive it's impossible or you know and that's a base a general idea that people say it's going to be so big that that uh but then if you think about it, what are we talking about? Instead, should we approve a drug that we don't know if the benefits outweigh the harms and possibly the harms are going to outweigh the benefits? Should we approve that rather than paying for the trial to figure it out? Instead of paying an investment today, we're just going to approve it and then pay for it forever because we're never

going to figure out if this thing harms or helps more or have a lot of difficulty for. figuring it out, and pay a thousand fold, 10,000 fold more for the product than to pay for a trial that actually determines, does this make me live more? Does this make me go to the hospital less? Because if it makes me go to the hospital more, I don't want it. And I definitely don't think that we should be paying for it. And the people who make money on these products should pay for the, you know, they could pay for the trials. It would even be better if the government put in the money to pay for the trial, even though it's not fair that people who make the money should pay for it,

but it would be smarter if the government even just paid for the trial, instead of just pay, because we pay with Medicaid, Medicare, the VA, pays many fold more, and they do it every year, after year, and every year that any drug is passed, we spend more on that drug than the

clinical trial would have cost to do it. Or we could give the government a piece of the profits. Maybe the government participates in some way, not in so much. I know that's a scary road to go down. I get it. But it's something.

Well, I think that it's the, I think that we have to think about this from a perspective of what's, what, what, you know, what's the point of approving drugs? And it's, what's the point of studying them before we give it, give them out? And it's to know that it gives you benefit over harm. And to not, to not do what we know how to do, it's, it's, it's really, really a shame, especially when you start dealing with things like vaccines, where we're giving them to healthy people. And if the benefit is real small, because you're going to have to do a trial of a million

people to figure out if it really helps or not, then the problem is that benefit being so small. The problem is then you only need a very small amount of harm to outweigh it. And I can't understand why in the 1950s were we able to do a polio vaccine stuff? study with a million kids, a million children in 1950s and Jonas Sox polio vaccine trial. Why today our population is probably twice as large, if not more, and we have way more money. So what rationale is there when we were doing this in the 1950s because we knew back then that was necessary? Today we somehow have forgotten that it is necessary to ensure our safety, and especially the safety.

of our children. Well, we do this very weird thing, and it's not just vaccines, it's with other medical products. We do this very weird thing where we go, we have an inadequate screening system, we have an integrated reporting system, and we go, hey, it's

totally safe. I haven't used this for a long time. I haven't seen any adverse events. I think it's working. I think it's, I use it all the time. I think it's working. Yeah, yeah, I use it. They rely on clinical judgment around rare events, both treatment of, you know, not everyday diseases necessarily, and rare adverse events.

And they go, it's great. There's a whole track record there. Billions of people who used it. It's all great. It's the weirdest thing that we allow that to stand as some sort of standard. Yes, we know better. And this is, it's an absurdity. And they then have, you know, they've changed the idea of saying real world evidence is there,

is the new term that they use for observational studies, which is everyone knows observational studies are not reliable. Instead, they change it to real world. Now it's, now it's better than a random. It's like it's better than a randomized trial. It's called, it's the real world. And this is, I believe that we've been, our population has been tricked in a certain way on this. And I think that it's something that, you know, I'm happy that we have people like Vinay, who are, who are kind of bringing attention to this and not only bring attention, like actually in our government, who are hopefully going to be able to get this through and actually change. the standards of this because I don't understand what you know people complaining about this like

oh my we're not going to approve a vaccine quick enough if you think about it what there's what infection right now is out there that we need to have like a rapid approval for for a vaccine that we want to give to our children the diseases that exist we're luckily medicine you know over the last 150 years has done an excellent job. And we no longer have terrible infections on a massive scale that are killing children. And of course, the concept of every child's death is a tragedy. And it obviously is. But to say that and then also put those children at risk of dying,

and then every each year having a new generation of kids being put at risk of dying because you didn't adequately study something, That does not seem to make sense if every child's death is a tragedy. And we need to get this approved as quickly as possible. That actually is, it's counter logical. Right, exactly. I'm looking at my chats here and there's a lot of impatience around Dr. Fauci. I'm not quite sure what their question is.

But I wonder now that you've been inside government, any new insights into his behavior or, you know, There's a lot of blame to go around, as I see it. I don't know. I don't have too much. I know at the NIH, at the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Disease, where he was the director, I believe they have taken down. He had a large photo. There was a large photo of him at the front, and I believe that's been taken down.

But besides that, I don't have too much information. I'll just say that that's what you call a tell. And then Caleb, you put up there the question about the Vioxx study with Pfizer back in the early 2000s. I actually have kind of a different view on that one. You know, people always

point at the circumstances in which drug companies get themselves into trouble. And I sometimes look at those. So Viox apparently eight and four people or six people died of coronary events on Vioxx. They had data, Pfizer hid, or overlooked. that showed coronary artery dysfunction

or endothelial problems from Vioxx. And my thing was that from Vioxx, what I took away from that study was because they hid their data, they ended up with a multi-billion dollar fine, but that drug was taken off the market and the risk reward on that drug was there. I have patients that are suffering to this day

because they were taken off Vioxx and they would have gladly taken a risk, a obscure risk of a coronary event, which I could have monitored forward, reduced the risk for various ways. So this is a way in which not just the drug companies get their ass in a sling, but we lose the tools we need to help people.

No, that's a fair point in the idea of informed consent and saying, listen, this drug does have this risk. This is how you're going to, but if it is, you know, if you're willing to take that risk, that's something that, you know, we allow people to smoke cigarettes, and that offers them no benefit. So, yeah, no, I understand your point there.

Yeah, with Vioxx, though, what they did was they didn't hide the data so much. No, the data was in the original FDA approval, and they had an increase in heart attacks, but they compared it to naproxin, which is a leave. And somehow they convinced the FDA that even the reason that their group looked like it had more heart attacks is because naproxin had this heart attack protection ability. A thing that no one had ever known before. No, this is real. This occurred, and our FDA approved Vioxx understanding that it had more heart attacks in there.

And, you know, if you two, that is, you know, and it wasn't until later, oh, by the way, first, it wasn't Pfizer. That's not Pfizer's drug, Viox. It's a, I believe, a Merck. It's a Merck drug. Yeah, I think it was a Merck drug. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. It was the best anti-inflammatory ever.

It was the best non-steroidal. It was fantastic. I really, it was just miraculous. And Celebrex is like a one on a scale of 10. I think there was a cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor, if I remember, right? And then we were Cellebrex and virus came out at the same time. In fact, it was 10 times more effective. And now I have patients that, you know, can't get control, can't take non-steroil for various reasons.

Whatever. I mean, the point is that if we don't get the science, And we aren't given the tools because they don't do the science properly. I'm so frustrated with all this. Well, the reason I brought up Vioxx, the reason I brought up Vioxx is because yesterday I had just read an anecdotal post from someone whose husband had died very violently from side effects of Vioxx a bunch of years ago. And that led me down a rabbit hole of reading articles following the cases and the lawsuits of people that were trying to sue the manufacturer for these results and the debts and their family. and I go down the list of reading the history of the lawsuits and it's like, all right, Merck is ordered to pay $20 million.

Then seven months later, oh, that's reversed and Merck doesn't have to pay anything. Next case, same exact thing. It's like they almost just got all these people died from a product they created and there were almost no ramifications for them. And people are asking a lot of why are we not having criminal charges against executives of companies? Why do they just get to walk away from causing harm and killing people's fathers and mothers? and then go off to the next job.

Beware, irrational certitude, irrational certainty. The biological systems are exceedingly complex, and who knows what those were in those events. Yeah, the concern with Vioxx is, yes, if they were honest and said, yes, this does cause some heart attacks, but we still think it's great. And then they pushed that, and that got through, my guess is that drug would probably not have been particularly good moneymaker. I don't think that many people would have taken it. There could have been, you know, some small group of people who were willing to take that

risk. But in general, it probably wouldn't have been, probably wouldn't have made them much money. And so they instead decided to suggest that it was the neproxin that was preventing heart attacks and that their drug didn't cause it. They only discovered it a couple years later when they tried to show that Vioxx prevented colon cancer in a randomized trial. They were doing a colon cancer trial. Oh, that's interesting. And then when they were trying to prevent colon cancer with Vioxx, that was when they discovered that they had an increase in heart attacks in the Vioxx group.

Also, just for your knowledge, being, seems like you are the, the biggest Viox fan I've ever, ever run into. I was. I was. But it actually did reduce colon cancer a little bit. Yeah, I remember that. I remember that. It caused more heart.

It was a very, very powerful drug. And it's, you know, yes, it had risk. But this is, again, the thing that frustrates me is that these centralized authorities are affecting our ability to do medicine. And again, during COVID, this was in full display where the kind of authority they wielded was just bizarre and disgusting. And, you know, people came away with the idea that the CDC and the FDA determine the practice of medicine. or tell doctors how to practice. Explain what they are supposed to do, Joe. Yeah, no, I mean, I think, as you even are saying there on the Vioxx,

like I personally don't know if I agree with you so much in that I, well, I've never, as a physician, Viox was gone before I got there, so I never had the opportunity of putting myself in the position where I had prescribed it, but I, or taken it myself. But I can say, what you're suggesting of is the, idea that we have medications, we can have informed consent. And this is true, I believe, for about everything. It's true for everything that we are doing. And if you understand, if people understand what they're taking, it's okay. And that's their, that's their choice. And the reality, though,

of the, of this is, if people did understand the risks, the benefits, the harms, they would generally not take most medications. They would not get most procedures. They would probably not get many screening tests if they understood the harms and the benefits of all of these things. And instead, what we have is a system that says, you take this, we recommend this. It's very paternalistic. And we, medical ethics has very much been clear for years that we say that autonomy is actually the one of our is our first principle um public health i looked into this public health does not have the same medical the same ethics as the medical profession they do not um have autonomy as one of their uh pillars and they and so they are like believe that it is okay to um

be misleading in order for to get the improved health outcome and and that is like and And it's very antagonistic, actually, to the way of the medical profession, which says we allow you to make bad decisions. We, our job is where our, what I always say to my patients is that I said, my, my expertise is in medicine and I could give you the information, but you're the expert in your body. You are the expert of your body and you have to choose based on this information what you think is best for you. And I believe these federal recommendations, the government recommendations are not, when they

make these bold things, especially a mandate, that's a really wild one. But even our guidelines, and then we're stuck actually with these guidelines that are various physician associations where I believe it's quite questionable these guidelines and where they come from, right? Sometimes they're pharmaceutical industry funded people on there, which we say, okay, that's questionable. But even if you consider the people on these associations are the specialists themselves, right where you would want that expertise of course but they also make money based on what you recommend what they recommend if they recommend you know if you're if you're a prostate cancer surgeon you're going to recommend people get prostate cancer screening and that is a a questionable

thing it's controversial it's for the most part people would say shared decision making is would be the the best way, give people the information, let them choose. But if you're a surgeon that makes all your money, you're the association of the surgeons, then you won't necessarily feel it's a good idea to let patients choose. It would be better just to recommend. And yeah, I find that these things are, we need to rethink how these things are set up and how they have been set up and how they've been taken advantage of by various financial interests. I could not agree more. We're going to have a roll to a stop here. I could keep talking to you. I could do three more shows on this,

but I want to say that when Jay Bata Chari told me he was being considered for NIH, I felt like I was a player in a Shakespearean drama. I was like, oh, this is not this cannot, this is like a no better possible outcome.

And you being in there and Tracy and Marty and you know, all these and Finai, all these great clinicians and minds and careful scientists are in there now trying to do what's right and it's just it's just poetic it's poetic and so thank you for your service to us all i hope you get drawn back in in some capacity sorry sorry if i'm

subjecting you to purgatory but yes go ahead but yes it's a pleasure always happy to come back out on all right love it thank you so much and we'll follow you on x at joseph freeman all right we're going to take a little break here and then we're going to talk about saturated fats another controversial topic nutrition nothing more complicated than nutrition so be very careful about nutrition recommendations but we have an expert coming in dr stephan ben watson uh which is going to give us her thoughts after this i'm excited to bring you a new product a new supplement fatty i take it i make susan take my whole family takes it this comes out of believe it or not dolphin research the navy

maintains a fleet of dolphins. And a brilliant veterinarian recognized that these dolphins sometimes developed a syndrome identical to our Alzheimer's disease. Those dolphins were deficient in a particular fatty acid. She replaced the fatty acid and they didn't get the Alzheimer's. Humans have the same issue. And we are more deficient in this particular fatty acid than ever before. And a simple replacement of this fatty acid called C-15 will help us prevent these syndromes. It's published in a recent journal called Metabolites. It's a new nutritional C-15 pentadecinoic acid it's called. The deficiency that we're developing for C-15 creates something called the cellular fragility syndrome. This is the first nutritional deficiency syndrome

to be discovered in 75 years and may be affecting us in many ways and as many as one in three of us. This is an important breakthrough. Take advantage of it. Go to fatty 15. dot com slash Dr. Drew to receive 15% off a 90-day starter kit subscription or use code Dr. Drew at checkout for that 15% off or just go to our website, Dr. Drew.com slash fatty 15. If there was ever a time to be rationally ready, it is now. I urge you to consider getting one of the emergency kits from the wellness company because TWC has seven different kits that are customized for a variety of situations. Wouldn't be a bad idea to take a look at each considering, say, what we've just been through,

in California with the fires, I was happy to have the field kit on hand. And the contagion kit, in particular, is suited for what is being predicted to be the next outbreak, or avian or bird flu. Of course, the same experts from the COVID era are freaking out about this potential pandemic. But don't panic. Just arm yourself with the meds you might need if this comes to pass. Contagion emergency kit contains ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, tamiflu, and budesinite, an inhaler that is good for airway reactivity and tightness.

as well as reducing viral replication in the airways. Go to Dr.Due.com slash TWC for 10% off your purchase. Well, you've no doubt seen the headlines. US debt is projected to hit 40 trillion by 2026. It could be more inflation, less buying power for your savings. Our friends at Augusta, precious metal, have put together an extremely important three-minute report, educational about how Americans can protect their retirement accounts.

From skyrocketing national debt with physical gold and silver, go to Dr.Doo.com slash gold. That is, DRD-R-A-W.com slash G-O-L-D or text, DRIW, Drew, to 3-5-2, to get instant access today. They are very interested in educating you about what you can do to protect yourself. They're all about that, which I think is a very, very laudable point of view. And don't forget our friends at Paleo Valley, of course, 15% off doctor.com when you subscribe, excuse me, 20% when you subscribe, and 15% off your first order. superior snacks, we haven't talked about the bars, the Paleo Valley Energy bars, which has grass-fed

finished beef at its core, the bone broth. Of course, the chocolate-favored bone broth protein powder is something I just love, made from real bone, not hides. And the sticks themselves, I just was traveling in Florida last week, and I ate those sticks more times than I could count. They are fermented, and again, it's from grass-fed, finished beef. Stephanie, the owners there know exactly what they're doing. They're very careful about what they select. And we had the beef tallow up there a minute ago. We use that all the time in our cooking.

All right, let's go now to our guest. We've, of course, got our friend, Dr. Stephanie, Van Watson, in there. You can follow her at Meat Fatty 15. Stephanie is the veterinarian behind the science and observations that led to the development of Fatty 15. Stephanie, welcome to the program. Hi, Dr. Drew, wonderful to be here. And just to review, Stephanie was working with the Navy Dolphins back in the day.

She noticed that some got diseases much like we got fatty liver, Alzheimer's, and when she tried to figure out what it was, they were deficient in this one antidecinoic acid, which is a saturated fat. But talk to them about Fatty 15 first, and then we'll talk about this article. Yeah, absolutely. So our work with the Navy, Dr. Drew, like you had mentioned, found that C-15 is this critical. essential saturated fatty acid, which we're going to talk about, and that's critical to healthy aging. This was all this work was funded by the Office of Naval Research. And so when our Office of Naval Research actually funded the development of a pure C-15 ingredient, which we put in fatty 15 to help support long-term health. And it has now been called the longevity nutrient,

and you've written a book about it. And if people want to know the science of longevity, check out that book there it is the longevity nutrient all right i was looking for that if that whole screen so an article came out recently about dairy fats and reconsidering as i think everyone is becoming slowly increasingly aware that our nutritional recommendations were either based on spurious concerns like uh you know cereal cereal companies and things like that or bad science or sort of philosophical grandstanding as was the case with fats. Talk a little bit about this article and what she's bringing up in that article. Yeah.

So what we're finding is getting a lot of attention right now, including an article that just came out in New York Times, but also getting coverage with Joe Rogan and CNBC and others, is the topic of around saturated fats. And that's because as part of the Maha movement, you know, there's a lot of discussion and push to get whole, dairy fat back into at least children's lives, right, if not all of our lives. And so it's really brought to fruition exactly what you're saying, Dr. Drew, which is, you know, 1977 Congress released

recommendations, dietary recommendations for all Americans to decrease their intake of dairy fat, to decrease their intake of saturated fats. And the best way to do that would be to decrease their intake of butter and whole fat milk. We did it. We stopped drinking those whole fat dairy products. At the time, the concern was not just high risk of cardiovascular disease, but we also had 15% of the population had obesity, 3 million people at type 2 diabetes. The recommendations were meant to take the edge off of this. Today, 43% of people with obesity, 24 million people with type 2 diabetes, an entirely new disease

called fatty liver disease shows up in 1980, now affecting those. 38% of people globally. So at the very least, we need acknowledgement and we need to re-look at the science to, you know, say, gosh, maybe we didn't get it all right when we were talking about, you know, all saturated fats. Yes, we were not getting it right. That's an understatement. And not only that, you mentioned the obesity epidemic. Saturated fats, you know, high fat content foods of various sources are important for satiety.

satiety. It's how we regulate our appetite. I put heavy cream in my coffee every morning because after one cup, I'm done. I don't, I'm not hungry for anything else. And guess what? I don't have coronary disease. And I don't have high lipids. I'm on a statin, to be fair. But it has not affected my lipid metabolism in any meaningful way. And you had pointed out to me last time I talked to you that the deficiency in whole fat dairy is one of the primary reasons were deficient in pencinoic acid. That's right. So this became the huge surprise that even though we discovered, you know,

the value of C-15 through dolphins, it was because they had undergone their own nutritional deficiency experiment where they stopped eating fish that were really high in C-15. This was concurrent to us drinking less whole-fat milk eating. less whole fat dairy products. At the same time, we were decreasing our C-15 levels and our primary source of C-15 is dairy fat. And so as we've been told to decrease our levels of all saturated fats, we decreased our levels of C-15. So back in 1950, average American drink, two cups of whole-fat milk. Today, it's less than a quarter cup. Women's breast milk has half the amount of C-15 than it did just 20 years ago. You know, kids that are between two to five years old

are now down to getting zero to 63 milligrams of C-15 when they used to get 200 to 250. So we've driven entire generational decline in C-15 levels. What we're seeing as the result of that is that nutritional deficiency, which we shared with the cellular fragility syndrome, increasing robust support knowing that lower our C-15, the higher our risk of developing type T diabetes, cardiovascular disease, fatty liver disease. And just as importantly, putting C-15 back into our system helps to reverse these conditions. And this whole new form of cell death, right, called Verptosis, which we think is the definition of a C-15 deficiency disease. This is like vitamin C-deficiency in Z-Gurvy and vitamin D deficiency in Ricketts. Like we shouldn't be in a

situation of, you know, nutritional deficiencies in, you know, in this day and age. And it is the first nutritional deficiency identified in, what, like 75 years? That's right. That's right. I mean, we had to work hard to get this. I mean, it had to be global, long-term held recommendations, followed recommendations to decrease one of probably, possibly one of the most important nutrients, especially for children. So it's a big reason. So it's a big reason why, even though the Navy initially developed, had us develop this pure C-15 supplement was to help, actually to help the Navy dolphins get C-15 back, we're now realizing that, you know, we are, it's just as important for humans too. We've got to get our C-15 levels

back up to speed. Pay attention to the science. I take it every day. I've, one of my sons, when he takes it, he says it improves his sleep and energy swears by Susan, too. She has some sort of feeling from it. I just don't want to age as rapidly. And so I'm trying to attack the ferropotosis and the membrane fragility and the breakdown of the cells, the oxidative stress on our cell membranes as we age, which is a different issue from preventing Alzheimer's and reversing non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, which thankfully good. I'd like to have neither of those as well, but I'm really just looking to improve longevity. And so the fact that more people aren't on this is sort of mysterious to me. It's just, it's such a easy put to get on this and stay with it.

Yeah, exactly. I just noticed a comment with regard to the beef tallow, a conversation, you know, C-15 is also in beef tallow. That C-15, C-7, these odd-chain saturated fats were actually first discovered by a contest from Napoleon who was looking for a cheaper version of butter during the war. And they came up with beef tallow, called it a margarine for margaric. acid, which is actually C-17. So a strong history. And then we just, and then we replaced margarine, stopped becoming saturated fat and started becoming, you know, vegetable oils and all other kinds of stuff.

Yeah, we turned, and there, there's a physician, Keith Shanahan, who has all this data about how the, these, the margarine and these vegetable oil products accumulate in our adipose tissue and our source of inflammation. It's just, and that then destroys our vascular health. So there's a lot here that has just gone sideways and wrong. It's weird to me, in my cardiology colleagues still are very skeptical about fats. And to some extent, I keep thinking to myself, well, perhaps in the setting of coronary disease, when somebody has known coronary disease, particularly significant coronary disease,

you're trying to stabilize those plaques any way you can. Maybe that makes sense there, but it doesn't make sense to somebody has zero calcium score on their coronary scans. Yeah, and it may just be also, too, of separating. We're learning, we're getting smarter and smarter about fats. You know, we had initially put all fat in the naughty category, and then we said, okay, polyunsaturated fatty omega-3s are good,

saturated fats are bad. Now we're understanding that even amongst saturated fats, even chain are can be pro-inflammatory can increase you know are associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease but these odd chain saturated fats are the opposite and there was a recent clinical trial showing that the higher the c15 um with people uh based upon their dairy fat intake the better their um vascular um resilience so it's it's really fascinating work that's been being done. What did you think about the New York Times article?

I thought it was sort of, it was sort of wondering more than sort of, it wasn't definitive, I thought. It was just sort of meandering through the topic, which I was glad to see, I mean, I'm glad to see them sort of reconsidering things, but didn't walk away, people need little guidance, there it is, is full fat dairy, healthier. They sort of tilted, it's, oh, probably better, probably okay, butter, not so bad, but may be bad, you know, it's, it'd be, if I were an average reader, I might have been a little confused by this article. Right. I agree. I think, you know, they went to the right experts. There are

experts that have been working on dairy fat. I think some good things that were called out was that there does seem to be something about dairy fat compared to other sources of saturated fats that, you know, make it lean toward more studies showing not only that it's not bad, but potential benefits, but they also shared that, which is true. Dairy fat studies are just a mixed bag of results. Some are positive. Some are nulls. Some are negative. Overall, like you said, right? It keeps you, so you are, you are kind of left with like it was a teaser header, but it didn't give you an answer. And I'm always shocked that with regard to that C-15 is not in this conversation, not because we did the initial work with it, but because there's now over 100 peer-reviewed

studies by prestigious teams throughout the world on C-15 and how this is not, it just is a mystery to me why this is not being covered even from just a complete, like, leave Stephanie Ben Watson out of it and just look at the science. But why didn't they call you who did the research? They should just picked up the phone. This woman did some interesting researcher. Yeah, it's weird. It is odd.

And then, you know, there's the whole story about how the. fat, you know, the fats became condemned by this one crusader who was, you know, was not working from great science and was excessive all the way along. And so there's, there's reason to believe that our relationship with fats has been adulterated in a not necessarily good way and that we have to really be. And there's sort of a general note that perhaps grandma or great grandma kind of knew what she was doing, that we used butter and she had some whole fat milk, not excessive amounts, but just generally used what nature provided. And guess what? Generally speaking, that ended up working out just fine. Yeah, that's absolutely right. And what's, you know,

a lot of people don't know is even, you know, the 1977 recommendations for, you know, dietary guidelines for all Americans, what very few people know is that was the second edition. The first addition had five senators who all agreed upon the findings. They got so much pushback, Dr. Drew, from medical authorities, from large institutions, you know, that are following the science that are leading medicine. They actually wrote in and said, wait, wait, wait, do not release these recommendations. There aren't enough data yet. And then the second version came out. And if you read at the very beginning of that hand-typed report, three of those senators dropped from the recommendations and said, we actually actively don't agree with these recommendations anymore.

And, you know, it just got basically still pushed through by just a very small number of senators. Did we, does that not sound familiar now that we've all lived through an era like COVID? Did we not see how government screws these things up so profoundly and all the adulterating influences other than science that get involved? pay attention this has been going on for a while and uh again it's why things like mandates from the government really bother me because they they have do not have the bioethical standing 95 times out of 100 all right uh Stephanie I appreciate you being here uh it's great always to talk about this material it's it's very important for people nutritional science is one of the

most complicated aspects of biology? It's, it's, I get to refer again to Kate Chanahan. She was a biochemist, really highly trained biochemist before she came out a physician. And she just goes, nutrition is too complicated. The only thing I can tell you anything about is saturated, unsaturated fats. I can say some things there. You know, the unsaturated fats, you heat them up, they're carcinogenic. Yeah, I can say that. And so, and there's various things that can, are categorically so in the fat category. mostly because it's been there, to some extent, it's been there, we've just been ignoring it. We've been sort of, again, dazed by the religion, the canonization of certain points of view without really looking at the science.

That's really what the theme of the show has been today, that you've got to just not make any assumptions, always be objective, always have irrational, excuse me, rational uncertainty, not irrational certitude on any topic when it comes. to biology. So how about that? Here, here. Here. I love it. And it's thanks to the dolphins, right, providing a whole new perspective in a clean world. So we need to keep our minds open to learning new perspectives for sure. Exactly. And based on currently available wisdom, I take C-15. Fattie 15. So there you go. You can follow. You can find out more at doctor.com slash fatty 15. Stephanie, do you have an X or Instagram yourself? I know you have Meat Fatty 15.

Yeah, I'm so old. I'm on LinkedIn. I'm on LinkedIn. And then you can read the whole story on the Longevitynutrient.com as far as longevity nutrient, wherever books are sold. And that's where the whole story is that all of these data that we talked about and more really robust reference section and index. So it would be hard to get through that book and not believe that there's something there. And we really need to get the world moving on because we can't afford to miss this opportunity. to improve global health. There you go. And Stephanie has an exceptional ability

to make these things readable, digestible. It's just a very easy read. It's not like a typical science book at all, but the science is all there. Stephanie, thank you so much for joining us. It was wonderful to be here, Dr. Drew. Always a pleasure. You got it.

See you soon. All right. What do we have coming up? We are going to be back here next week on Tuesday. There we go. Chris Hulk. Rob Henderson, that'll be fun. Chloe Carmichael. She is a psychologist that is addressing the, what should we call it,

the overtaking of psychology training by post-structuralism, essentially. Chris Salcido, Joseph Witt Daring coming back. Del Big Tree back, Delmi Wolf on the same show. That'll be interesting. Amy Alcon, Jonathan Alper. Shane Cashman, we got so much coming in here. pay attention, Elizabeth Kucinich. We'll be here

at 2 o'clock on Tuesday and Thursday, 4 o'clock on Wednesdays. If you have any guests you'd like us to talk to, I occasionally see it in my DMs on X, but better to go to contact at Dr.Doo.com, and we do check those and we'll sort of send those along to

Emily Barsh, who's doing an exceptional job as our booking. Let me quickly look at your rants here on the re-stream and whatnot. Give me a second to see if there's any questions you guys have. And over at the Rumble Rants. You guys were very active today, but it was sort of amongst yourself.

Dogs lived longer when they ate table snacks and not dried dog kibble. Yeah, well, guess what? Real food is superior to pressed out chunks in a bag. Not always the case, though. Be careful. I know vets that say human food can be problematic for dogs and you should really use high quality

dog kibble, but the quality varies and it's expensive sometimes. Moul and salt, you're quite welcome for the stream. Yeah, I'm a big fat. You know, Vinnie Tortorich always says the reason we have such a controversy around fat is the word fat. We associate fat with getting fat.

fat and saturated fats, fatty acids, adipose tissues are different things. Adipose is the thing that accumulates fat, adipose fat within our body. Faty acids and the things that we consume from animal products, yes, they can, they're a source of calorie, but they don't somehow go directly into our adipose tissue typically. So, though the unsaturated fats do tend to find their way there. as free fatty acids and there become inflammatory. All right, thank you so much for joining us, and we'll see you Tuesday at 2 o'clock.

Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky. Emily Barsh is our content producer. 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 an immediate danger, don't call me. Call 911. If you're feeling hopeless or suicidal, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8-2-2-7-3-8-2-1. 55. You can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at Dr.do.com slash help.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.