Ask Dr. Drew - The Cornell 7: Ketamine, Consent & A Trial By Internet Scandal w/ Attorney Viva Frei – Ask Dr. Drew – Ep 674
Episode Date: October 7, 2026In the Cornell 7 lawsuit, a female student has accused seven Chi Phi fraternity brothers of drugging and sexually assaulting her in October 2024. The men have denied wrongdoing, saying the encounter w...as consensual. One of the men now alleges that because he was intoxicated on ketamine at the time, he was unable to give consent – and thus legally, Jane Doe may have assaulted him. The NY Post reports that Matthew Ingalls “told Cornell University police that he was the one too intoxicated from booze and ketamine to consent” and Jane Doe “was the one who therefore assaulted him during the debauched and drunken night and not the other way around…” Attorney Viva Frei joins Dr. Drew to separate what is illegal and prosecutable from what is immoral, and to explain why the district attorney first declined to bring charges. Rob Rosen, producer of “Reasonable Doubt” and author of “Crimes of Omission,” discusses how the media is covering the case. Dr. Drew, an addiction specialist, explains what ketamine is, what happens when it is mixed with alcohol, and why it’s been linked to multiple celebrity deaths. Tom Welch, founder of Beacon Treatment Navigators, also speaks about his push for an FDA fast track designation for a naltrexone implant. David Freiheit, known as Viva Frei, is an attorney and political commentator. He hosts the Viva Frei Show on Rumble and Locals and cohosts Viva & Barnes Live with attorney Robert Barnes, focusing on constitutional law, civil liberties, and current events. Follow at https://x.com/TheVivaFrei Rob Rosen is an award-winning producer and director and the author of “Crimes of Omission: Distorted Justice: The Media’s War on Truth.” He created and directed the Fox Nation series “The Infomercials That Sold Us” starring Dennis Miller, created “Reasonable Doubt,” and was showrunner of “The Dead Files.” Follow at https://x.com/RobRosen14 Tom Welch is the founder of Beacon Treatment Navigators, a treatment navigation and case management firm that helps employers, health plans, and families connect people with substance use disorder to the right care Learn more at https://btnavigators.com/ 「 SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS 」 • FATTY15 – The future of essential fatty acids is here! Strengthen your cells against age-related breakdown with Fatty15. Get 15% off a 90-day Starter Kit Subscription at https://drdrew.com/fatty15 • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get 15% off your first order at https://drdrew.com/paleovalley • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at https://twc.health/drew 「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 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 • Emily Barsh - https://x.com/emilytvproducer Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive.
The Price is Right Fortune Pick.
BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly.
19 plus to wager.
Ontario only.
Please play responsibly.
If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you,
please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor,
free of charge.
BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario.
We are going to get into hoaxes a bit today.
Rosen, producer of reasonable doubt, author of Crimes of Omission,
is going to talk about how the media distorts so much amongst them as the facts of the Cornell 7,
the situation in Russia with the plague outbreak or whatever that was.
Many, many, many hoaxes.
Oh, yeah, and we're going to, L.A. and San Diego, we're going to leave them to a nuclear Holocaust.
That's what the press would lead you to believe the president said.
Rosen will straighten that all out for us.
Tom Welch joins me.
He's founder of a beacon treatment navigators.
He's going to discuss the addiction treatment industry and navigating all that.
And also the idea of fast-tracking a long-acting naltrexone implant, something that's been around for a while.
Do not understand why that has not been approved yet.
It seems bizarre, but here we are.
And we're going to start out with our friend Viva Fry.
We're going to discuss the Cornell 7.
It's big in the headlines right now.
I think you guys all know the details of this, this, this, this,
This is years ago now, this drunken orgy, these six, seven people had.
Well, new twist, complicating the case.
One of the accused men is saying he was sexually assaulted.
In fact, I think three of them have claimed this.
He was too altered on ketamine to give consent.
And then, as reported by the New York Post, Jane Doe, so called, was the one, this is the quote,
was the one who therefore assaulted him during the debauch and drunken night and not the other way around.
we're going to get into the difference between illegal and immoral with our buddy Viva Fry and many other things 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.
I observe things about these chemicals.
just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveland 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.
David Fryeit, forever known as Viva Frye, attorney, political commentator hosting the Viva Frye show on Rumble and locals.
Co-host Viva and Barnes live with Attorney Robert Barnes on constitutional law, civil liberties.
You can follow him on X at the Viva Fry, F-R-E-I.
VivaFri.com, Rumble, VivaFri, and Viva Barnes.
Dot Locals.com. Viva, welcome back.
Good to see you.
So this Cornell 7 thing, I heard you before the mics, before the cameras heated up,
you were sort of hinting around this idea that there's a significant difference between immoral and illegal.
What drives me nuts is about last week at some point I was going to tweet out
one of the guys should just accuse her of rape and see how that reversal uno card goes
and you don't want to make light of a situation where at the end of the day
there are people who are victims of sexual assault and you don't want to be accused
of being blib or facetious but I don't know that maybe who would who would accuse you
who would accuse you of being rape using two words in conjunction I've never heard
before, Uno and rape. So good job.
The reversal Uno card, which is if the idea is that people are intoxicated to the point
where they can't consent, by the woman's own admission, the other, at least two of the men
were so intoxicated, one was dry heeding, the other one couldn't keep an erection,
and they had to go rest up before she went back. The bottom line of this case is, in any case
where a woman accuses a man of rape, it's he says, she says, and you have to sort of try to
find out the facts as best you can. That's when it's just he says, she says, it's very difficult
to take sides. It's very difficult to know what's going on. In this case, people don't seem to
appreciate there is a she said what she did element to this. And that is to say three weeks after
the incident occurred, she filed a police reporter. She contacted police at the insistence of friends
who said, hey, you might have been the victim of a crime. And they meet with her. They take her
notes down. They write a six page report that she annotates and that she signs off on, basically
saying this was consensual. Some parts of it weren't, but the parts that weren't consensual didn't
lead to the men doing things to her that she said no to, the two that she said no to left.
But it was a statement where she acknowledged drinking. Now, now she's saying that she came there
sober, but apparently she said that, no, she says she came there about a five on ten coming
from another party. One of the guys is now saying she came there and said that she was sober.
And she says, well, I never lie in this recording that's going viral today.
clearly she lied somewhere because if she's at a bar drinking at the age of 20,
she's lying about her age.
But the bottom line is, also, she might be lying on that statement.
Now we're going to have to believe that she's lying when she says it was all consensual.
She signed off on a six-page report that basically said, yeah, I consented to doing ketamine.
I consented to having a threesome with two of these guys because I found them attractive.
I consented to doing ketamine lines of it off the erect penis of another one of the participants in the threesome.
I didn't consent with a couple of these guys, they went away.
And then three weeks later, when she is acquiring the reputation that one would expect from something like this,
and she's getting disinvited from events by that very frat, then it goes from being a regrettable incident of debauchery to rape,
and now we're supposed to just believe somebody who signed off on something entirely different at the time.
It's difficult in ordinary circumstances to know who's telling the truth.
But in this case, she's made statements that can at least say, you know, I don't know when she was lying, but the stories don't match up.
There's a couple other things from me, which is that these Ivy League schools have always been rapacious and they're supporting the female accuser.
I mean, that has been guilty, suspended, we'll deal with it in a couple of years.
That's sort of how they've been dealing with this issue for a long time.
And on top of that now, we have Letitia James being named as the, I guess, was she a special prosecutor?
I don't know what the role is exactly.
immediately after she announces the guilt of the Cornell 7.
How does that work?
It's turning into something of a social media mob or a judicial lynch mob.
Hokel comes out and basically says,
we're going to do away with our laws on voluntary intoxication,
which are certain exceptions under the law in New York.
And you have these rules where if you get voluntarily intoxicated,
it's sort of an impediment to subsequently claiming that consent was not there when you voluntarily
ingested drugs in the first place. And people out there saying, you know, taking drugs is not consent to
sex and taking drugs doesn't mean that you're not getting raped. The issue in this story is that
from the preliminary report that she signed off on three weeks after the incident, she said she voluntarily
ingested ketamine and voluntarily engaged in a threesome. And she told some guys,
to go away, and they did, and she, you know, voluntarily engaged with other people.
But now she's saying, well, I couldn't have because I was, you know, intoxicated off ketamine.
Well, if that's the case, one of the two guys was so ingested, so intoxicated by her own, you know,
sworn statement that one of them was about to dry he, she needed to make sure he wasn't going to vomit.
The other one needed to take a rest, and then she went back to it.
So if intoxication is a, you know, impedes consent, who's raping who in this story?
I'm not trying to be glib or funny.
People tend to think like men can't get raped
because if their witnesses are hard,
it means they're into it.
Men can get raped,
they can get sexually assaulted.
And the fact that one of them is able to get an erection
after not being able to get an erection
because of the degree to which he's intoxicated,
it's not just by virtue of an anatomical response
that they cannot be equally as sexually assaulted
as she claims to have been by them.
So who the hell knows?
Bottom line, parents need to start raising their kids
to not engage in debauchous behavior,
which will open the door to accusations like this.
It'll be difficult to disprove.
There's three things for me.
One is the young males are very aware of how risky this stall is for them.
They're very fearful all the time of being accused of something.
So this one's a bit odd.
The schools themselves, as I said, are rapacious.
In California, by the way, it only applies to women.
I remember asking this question a few years ago,
of an administrator, and they're like, oh, no, no, we're not going to protect men.
We're just protecting women.
And if you can't drive a vehicle, you can't render consent, essentially in California.
And I kind of support that.
But the other thing that drives me crazy, this is kind of the meta picture here that really makes me upset, is that I have said for 20 years,
you want to find an adverse outcome, whether it is rape, whether it's unwanted sexual contact,
whether it is a death, whether it is an accident, a fight, an overdose, you name it.
name the adverse, an STD, a pregnancy, any adverse event you can name in an 18 to 22 year
old, you will find alcohol, number one, and other drugs oftentimes. And the universities
endorse this behavior. It's pathological. And they do nothing to help these kids contain themselves.
Like when I went to university, I was living with my parents.
When I studied law, I was living on my own in a small town called Quebec City.
These were not things that were on my radar.
I never partook in any of this.
First of all, Drew, you know me, I'm kind of a neurotic hypochondriac.
The amount of...
You're not cool.
No, but can you imagine the level of STI, just from that one incident,
how many people could now have STDs that are with you for life?
I mean, I don't think people are fearful enough of that.
But I wouldn't even want to be a boy dating at this point in time
because the reality is you never know when you get to regret versus bona fide rape.
And, you know, if someone has sex and they don't like the experience and they say,
I feel exploited afterwards, I was intoxicated, therefore it goes from regretting the consequences,
the foreseeable consequences of my decisions, which are poor decision-making in the moment,
to accusations ex post facto of rape.
And then the university, when they come down on it, well, their standards for what is sexual assault are different than the law.
So the two students that got kicked out for violating school policy of sexual assault, it's a different standard than the legal standard for rape.
So the university comes down on them and, you know, it goes away for two years.
And then you come out with these accusations two years later, which on their face at the first reporting sounded horrific.
I mean, like at their face without having known that there was a report, horrific.
And then you get the social media, you get the lynch mob, the political lynch mob coming in,
and they're going to get a trophy one way or the other.
And you get Leticia James coming in.
After Kathy Hockel basically said, you know, like, even if it was within the bounds of the law
because they did a legal analysis back in the time of the voluntary intoxication,
we want a scalp in all of this.
It's not justice anymore.
It's going to be street justice.
And people are not going to fully appreciate there are consequences to actions.
Yes, dressing scantily is not an excuse or a justification for getting sexually assaulted,
but voluntarily going into a threesome ketamine binge will cause people to say,
who the hell consented in any of this if people are unable to consent under the drugs?
And who's to blame when everyone voluntarily engaged in this and debauchery ensued?
And I have zero doubt that it's, it's a reputable.
I think we are entering an era of consent documents before people have any kind of
contact. I know lawyers that have celebrity clients that have NDAs and consents by the front door
that people have to sign to come into the house. But true, it needs to be continual consent.
So you're going to have to sign off every five minutes. Like, okay, she consented to the three.
So at one 15 in the morning. Was she still consenting at three? Like, you're going to assume, you know,
you last, there's a joke in there. Assuming you last long in the minute. But you need to have ongoing
consent. And if it goes places where the person doesn't like.
Does it then mid-act become something of rape?
The reality is there are cut and dry cases, clear cases of rape, sexual assault, et cetera,
and taking advantage of vulnerable girls, et cetera, absolutely.
There are other cases where you'll never know, and in this case, you'll never know,
and people unfortunately have to live with and deal with the consequences of their own decision-making
in the moment, which is going into a ketamine binge-fueled threesome, four-some, whatever.
You mentioned a Snapchat.
There's some some Snapchat piece of evidence also?
Yes, there are some, I don't know if it's Snapchat, but text messages were apparently they notified
some of the other fragmenters that had, hey, boys, free P-U-S-S-Y here.
One other one said like, whip your thing out.
There's no evidence that anybody came in and then engaged in anything with the girl that
was not consented to.
In fact, the evidence, whether people like it or not, is at least as of now, she said no to
two of the seven, or two of the seven, I think.
There were two that engaged in it.
I'm not sure about the third one.
And they, you know, nothing happened with them.
So I understand what people are also going to say that she filed that report three weeks
after.
She's still in the throes of what happened to her, you know, text messaging, your alleged rapists
the day after and telling them that you like them and that you wanted to have a three-time,
yada, yada, you're going to have to square that peg.
But I can appreciate people are going to say that report.
She's still, you know, in the shock of it all.
Two years later, she's had time to reconsider.
Two years later, you've had time to reframe something in your mind from regret to rape.
And so that window of opportunity to change your perception of how it went down goes both ways.
What doesn't go both ways is the correspondence and the evidence of it and her own recollection of it in real time.
It seems to me that there must have been an attorney that was blowing a little wind into these sales.
What is that attorney thinking?
Look, not to be cynical.
I don't know of any attorney who wouldn't take this case now.
I mean, it's a, you can sort of not walk back,
but you can sort of try to reconcile her statement at the time
with claims of rape now.
You're going to say she was intoxicated and she could not consent,
therefore.
The flipside argument never goes both ways in society that,
well, the men were intoxicated to off methameth,
not meth, ketamine, but somehow, you know, that doesn't impact their ability to consent because
men are horn dogs and women are victims. I mean, that's basically the idea. But no, you get a lawyer
with the creative eye that says, of course you have a claim here. And maybe they'll settle.
Someone will pay you along the way. And you are the victim here. And of course, I can look at Jane
Doan in two years of retrospect saying, yeah, I was draw. I was out of my gourd, drugged,
but it was voluntary. You can easily understand how she, two years later, reframe the
it in her own mind as non-consensual or exploitive and feels morally and legally and justified
in her claim. What about the moral? I'm hearing people finally, finally, for the first time
in a long time talk about morality. Where have we done a disservice to our young people by
not framing things a little bit more clearly that way? I, look, I don't know. I see people online
saying that people are trying to justify or explain away what
the boys did in this. This was all around abjects debauchery, period. And I don't know what the
parental situation of these kids are, but to even not sensitize your kids to the risks of
ambiguous circumstances, let alone what can happen when everyone's on drugs and nobody's
recollection is objective. There's obviously a failure to, I say raise and moralized kids here,
but I don't, you know, the people saying that they're not guilty of rape or not justifying
the morality of what they did. It's debauchy. It's as much debauchy as that woman there,
what's her name, the woman who had sex with a thousand men in a day. I mean, like,
it's as much debauchery as that, and nobody's saying good on the men for doing it. Everyone
involved, it's debauchance from beginning to end. This is debauchery, and debauchy that is then
coupled with regret, and then someone saying, oh yeah, you were the victim in this, and now
go clarify, go vindicate your name, not just in the eyes of others, but in your own, you know,
mind's eye and claim to be the victim, convince yourself that you're the victim,
instead of actually just assuming a certain degree of responsibility,
which was willingly engaging in a ketamine-fuelled threesome backslash two threesomesons.
And let me explain about ketamine. It's been in the news a lot.
Matthew Perry was infused with a huge dose intravenous. He was massively abusing it.
I-V. Ketamine is around as a powder, as a nasal spray, as an intravenous injection.
The intervenor should be administered by an anesthesiologist.
It is a drug that is a dissociative and aesthetic.
People kind of go out of body.
Some people get high.
It used to be called Special K when it was available in drugs, in clubs.
It's now making a resurgence.
It is a severe intoxicant.
With alcohol, it's profound.
People are not in their right mind.
That's for sure.
So again, I cannot emphasize how sad this story is for me,
both from the standpoint of the immoral behavior
and the potentially illegal behavior
and the substance use
that clearly contributed to all this.
Hey, listen, are you a U.S. citizen yet, my friend?
Not yet, but God willing, touch wood
sooner than later.
Okay.
What do you make of the situation with Canada right now?
I wanted to get your opinion on what is all that?
Has Canada completely lost its mind?
Canada has lost its mind so much
It chased me out of it almost five years ago now.
You know, it's off the deep end.
It's the black hole.
It's the event.
It's entered the black hole beyond the event horizon.
You know, the tariff war, it's disguised politics that it has nothing to do with the U.S.
It has to do with the liberal government of Canada needing to manufacture a crisis to blame their economic, social woes on anything other than the liberal government that has had control of the country for the last decade.
And so you manufacture this trade war tariff crisis with the states and then blame inflation,
blame cost of living, blame social issues on Trump when in fact they predate Trump by years.
They are the direct consequence of failed liberal government.
And Mark Carney has a vested interest not in resolving this impasse, but exacerbating it as much as he can so that he can blame all of the woes of Canada on Donald Trump, even though they have nothing to do with him.
So it's, it's, it's, I think you will get away from him.
I think you're going to see something like France in Canada pretty easily, right?
I mean, it's a close relative.
And if things get really bad, I mean, they're going to lose control.
There are different demographic issues in Canada, not the same ones as in Europe.
But what you're seeing now, by the way, that you've had now the resurgence of the separatists in Quebec who have taken back power of the province.
And so, I mean, I called it a year and a half ago that, you know, the liberal.
When you're going to see the Balkanization over whatever period of time it takes of Canada.
Because liberals win, Alberta says we want to get the heck out of this federation that we get
exploited by and abused by the liberal government.
Quebec's been sitting there saying, whoa, guys, we've been trying to get separated since 78, 79.
So once it starts, you're going to have this resurgence in Quebec and you're going to have
more support than you've ever had.
And what might very well happen in all of this is the country is going to collapse and split.
And to the victor go, the spoils, the only question is going to be, you know, the risk, the proximate risk that that poses to America.
But that risk is sort of already, I would say at an all-time high right now, but it's pretty substantial now, given the degree to which the liberal government is cozing up to China and the way the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese interests have infiltrated the Canadian government.
But I called it a year and a half ago.
You might, in real time, in our lifetime, see the breaking up of Canada.
up, the province is becoming independent, Quebec becoming its own country, and Alberta may be becoming
the 51st state, assuming Greenland doesn't become the 51st state first.
Greenland is going to be Greenland. We got everything left from Greenland without making it a state,
so it's fine. But there will be Nouveau France. There'll be new, Nouveau France, for sure.
There will be a, there will be whatever Ontario is. There will be a 51st state. There might be a
52nd and a 53rd, seems to me.
Where is Saskatchewan going?
Where is British Columbia going?
Well, British Columbia will join maybe California or Washington.
British Columbia, I don't think people realize it's the most progressive in the worst way
where they want to legalize hard drugs in British Columbia.
Saskatchewan joins up with Alberta if it goes there.
It is funny.
I know, you're a history buff.
With the old expression, more things change, the more stays the same.
Old is new again.
Nouvelle France is going to become Newvel France again in the future.
it's like we're going to see it.
There's going to be some radical, radical changes going on in Canada.
And now the resurgence of the separatist movement.
They say third times a charm.
It was 78, 96, and who knows when?
2027, Quebec, a country in North America.
We'll see.
Well, are you predicting it?
We'll come back and revisit it in a couple years.
Not in 2020.
It'll take five years at least because they're going to run it through the Supreme Court.
They got guidance the last time on how to ask the question.
It's not even a resolved question as to whether or not the federal government, the king, has to accept the separation, even if it's done according to the rules, which are still sort of ambiguous.
So they'll fight it for five, seven years. It'll take as long as Brexit took in the UK.
But it's not looking good for Canada. And the longer the liberals stay in power, the faster they're going to bring on this demise.
And thank you for correcting me.
Nouvelle France, not Nouveau France.
I, Vive la France.
You know, although we challenge the genders of humans, in French, there are still male and female, masculine, feminine words that have their own.
There is no, they do not eff around with that.
I have one bit, trust me.
So I believe me.
But be there as it may, back to the riots in France, will that propel Marine Le Pen in?
Yeah, I mean, the riots in France are nothing new either.
They've been going on for years.
It'll make Marie Le Pen more popular.
These are different. It's true, but these are a little different.
These are, first of all, it's different.
Take a look at it.
It's not there.
It lacks the usual legitimacy that they claim from the Jacobins.
It's very random and it appears to be fueled by some outside source.
Particularly if you look at what's going on in Paris.
No, no, I've seen them, you know, aerosoling a woman in the face.
And I've seen all of it.
Flaming buses driving down the street.
I just say like even when I was there in 1999, I lived there for a year.
You saw some riots.
It's been getting worse and worse and worse.
This I don't think is going to be the catalyst.
And I think the reason why not is because I think, unfortunately, they're already at a stage of momentum where they can't solve the problem.
I mean, you're not deporting enough of the illegal element of the problem.
And the other problem is you have generational.
problems, which are people who've been there that you can't kick out. They're not going anywhere.
And they are people that have come over over the years through this failed policy that are now
lawful citizens that don't share the values of. But they're making the point over and over again
that if you're culturally French, I don't care what you look like or where you came from,
but you have to adopt, you must. They're getting a little bit more deliberate about that.
Listen, I got to run here. Where do you want people to find you?
Anyway, look up Viva Fry.
You'll get us Viva Barneslaw.locals.com and VivaFri on X.
I've been making some good predictions, Drew.
Not that I'm happy that these things happen,
but you can see where things are going.
And in the future, yes, you're going to have real-time apps to consent to sexual intercourse every five minutes.
And if you don't check in in five minutes, it's going to be presumed non-consent.
And it will be documented on your phone.
You know what?
Look, South Park, South Park had this almost eight years ago.
he had you had to consent the specific
they had PC principal going down the
hall in a fraternity going
okay turn in your consent forms
you left out conalingas
sorry you better not do that
they have to consent for particular acts
and yes reconsent
and it's probably the phone that's going to be the source
of these continuous consenting processes
it's going to be weird it's going to be weird
and there's going to be the asterisk
if you do not bring me to climax
that will be retroactive as well
jokes aside though yeah
the world is going crazy
I'll put that under your predictions.
All right, good to see you, my friend.
Same.
Take care.
Take care.
All right, Rob Rosen up next.
We're going to talk about how all these stories become distorted in the press.
Crimes of omission, distorted justice, the media's war on truth after this.
Hey, Dr. Drew here, and we are interested in health and longevity.
And the longevity nutrient is Fatty 15, discovered amazingly by a veterinarian who was
responsible for the Navy's fleet of dolphins. Turns out dolphins are healthier when they have adequate
amounts of pentadecinoic acid, which is C-15. It also, for us, it helps humans as well, reduces
the oxidative stress on our cell membranes, which is part of the aging process, called ferruposis.
So she takes it, I take. The whole family takes it. And if you'd like some, go to Dr. Drew.com
slash fatty 15 for yours. There are discounts there. Oh my God. Look, Drew, it's a dolphin.
Oh, my gosh. Hey, Dr. Drew here. And even when we travel, we,
bring the new convenient fatty gummies. They're delicious and they are portable and they're
great. And remember this is a longevity ingredient. It fights against the oxidated stress on our
cell membranes. We call that process ferroposis discovered in dolphin research by Dr. Van Watson.
And I'm taking this every day even when I travel. It's fatty 15.
Hey Dr. Drew here. When I am traveling, I am always so grateful that we bring along paleo valley
products. Both, this is the grass-fed venison, which is delicious, one of my favorite.
Also, they have the grass-fed and finished beef as well, with chicken and pork.
And the superfood bars, which have saved me a million times. It's made from the bone broth,
which, again, is 100% grass-fed finished beef, bone broth, and it's made from real bone,
not hides, and other superfoods within this bar, including blueberries and cashews.
Check the label. This is a great supplement and wonderful to have on hand when we're traveling.
It wasn't all Dr. Drew or anything.
Why would I screw myself?
What am I?
Dr. Drew?
And a reminder, they've got the pumpkin spice.
It's so delicious, both in terms of the superfood bars and the grass-fed, finished
bone broth protein.
It's a challenge every day to my beloved chocolate versus the pumpkin spice.
And it's for a short time.
It's a limited time just for the fall.
So do stock up on that if you possibly can.
All right.
Rob Rosen, award-winning producer, director.
As I said, author of Crimes of Omission, directed the Falk Nation series,
The Infomercials that sold us with Dennis Miller.
Reasonable Doubt and also Showrunner of the Deadfiles began his career in news as Emmy Award-winning producer.
For K-CBS, Los Angeles, you can follow Rob Rosen 14 on X, Instagram, Rob Rosen 14,
and do get the book, Crimes of Omission, Distorted Justice.
Rob, welcome back.
Thank you for being here.
Thanks so much for having me on.
Oh, you don't. There you go. I thought we lost your sound for a second. All right. I'm also
don't even know where to start. Let's start with the LA and San Diego thing. Just because I think it's such an interesting sort of example of the fine people hoax rearing its head again.
Yeah. So basically, if you are on X today, the outrage of the day from Donald Trump is that he supposedly, supposedly said, let Iran take San Diego or L.A.
sorry for my bad imitation of the president.
Let him take it.
We don't care.
Now, any of one from Maria Shriver, the L.A. Times, the New York Times has been producing
these shrill headlines.
Can you believe that the president of the United States said that two great American cities
should be taken out?
What really was said in full context, I listened to the speech in its entirety.
And what he really said was, look, oil prices are high, but it's a small price to pay.
because if Iran did get a nuclear bomb,
maybe they would take out Los Angeles or San Diego,
then let's see what people would say about that.
That's the full context.
And look, the thing that's the worst about it is,
they know full well.
They know full well that they are taking this out of context.
It's like the very fine people hoax.
And yet, they've learned nothing.
They roll on.
But it's a procedural problem.
somebody knows it and takes it out of context, and then the rest of them run hysterically to
their printers and their cameras to report on something somebody else lied about.
A friend, the stoic philosopher, the famous for, you know, making Stoic philosophy more,
more popular, Ryan, oh my gosh, my brain today.
Ryan Holiday.
Holiday, thank you.
Ryan Holiday.
He wrote a book before all his stoic stuff.
called, trust me, I'm lying, where he reported exactly how he used Jezebel and all those old
sites to manipulate stories. And then they would get reported in the general press as factual.
But they started as a lie and nobody checked it and nobody checked the sources either.
This seems, this has been going on for 20 years. When are people going to hold journalists accountable?
I think that one thing is, when you tell people a lie that they want to believe and you
go to Gaza or October 7th, many, many things.
When you tell people a lie they want to believe,
it's easier to do that than to tell them a hard truth that they don't.
The other thing is, I think that people who are in the ecosystem
of the New York Times, ABC News, L.A. Times,
they never jump on the other side of the wall.
They don't know that they're being lied to.
They are so deep in their blue sky bubble
that I think, no matter how much people from the outside are shouting,
this is out of context. This is not accurate.
I don't think they ever find out.
And if they do, I don't think they want to.
And so they can never, they never adjust.
That's what I'm saying.
Somebody's got to like hold their hand to the fire.
I don't know.
So is the Russian plague outbreak?
I mean, listen, think of all the different impending doom outbreaks we've had.
We've had monkeypox.
We've had cyclospore.
We've had bird flu.
We've had, I can't even think of all that.
We've had like eight that they,
Again, you got to run to create a panic.
Oh, my God.
You know, by the way, I don't know if you've been around a lot of newsrooms.
People behave like that there.
They go, we got to be first.
We got to get it out.
And it's just nonsensical.
It's just not any way to report the facts to people.
But in any event, what are they doing with the Russia plague situation?
Well, clearly all of us have been irresponsible.
We're not wearing masks while we do this broadcast.
And clearly that's going to be called for.
But look, I watched the three legacy newscasts last night, ABC, NBC and CBS.
They, you know, if you take out the promos, the content in it is about 20 minutes.
And all of them ran two-minute packages on this Russian story.
And even as of yesterday, we knew that the WHO had said that it was very low risk.
We knew that the other people who were being quarantined were not showing any symptoms.
And we knew that Russia itself, for whatever credibility that's worth, was saying
that it wasn't really a big issue.
So, okay, a mention, a quick reader for 15 seconds,
but to take 10% of the newscasts,
which is supposed to tell you everything of importance
that's going on in the world,
the newscast of record,
and you're going to spend 10% on a non-story?
I mean, I don't even know that that shows a bias
as much as it's just trying to self-fear,
which, of course, we know happens all the time.
I mean, that is...
That seems to be...
That is their...
Yeah, it's their MO.
That's how they got a touch fear, but hysteria.
Yeah, hysteria.
I mean, that's what the Trump misquoting is a hysteria.
That's what this is, a hysteria.
Listen, maybe this does have some merit for taking, you know, being aware of this.
But it's up to the State Department of the public health officials to manage this thing.
Making everybody fearful and panicky is not going to help this situation.
Yeah, and it's, you know, it's the crime of omission, which, you know, I titled the book.
but it's not that the story has no merit at all.
You know, if you're editing the New York Times and you have unlimited space, it deserves something.
Maybe it's going to develop into a bigger story.
But for people who are watching these broadcasts, really 10% of the news is one person in one part of a remote part of the earth who died mysteriously.
And that is what we're going to, 10% of our coverage is going to be about that.
By the way, I couldn't help, as I was listening to your first interview about the Cornell 7,
that coverage was very, very interesting last night as well.
So ABC and NBC both led with the story.
They did two-minute packages, and they didn't spend five seconds, not even a second,
on possible reasons why the district attorney might not have pressed charges in 2024.
CBS, to their credit, and I guess this is Barry Weiss's influence, did have a legal analyst who
tried to explain why DA Van Houten might not oppress charges.
But to be clear, as a journalist, you should have no opinion on this case or the outcome of
this case.
Your job, as Walter Cronkite said, is hold a mirror up to reality.
And so you're here to balance the outrage that you're seeing at Cornell University and the protests
and people who are upset about it, but also balance it with.
what did this woman say, this Jane Doe, right after this happened three weeks later?
And why was it that those statements led the district attorney to say, no, I don't think a crime was
committed here?
You know, it's interesting.
I don't know if you have an opinion on some of these news outlets being cast out.
I guess it's the press pool, essentially.
I'm interested in you having an idea about that.
But the other thing I wanted to say is, I don't know if you saw President of Trump yesterday,
I'm cracking up because it just cracks me up.
He was getting ready to get on the helicopter Marine One.
And there was dozens of these press just going crazy for him.
And he would talk to somebody and they would accuse him of something.
Go, do you know that's not true?
I know that's not true.
Your fake news.
He started to go in there, your fake news, your fake news.
And I was like, this is really funny.
And they just go on to the next person.
And so they were all kind of on edge a little bit.
But so is that going to be his new style?
It's just going to be accusing these stories of omission and the out-of-context stories
as just call them out because there's so many.
Just keep calling them out.
Yeah.
I mean, I think that's what he's doing.
And look, to be fair, from a journalistic perspective, he's an incredibly difficult
person to cover.
But he did put the media on tilt.
Look, he called them out for their bias, for the fake news.
Now, is he somebody who's trying to work the reference?
If this was like a sporting event, is he the coach who's yelling at the refs the whole time?
Because he wants every call to go his way.
He is.
And as the journalists who are really the referees in the game, we can't always give him what he wants.
Yeah, we should be.
Instead, we have referees who are active, want to be active participants in the game and have made it very clear which team they want to win.
And that's where you have media.
Look, this entire profession is based on.
trust. It is a very ephemeral kind of thing. We are as good as the trust of the people. And right now,
we don't have it. We lost it. And it's our own fault. And there was a poll that was recently done
where they said, who do you trust more? The media or Congress? And Congress won. That's really
hard to do. Yeah, it is hard to do, especially the way people look at the Congress now.
But do you think he was right to kick some of these people out? I mean, other people have always been kicked
out or selected for the press pool.
What's the big deal this time?
It's just another hysteria?
Well, all right.
I'm going to cut this baby in two and just sort of, look, on the one hand,
there is a lot of hypocrisy because previous administrations,
previous Democratic administrations did the exact same thing, and they didn't say a peep.
So I agree with that.
On the other hand, I personally am a believer that the government works for us,
the president of the United States is our employee as citizens and as voters. And so,
except for extreme situations, I do believe that the media should be given full access to the White
House. And I do understand, I mean, that's why Fox News went along with the other news outlets
and condemned what he was doing. So I do disagree with that move. I do think that's a step too far.
But the people who are acting like, oh, my God, this has never happened before. Again,
That's just spent.
Right.
That is inaccurate.
Back to sort of the omission issue,
I'm certain you noticed the way they reported the hijacking.
There was an altercation in the flight deck.
What was that all about?
I think that we have gotten, you know,
the old Norm McDonald joke, right?
an Islamist threw a nuclear bomb and 40 million Americans died,
but what I'm really worried about is the Islamophobia.
That's the very famous tweet from the late comedian.
This is what we're dealing with here.
I mean, the news organizations have really gotten into their heads
that somehow Islamophobia is the number one concern,
and so we have to distort reality because somehow,
and by the way, I don't know where these examples are
of people of Islamic faith being accosted in American streets,
as all the FBI statistics seems to show that Jews are really the main recipients of religious hate.
Setting that aside for a moment, your job is to cover the truth.
And that was one of the most embarrassing and laughable headlines.
The Wall Street Journal even did it.
It sounded like...
It wasn't just U.S.
It wasn't just U.S. by the way.
I saw BBC and other reporters to very, very same thing.
Yeah, and it sounded like two pilots just couldn't get along.
Maybe they were, I don't know, fighting over their fantasy football picks and they got a scuffle.
And then somehow the passengers had to come in and land the plane.
I mean, it was such a distortion of reality.
And they did correct.
I think that was one that was a step too far.
But anytime that you put something, the North Star for a journalist has to be the truth.
It can't be anything else.
It's not our job to say, well, if we say that this suspect happens to be African-American,
that's not a good thing for society, so let's just not mention it.
That's the roadway to hell, you know, and sure, there may be good intentions behind it,
but that is not the job of a journalist.
Truth.
That is the only North Star.
And that reporting on what happened on that plane was,
so misleading that it really was almost like the Babylon B come to life. I mean, that one was hard
to accept. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Listen, to me, it harkened back to the, at the end of the Obama
administration, it was a woman that was the attorney general then, and we had a horrible shooting in
San Bernardino. There was an extremist attack where a bunch of colleagues all worked in an office
together, we're just gunned down in cold blood.
And she got up in the podium and she goes,
first thing I need, you need to understand.
Do not mention this has anything to do with Islam or Islam.
I'm going to, you know, I will kick you out of you for Islamophobia.
If you say anything about extremism, I thought, wow, we're there.
That was 12 years ago or something like that.
And I mean, my goodness.
And this is the leading legal figure in the country is not even going to address what caused
this incredible mass murder.
And here we are.
Same thing.
Now the press is doing it.
Well, how many times have we seen a case where gunmen walks into some situation,
yells, what is it, Abu Akbar, or whatever it is, guns everyone down.
And then the New York Times the next day say the motive is unknown.
I mean, how can you accept the public, expect the public to trust you when you are writing
in an Orwellian fashion like this?
We still don't know that kid that was it Nashville that shot up Nashville six, five, six years ago.
We still don't know what was in her manifesto, right?
It was kept from the public.
Yeah.
Well, and, you know, I hate to use the Aunt Coulter rule, but she was on Bill Maher.
And there was some situation of a mass shooting.
And she said, well, you know, it wasn't a white male.
And everybody on the panel was kind of shocked.
Why would you say that?
And she said because they haven't reported the race of it.
And, you know, it's funny.
When I started news, it was also wrong.
It was the opposite.
There was a tendency at that time in the early 90s to put up and to name the race if it was an African American suspect, but not a white suspect.
And that was wrong.
That's interesting.
That's weird that it was that recent, you know?
That's weird.
And instead of self-correcting.
And by the way, activists.
would always say at the time, look, the race doesn't matter. We shouldn't do it. And news directors
slowly started to agree. And so they stopped doing it. But now, and we saw it during the anti-police
movement in the 2010s, the officer's race was always mentioned if it was a white male officer,
never mentioned if it was something else, right? I mean, how many people know that in the George
Floyd incident with Derek Chauvin, there was one Asian and one black officer as well as him
and another white officer.
You know, that was rarely, if ever mentioned.
And so, again, I just think that,
and I'm so passionate about this because I think journalism is such an amazing profession.
And in many ways, you know, it's been my life's passion.
And I hate to see it lose its own credibility.
It has no one to blame but itself.
But all of these secondary factors, well, we don't want to cause Islamophobia.
We don't want to cause this.
We don't want to cause that.
All of that is simply deteriorating the trust that the public has.
You have to just call it like it is.
And I think even at its very precept, the idea that the public can't handle hearing that there is some Islamic fascists out there,
that there are some people of color who commit crimes, and that somehow this is just,
they're not going to be able to process this and they're going to commit random hate crimes on the streets is just, I just don't think that's,
I think that's divorce from reality.
We've never seen that.
Even after 9-11, when there was all this talk about it,
there was not a lot of hate directed as at Muslims,
all things considered.
And both sides are doing it and both are contributing,
not just to the divisions in this country,
but I would argue the deterioration in our mental health that is ensuing.
Listen, tell us about the book.
What's in there?
What are we going to read?
Okay, so crimes of omission in its own strange way,
even though it's a scathing critique of modern media
is also a love letter to journalism.
It takes a look at where the media has gone wrong,
starting with Trayvon Martin in 2012,
all the way up to George Floyd.
And I use a lot of those high-profile cases
as sort of the foundation for the book.
And using research, talking to police who are involved,
talking to network executives,
I'll tell you the real story of what happened in those cases
and contrasted to the way it was covered
and also find out why journalists
and why networks made some of the disastrous decisions that they did.
I'll tell you one thing that I was surprised.
I spoke to a lot, a lot of journalists here
and a lot of high-profile journalists.
And I don't think anyone was really happy
about the way that this story was covered.
And when you look at the way that America burned in 2020,
in the summer of 2020,
that wouldn't have happened
if it wasn't for malpractice from journalists.
because the idea that black men were being hunted on the streets of America was inescapable
if you watched any kind of cable or legacy news.
And it just wasn't true at that point in time.
Rob, thank you for being here.
Rob Rosen 14 on X and go get crimes of omission and we'll talk soon.
Thank you so much.
Good to see you, Drew.
Good to see you as well.
All right.
We're going to take one quick break here.
And we're going to talk to Tom Welch, the founder of Beacon Treatment Now.
Have you talked a little about implantable naltrexone, amongst other things, right after this.
I've been a privilege to serve as the chief patient officer at the wellness company.
And one of our top priorities has been to help families prepare for emergencies,
avoid trips to the ER or urgent care, which is a waste of time and money and you're exposing.
It's just not the way medicine should be delivered.
And I want to remind you about one of the most popular products amongst new and returning customers,
that of course is the medical emergency kit.
And even as a physician, I keep one, we do not travel without one ever.
The travel kit particularly was exactly what I always gave my patients when they travel.
You can go to doctor.com slash TWC to check out all of the kits and as well get a 10% discount.
There are six different kits, each for different situations.
And children, four to 17 years of age, could be assisted with first aid, travel, medical, and contagion.
But it is all guided by telehealth medicine, by medical professionals.
Having a kit means immediate access at the first sign of difficulty.
And every kid is supported and guided by a medical professional via telehealth.
This is not self-directed usage.
This means you're not guessing what drug you ought to be using or what you're dosing ought to be.
There's also a guidebook that helps you educate yourself about what you have in your kits.
And you can order refills of all the medications.
Patient satisfaction, we have measured it.
and it has been extraordinarily positive.
For 10% off, your purchase,
just head on over to Dr.do.com slash TWC.
I don't see the profession doing anything to really build trust beside you.
Happy to be on here.
Thank you for having me.
You and I see the world the same way.
What is it like for you to be the most chiseled and best-looking man in media?
Giving us the information we need.
Thank you for the truth.
My pleasure.
We are going to take your calls at 8333-3-D-R-A-W.
Tom Welch, the founder of Beacon to Treatment Navigators, follow at BTNaviters.com.
He's also involved with BioCoRX Pharmaceuticals.
You can, he's executive vice president.
We're going to talk about implantable naltrexone.
Tom, welcome the program.
Thank you so much for having me, Dr. Drew.
Hey, before we get into Naltrexone, let's talk a lot of the program.
a little bit about navigating treatment. With the high-profile death recently at a treatment center,
people are talking about this issue. And it is extremely difficult for people to navigate treatment
for a variety of reasons. How do you see the landscape and how do you guys help out?
Man, I'd tell you, it's crazy that we have this chronic multifactorial disease of the brain
and we still don't have a standard for comprehensive care teams to take care of people that have substance use disorder.
That's what needs to happen.
It's not happening at 30-day centers.
It's just not.
Sorry.
Well, I mean, we have it.
We have it medically.
It's just that there's this gigantic disconnect between the way these organizations are regulated or not regulated,
and then what we're trying to do to help people with this substance use disorder and making things work.
is the insurance company doesn't care about what physicians want to do to help these people.
The law doesn't care about it.
And people are taking advantage of all the sort of available patients that are out there that aren't getting proper care.
Well, you can kind of understand why doctors don't want to get into it.
I mean, the bifurcation, the insurance, the reimbursement, it's all terrible.
And that all needs to change.
And I can't believe that we're still talking about that to this day after everything.
that's going on.
How do you guys help people navigate?
So we're predominantly working
with employers right now,
be treatment navigators.
15 to 20% of anyone's
employment population has an addiction issue.
So what we do is we go in.
We've got a stable of addictionologists and therapists,
several coaches, peer support specialists,
and we guide them.
We actually use their benefits formulary
and guide them to the appropriate.
care so that we could try and help them get it right the first time. On average in the United
States, someone goes to some type of substance use disorder center five times before they find
any sort of long-term remission. Yeah, John Kelly has that actually published. He's the Harvard
director of the addiction program there. And he showed that on average it takes four treatments
and five years to get one year of sustained sobriety. That's just with severe alcoholism.
God knows, with opiates, it's probably worse.
Well, here's the other crazy thing.
Only, actually, less than 20% of people are using medication-assisted treatment, the number one way to get clean and sober.
Well, let's talk about where no-trexone fits in that array of medically assisted treatments.
Well, it's, so no, Trexone's been around forever.
Extremely safe, non-addictive, pure antagonist, great medication.
It's available on oral.
The problem is people.
don't continue to take it. So, you know, they fall off, even if they have good intentions.
So there's injectable through Vivitrol. Vivitrol also great. It lasts about 30 days.
But getting people to come back for continuing injections is difficult. It's a large shot.
You take shot in the butt. Expensive.
It's expensive. So it's discouraging.
Naltrexone, particularly Naltrexone implants, have been used in compounding for over 3,000.
30 years, particularly at 503A and 503B facilities.
So they're on the FDA's bulk list, which means Nelchexone can be compounded.
So they know it's out there.
They know the implants work.
They have it on the bulk list, yet we still don't have an FDA approved.
There was a study done sponsored by NIDA, Dr. Drew, and I believe Yale University and a university
out of St. Petersburg, Russia. And the result of that, it was in like 2010.
The result of that study is that an altrexone implant called prototoxone was approved to be
used in Russia that we paid for. And the data is out there. Biocracks, the little pharmaceutical
company that could. It's a little bunkly traded company, has, they got an abbreviated
pathway to get this through for FDA approval, but that's not a speed designation.
They originally went in for fast track and they were turned down.
In the meanwhile, it's a very good question.
In the meanwhile, GLP1 just got fast-tracked for alcohol use disorder, which is great.
Bigger company, deeper pockets, but that's a drug that was made for diabetes that got a fast-track for alcohol use disorder.
well, a drug that was made for alcohol use disorder and opioid use disorder didn't get a fast track.
I remember six, eight, maybe ten years ago even.
It seemed like there was an active deployment of implants back then and ongoing studies where everyone at that time,
I was surprised to hear this thing was not approved.
back then people are like oh yeah this is going to be approved any day now what happened with all that
the data is there um biocricks did the pre-clinicals they did the maximum feasible dose nobody's gonna
overdose on naltrexone you're more likely to choke on a bottle of it than overdose on it
they did the bioequivalence against the injectable came out everything came out great
the fda would like at that time gave him guidance that they'd like to say that they'd like to
see at least 100 people.
They're also taking it through now for meth use disorder.
So what I would like to see is I would like, I'd like to see them approve it for the
dual indication of opioid use disorder and alcohol use disorder.
The data is there.
And then do a rolling, rolling submission for meth use disorder.
Yeah, there's nothing out there for meth right now.
Which is easy, which is easy to find when you're when you're, when you're, when you're,
when you're looking at alcohol and opiate.
It's an easy, easy, easy, uh,
put to find the meth in there.
But, but I'm still so confused.
I,
it makes me wonder if somehow the aftermath or even the ongoing ridiculousness
of the opioid prescribing from the 90s and 2000s was somehow what got in the way of this.
Because you got to remember back then,
anything that got in the way of a patient's desire.
for an opiate was considered abusive, was considered old-fashioned, was considered, I mean,
there was a terrible bias against addressing opiate addiction. And there's still problems with people,
now we've gone the other way with people who need pain medicine can't get it. But I wonder
if that's what got that railroaded those studies back in those days. It's a good question
or even quicker approvals for the data that we have.
I mean, it's hard to fathom that the FDA isn't looking at this saying,
hey, this is a great long-term medication.
You know, I think Biocorrect showed three months of efficacy.
I mean, to go three months with no cravings and the potential to block overdosing,
it's hard to put into words.
But we even tried for expanded access during COVID when everyone was dying.
I think maybe it's the, maybe it's the.
excessive enthusiasm for Suboxone, that nothing is, you know, has to be Suboxone for everybody.
I don't know. I think we had to have an array of medically assisted options, it seems to me.
But that, it's stuff I've encountered for 40 years. There's weird biases. There's weird,
sort of people just have the strangest relationship with this disorder. And I don't understand that as someone's
been looking at it for a long time. But if somebody, it feels like this could be helpful for them right now,
Can people go to a compounding pharmacy and get something like this?
There's not many compounding pharmacies doing it anymore.
I know that BioCorrects works with a couple that are doing the Naltrexone implant.
Certainly can contact them or email them to find out which way to go.
They have to be registered in each state that they're doing it in.
So the pharmacy has to be registered.
Here's a just a very quick, interesting fact, and you probably know this, Dr. Drew, but Michael Jackson had five naltrexone implants between 2001 and 2003 that kept him clean from opioid use disorder.
And by the way, he did not die of opioid use disorder.
He was overdosed on a sedative.
Jeremy Miller and Danny Baudiducci were on Dr. Oz, our current CMS director, but they had gotten laltrexone implants, both still soaked.
it's amazing that this thing is not approved yet and something needs to be done about we got to
get eyes on this so what do you want people to do what's the call to action call your congressman
send emails it's you know it's and if you if you have somebody that you feel needs it you go to
biocorx biocorrx dot com bio cows yes that is correct all right all right it's it's
I just, I'm astonished by how people, I think also it must be the remnants of moralizing or something.
I don't know.
Something people are uncomfortable dealing with this illness.
They don't understand it.
It's a weirdest thing to me.
But, okay.
Well, Tom, I appreciate your raising awareness.
And then BT Navigators.com is the other place, right?
That's correct.
That's my other company.
And I appreciate you plugging me.
I appreciate it very much.
All right.
Thanks for being here.
All right, everybody.
Thanks to our guest today.
Thank you all for being here.
Let me quickly look at your comments.
Oops, Susan's in there talking to you guys on the Rumble Rants, so I'll leave that to her.
Let me look over in the Restream.
Still talking about Canadian politics and Viva Fry's escape from Canada.
So coming up, we are, I'm away a lot of this time.
We have Dr. Victory going to sit in for me.
The culture is going to come back with her.
And then Ivan Rakelin, Rakelin.
And I may have a chance hopefully to stop by at least one of those.
So thank you for your patience on that.
Then we come back.
Michael Gates, who's running for the Attorney General of California.
Eric Bowling comes back.
Patrick Byrne.
Naomi Wolf.
And here, Dr. Eric Berg coming around.
That's going to be interesting.
Alan Dershowitz is now on the scale.
schedule. Oh my God, look at that show.
Alan Dershowitz, Merrill Nass, Uncle Cliff.
Oh, my goodness. Victor David Hanson.
Wow. Deborah Soe.
Oh, my God. October, the last week of October is going to be a big, big week.
Be here with us.
Thank you all for being here today.
I think if I let me double check my schedule, but I think that does it for this week
because I have to hit the road as of tomorrow.
Yes, indeed.
And join us again next week with Dr. Kelly Victory sitting in for me.
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
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
Dr.drew.com slash help.